Switch Theme:

Sicaran Twin Accelerator Cannon and ignoring all - to hits  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Sicaran Twin Accelerator Cannon states:

"Attacks made with this weapon suffer no penalty to its hit roll when targeting units with the FLY keyword..."

I take this to mean, and I see a bunch of reddit folks do too, that the Sicaran ignores and/all penalties to hit when targeting a unit with FLY keyword, even if it's not airborne or if it's stationary and camouflaged, or if the Sicaran advances and fires (it's an Assault weapon). I can't find any official ruling/statement. Has there been one and I just didn't find it? Do I have to ask a TO every time I bring one what their thoughts on the rule are?
[Thumb - TAA.jpg]

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah it ignores all penalties, if the target has FLY. Pretty clear.

DFTT 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well spotted now to go make those point ears cry.
-1 for alitoc and -1 for flyer and - 1 strategum can take the broken like reapers always hits on 3's. See how they like it
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Currently as RAW that's correct.

I don't believe that was the intent of the rule but that's what it is.


It was pretty obviously meant to ignore the Hard to Hit that flyers get.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Eihnlazer wrote:
Currently as RAW that's correct.

I don't believe that was the intent of the rule but that's what it is.


It was pretty obviously meant to ignore the Hard to Hit that flyers get.


Considering that the rule is targeting FLY, not FLYER [which are the ones with the rule]; it's not unreasonable to hold that it's doing exactly what it was designed to.

That said, I agree with both the RAW and RAI - it ignores ALL negative to-hit modifiers currently, but was most likely meant to merely counter the -1 to-hit that comes with "Hard to Hit" FLYERs.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.

Reddit hot takes are often more tenuous and ridiculous than claiming your Conscripts have W20. This is another such one. We all know the FW rules are a hot mess but let’s not start claiming word-twisting as a valid tactic.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




I gotta join the majority here. RAW, it ignores all modifiers. Isn't that handy.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I wouldn't even say RAI it only ignores airborne , the rule is missing many of the words to even get close to that.

DFTT 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 06:14:03


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Wow, yeah currently it ignores any penalty if it targets something something with “fly”... interesting.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.


FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 JohnnyHell wrote:

FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.

I'd usually agree, but in this instance the rule is so unambiguous that I'd say it ignores all penalties. Only small subset of models with FLY even have 'Hard to Hit' so if they meant that they screwed up colossally. Usually anti-air weapons use wording +1 to hit against FLY, to avoid unintentional ignoring of other modifiers. But FW indexes are utter mess, and FW writers have an annoying habit of coming up new rules for stuff that already have rules in main GW rules, so who really knows. I really wish all rules for one game would be written by the same people for consistency. FW can make space marine doors and write rules for HH.

   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 JohnnyHell wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.


FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.


The FW index for adeptus astartes has been updated a few days ago. Did they change the Twin Accelerator Cannon ? No, they didnt. It was also not changed in the previous update. So, its intended. Is it broken ? Thats open for discussion. Stacking up to -11 to hit is insanely broken. I know its theoretical and will never happen, but even only -3 (which is not unlikely to happen) to hit is broken enough. Its nice that SM have a tool against this insane stacking minus to hit abilities from eldar, and other races.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 08:06:36


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Still, I’m willing to bet it’s a FW mess-up, as their Indexes (I own one) are like someone read the rules down the phone to them once, with nothing to take notes on, then they said “now go make rules based off that”. An utter shambles and I begrudge the £16-odd that book cost!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.


FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.


The FW index for adeptus astartes has been updated a few days ago. Did they change the Twin Accelerator Cannon ? No, they didnt. It was also not changed in the previous update. So, its intended. Is it broken ? Thats open for discussion. Stacking up to -11 to hit is insanely broken. I know its theoretical and will never happen, but even only -3 (which is not unlikely to happen) to hit is broken enough. Its nice that SM have a tool against this insane stacking minus to hit abilities from eldar, and other races.


Don’t turn into BCB... omission of a fix is not proof of intent. You might be right, but we have no way of knowing. There are other glaring errors as yet unpatched, so the pattern is more like “FW still haven’t gotten around to it”.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 08:22:22


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Either FW is ignorant of the way GW writes its rules (entirely possible) or they purposefully wrote this rule differently.

There is a reason GW simply gives AA guns a +1 to hit against Fly. To counter the -1 from Hard to hit. FW went a different route for unknown reasons.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






I don't even think the rule is particularly unreasonable as written. Reapers always hit on 3+ too. And at least this is only against specific targets and can be lowered by damaging the tank.

   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t turn into BCB... omission of a fix is not proof of intent. You might be right, but we have no way of knowing. There are other glaring errors as yet unpatched, so the pattern is more like “FW still haven’t gotten around to it”.

That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nekooni wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t turn into BCB... omission of a fix is not proof of intent. You might be right, but we have no way of knowing. There are other glaring errors as yet unpatched, so the pattern is more like “FW still haven’t gotten around to it”.

That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.
Glad to see the usual contingent of "RaI" dudes are still trying to ignore the rules.

RaW it ignores all penalties, so that's exactly what it will do.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t turn into BCB... omission of a fix is not proof of intent. You might be right, but we have no way of knowing. There are other glaring errors as yet unpatched, so the pattern is more like “FW still haven’t gotten around to it”.

That's really unfair. The rule isn't something that needs clarification at all. It's glaringly obvious they didn't want to use the regular GW AA rule. They didn't just miss a word or something, they wrote a different rule altogether. It's not even a question of a slightly uncommon interpretation, it's just being unhappy with the rule and thinking it's too powerful. That's it.

Either they change it or they don't, but you can't claim it's a "glaring error" that's just not been patched up yet when it's just something you think is unbalanced. It's just different.
Glad to see the usual contingent of "RaI" dudes are still trying to ignore the rules.

RaW it ignores all penalties, so that's exactly what it will do.


Yawn. Another predictable troll from BCB. And this from a guy who has often mentioned FW wrote rules full of obvious errors with their eyes closed himself. I guess it just suits your agenda to attack me today. Yawwwwn.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






I'm a RAI guy, but this is not a RAI argument situation. You only do that if the literal interpretation seems to produce obviously weird or nonsensical results, and that is not really the case here.

   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Crimson wrote:
I'm a RAI guy, but this is not a RAI argument situation. You only do that if the literal interpretation seems to produce obviously weird or nonsensical results, and that is not really the case here.
And my issue with that is who gets to define "weird or nonsensical"? I can argue it's "weird" and "nonsensical" that my Marines ever miss their shots. Down that road lies madness, thus it's far better to just follow the rules rather than making up stuff because you dislike the result.

If you allow one "RaI" argument, you have to allow them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.
Exactly. As far as I am concerned, "RaI" arguments are basically "I dislike this rule, therefore I choose to ignore it" arguments.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/21 15:28:20


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm a RAI guy, but this is not a RAI argument situation. You only do that if the literal interpretation seems to produce obviously weird or nonsensical results, and that is not really the case here.
And my issue with that is who gets to define "weird or nonsensical"? I can argue it's "weird" and "nonsensical" that my Marines ever miss their shots. Down that road lies madness, thus it's far better to just follow the rules rather than making up stuff because you dislike the result.

Reasonable people. Like in some laws. So not you, obviously.

   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Crimson wrote:
I'm a RAI guy, but this is not a RAI argument situation. You only do that if the literal interpretation seems to produce obviously weird or nonsensical results, and that is not really the case here.

Exactly.

BaconCatBug wrote:If you allow one "RaI" argument, you have to allow them all.

You do know that's a logical fallacy, right?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Slippery Slope is not a fallacy when it's factual. Slippery slope would be "Accept One RaI arguments then I can marry an Apple" because they aren't related. "Accepting One RaI argument opens up a path for all RaI arguments" is a logical inference.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/21 19:46:36


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 BaconCatBug wrote:
Slippery Slope is not a fallacy when it's factual. Slippery slope would be "Accept One RaI arguments then I can marry an Apple" because they aren't related. "Accepting One RaI argument opens up a path for all RaI arguments" is a logical inference.

Just no. Everyone knows the RAI of the nonsense you usually post about and have in your signature. Even you.

   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm a RAI guy, but this is not a RAI argument situation. You only do that if the literal interpretation seems to produce obviously weird or nonsensical results, and that is not really the case here.
And my issue with that is who gets to define "weird or nonsensical"? I can argue it's "weird" and "nonsensical" that my Marines ever miss their shots. Down that road lies madness, thus it's far better to just follow the rules rather than making up stuff because you dislike the result.

If you allow one "RaI" argument, you have to allow them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It clearly means ignore the -1 to hit Flyers with e.g. the Supersonic rule that impose a -1 to hit that vehicle.

It doesn’t mean ignore other relevant modifiers, such as night fighting.


RAW, it ignores all modifiers when targeting a unit with the FLY keyword. Which can be infantry with JP, eldar jetbikes, eldar hover tanks, SM land speeders....etc.....etc.
Exactly. As far as I am concerned, "RaI" arguments are basically "I dislike this rule, therefore I choose to ignore it" arguments.


Oh good. You followed up trolling with (another) fallacy. Yawn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Slippery Slope is not a fallacy when it's factual. Slippery slope would be "Accept One RaI arguments then I can marry an Apple" because they aren't related. "Accepting One RaI argument opens up a path for all RaI arguments" is a logical inference.

Just no. Everyone knows the RAI of the nonsense you usually post about and have in your signature. Even you.


This. It’s just attention-seeking and OH LOOK another thread is now all about your posts. Mission accomplished.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 21:04:26


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen


 JohnnyHell wrote:
OH LOOK another thread is now all about your posts. Mission accomplished.


Well that is your fault though, you summoned him:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t turn into BCB... omission of a fix is not proof of intent. You might be right, but we have no way of knowing. There are other glaring errors as yet unpatched, so the pattern is more like “FW still haven’t gotten around to it”.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Spoiler:
 Crimson wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:

FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.

I'd usually agree, but in this instance the rule is so unambiguous that I'd say it ignores all penalties. Only small subset of models with FLY even have 'Hard to Hit' so if they meant that they screwed up colossally. Usually anti-air weapons use wording +1 to hit against FLY, to avoid unintentional ignoring of other modifiers. But FW indexes are utter mess, and FW writers have an annoying habit of coming up new rules for stuff that already have rules in main GW rules, so who really knows. I really wish all rules for one game would be written by the same people for consistency. FW can make space marine doors and write rules for HH.


This is how I understand it. I don't think the writing is ambiguous at all unless you want it to be because you don't like the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dactylartha wrote:
Spoiler:
 Crimson wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:

FW wrote the RAW for their entire catalogue in a lunchbreak and didn’t proof it. If there are two readings of a rule and one is obviously broken and unintended, but you still choose to try and insist that’s the rule, then eh... there’s no point discussing. Reddit hot takes and an intractable stance make for boring discussion. So I shan’t.

I'd usually agree, but in this instance the rule is so unambiguous that I'd say it ignores all penalties. Only small subset of models with FLY even have 'Hard to Hit' so if they meant that they screwed up colossally. Usually anti-air weapons use wording +1 to hit against FLY, to avoid unintentional ignoring of other modifiers. But FW indexes are utter mess, and FW writers have an annoying habit of coming up new rules for stuff that already have rules in main GW rules, so who really knows. I really wish all rules for one game would be written by the same people for consistency. FW can make space marine doors and write rules for HH.


This is how I understand it. I don't think the writing is ambiguous at all unless you want it to be because you don't like the rule.


I'm a forum noob and can't get the multi quote thing to work, forgive me Khorne.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/21 23:25:30


 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




I think it can hardly be called an oversight, or against RAI, when in the same book you have the Hyperios Launcher with the standard AA rule of "Add +1 to all hit rolls for this weapon against targets that can FLY"
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






ItsPug wrote:
I think it can hardly be called an oversight, or against RAI, when in the same book you have the Hyperios Launcher with the standard AA rule of "Add +1 to all hit rolls for this weapon against targets that can FLY"
Don't be using things like "logic" or "rules" in a rules discussion, you'll upset people!

I will however state that Forge World being a mix of incompetent and rushed (the Indexes were written in like 6 femtoseconds before 8th was announced) means even that isn't really enough to make a RaI call (if I were so inclined).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 23:28:17


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: