Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.

The one I've always remembered was from way back at the beginning of 5th edition - the Deff Rolla (an Ork vehicle upgrade that inflicted D6 S10 AP- hits to a unit that it tank shocked). Someone asked YMDC whether Deff Rolla's bonus could be used against a vehicle that was rammed, since ramming was listed part and parcel of the tank shocking rules.

Oh boy was it contentious. There was a poll I recall being almost 50/50 split on the issue. There was much name calling and shouts of "rules lawyer!" and "WAAC jerk!" and "TFG! TFG! TFG!"

This carried on for a while. Both sides argued that the other side wasn't employing common sense. On the "Allow" side, it was common sense that ramming and tank shock were the same action, so that it was only natural that the Deff Rolla would be used during a Ramming attempt. On the "Prevent" side, it was common sense that the combination was never intended by the authors because giving a unit multiple S10 attacks was unheard of and obviously unfair and un-fun.

Both sides used rules-arguments, fluff-argument, and everything in between to try to prove their point. In the end, no consensus was ever reached (with both sides walking away feeling that the other side was a bunch of cheating losers trying to twist the rules to their own advantage) until finally GW released an FAQ coming down on the Allow side.

Took a while for the dust to settle on that one, believe me.

Point being, "common sense" is not some universal truth that everyone instinctively knows, and not everyone who disagrees with "your" (not directed at anyone) interpretation of something is out to deceive and defraud you.

I like the ruling that Kharn can hit invisible units on a 2+. That'll spawn a bunch more 1d4chan memes I think...