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.

Lets say you have a character vehicle. (chaplain dread, bjorn, LRE, carab culln ect)
He dies in the shooting phase so you use "Only in death" to make him shoot again.

The vehicle has 0 wounds and a damage table. Which profile does it use? the bracketed profiles always end with 1-x. There's no table for "0".

HIWPI - the vehicle uses it's minimum bracket.

Is there a less game breaking way to do this?

This is the exact same scenario as with Hive Tyrants wielding a Lashwhip and Bonesword, which was FAQd to fight as if they had 1 wound remaining.

 Nighttail wrote:
This is the exact same scenario as with Hive Tyrants wielding a Lashwhip and Bonesword, which was FAQd to fight as if they had 1 wound remaining.

This.

 Nighttail wrote:
This is the exact same scenario as with Hive Tyrants wielding a Lashwhip and Bonesword, which was FAQd to fight as if they had 1 wound remaining.

While this is true, the FAQ does not apply to anything except Hive Tyrants with Lashwhips. As it stands, the rules do indeed break (one of three ways to do so) because you are referencing a non-existent value on the characteristics table.

It does not break, you just can not shoot, since you have no BS value...

It's equally correct to say you have your default BS value as no Bs value. Technically you do have a BS value of *. Therefore if you have a die with a * on it you're golden.

I feel like this is a slippery slop as, technically, even models without damage tables would not have a BS to refer to for using these "character is slain but gets a final action" stratagems.
If the model is removed, it has no characteristic to refer to, so how are you using the strat?

Obviously this is a ridiculous extreme, but worth noting.
As always, however, the rules are never, ever broken because of an addendum in the sidebar of page 180 in the BRB: The Most Important Rule

-

Well, for me if I arrive at this situation with my opponent, it would be easy and clear. Just the profile of one wound before the death.

 Galef wrote:
I feel like this is a slippery slop as, technically, even models without damage tables would not have a BS to refer to for using these "character is slain but gets a final action" stratagems.
If the model is removed, it has no characteristic to refer to, so how are you using the strat?

Obviously this is a ridiculous extreme, but worth noting.
As always, however, the rules are never, ever broken because of an addendum in the sidebar of page 180 in the BRB: The Most Important Rule

-

That... Doesn't apply here. The model still has a stat block when it's killed. It exists separate from the model. You can just look at the stat block and see the BS, regardless of whether the model is on 0 wounds or full wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nighttail wrote:
This is the exact same scenario as with Hive Tyrants wielding a Lashwhip and Bonesword, which was FAQd to fight as if they had 1 wound remaining.

While this is true, the FAQ does not apply to anything except Hive Tyrants with Lashwhips. As it stands, the rules do indeed break (one of three ways to do so) because you are referencing a non-existent value on the characteristics table.

This is the most accurate statement. However, since the situation is 99.99% the same, I'm sure you are in the clear with the Rules as Intended for it to work as having 1 wound remaining.

EDIT: To use a real-world example, we don't have a finite value for Pi. We have an approximation of what Pi is. For a grade-school class, the "hack" is to use 3.14. That's a fine hack. It's not true, but it works well enough to get by. Nasa only tends to use 15 digits of Pi. That's crazy inaccurate still, but it's accurate enough for NASA. (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-decimals-of-pi-do-we-really-need/). Yeah, sometimes things break down. So what do you do? Stop sending rovers to Mars because you can't really write out how you did it? Or use a hack that let's you get by? I can't tell you exactly what happens in the situation the OP posted, not exactly. The game breaks. But I can tell him that this hack is a good one to get by with. In fact, it's the best one.

You're not wrong. You're just being needlessly nitpicky. Survey 1000 random players and I'm betting the vast majority will see the Tyranid FAQ as an indicator that we should just use the 1 wound remaining values and move on with the game. I don't think you'd get many people screaming about crazy pills, insisting that there is no solution. The game is no longer playable! This rule set has ambiguities where we genuinely can't guess what the author intended. This is not one of those cases. Here, the authors might as well have said 'in this almost identical scenario, we meant x, so...'.

The rules were written intentionally. Unintentional interactions were not. Stop being disingenuous.


Exactly. We have a parallel situation to use as precedent and example. It's needlessly obtuse to cry "it doesn't apply oh noes we cannot play" instead of following the clear, logical precedent to get a simple, playable solution.

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

You're conflating the real world (where we don't have perfect information) to that of a subset of the real world (where we do have perfect information, not that having that necessarily means anything: See Langton's ant).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

But what if it does happen? You can't just say you make it that it doesn't. This is the question; what if it does? Do you stop playing? Or do you hack your way around it?

Sorry, delete the post, he answered it

Can't find the delete. I'm glad I don't play against you, because your answer is to not play. That's the worst possible way around this.

 Yarium wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

But what if it does happen? You can't just say you make it that it doesn't. This is the question; what if it does? Do you stop playing? Or do you hack your way around it?

You're assuming an actual game is happening in the first place. That's one simple way of ensuring the situation never occurs... don't play, just discuss online.

 Yarium wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

But what if it does happen? You can't just say you make it that it doesn't. This is the question; what if it does? Do you stop playing? Or do you hack your way around it?

Sorry, delete the post, he answered it

Can't find the delete. I'm glad I don't play against you, because your answer is to not play. That's the worst possible way around this.

If you can find a single person I've played who has had a bad experience with me, please point them out. I'm willing to play anyone, any time, via Tabletop Simulator.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

Just to clarify, you run into what is very clearly an unintended interaction with a very obvious solution and instead of agreeing to apply the solution, you pack up and leave? Weird, but to each his own, I suppose. I'd probably never play you again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

I just make sure that this situation doesn't occur. Otherwise, yes, I play by the rules. That means if the rules stop working, the game ends.

But what if it does happen? You can't just say you make it that it doesn't. This is the question; what if it does? Do you stop playing? Or do you hack your way around it?

Sorry, delete the post, he answered it

Can't find the delete. I'm glad I don't play against you, because your answer is to not play. That's the worst possible way around this.

If you can find a single person I've played who has had a bad experience with me, please point them out. I'm willing to play anyone, any time, via Tabletop Simulator.

Seriously? We're on a largely anonymous, international forum. Most of the people you talk to don't know your name, where you live or who you play with. How could we possibly point out someone who has had a bad experience playing an actual game with you? What a really bizarre comment to make.

Look guys, I had a kooky little theoretical here, that I thought would be neat to pick at. My question has been thoroughly answered with both reasonable HIWPI, RAI and RAW.
Let's not turn this personal.

 Yarium wrote:

So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

Yes. And since he claims he plays 100% RAW he either is lying about that or has yet to finish any single game as 40k is impossible to play as written.

He's also flat out wrong RAW is 100% RAI. To claim that means claiming GW writers are super humans far beyond ability to any regular human. Super human doesn't even cover it. He's claiming they are gods. Hell. God would pale in jealousy over GW rule writers ability.

He's not here to help with rule questions but to stir trouble by going for most stupid ways claiming to play like that while in reality not playing like that. Ignoring him is best option. Leaves only other peoples quotes of his lies to be seen.

tneva82 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

So... I'm curious. If this situation occurs in your game, do you stop playing? I mean, the game broke. It's either you stop playing, or you continue "playing" but don't do anything. Your solution isn't a solution if you can't actually play the game. This is indeed a hack, but it's a hack that works to the best possible ability of the hackers. To do otherwise (ie, to stop playing the game when this situation happens) is what would be crazy.

Yes. And since he claims he plays 100% RAW he either is lying about that or has yet to finish any single game as 40k is impossible to play as written.

He's also flat out wrong RAW is 100% RAI. To claim that means claiming GW writers are super humans far beyond ability to any regular human. Super human doesn't even cover it. He's claiming they are gods. Hell. God would pale in jealousy over GW rule writers ability.

He's not here to help with rule questions but to stir trouble by going for most stupid ways claiming to play like that while in reality not playing like that. Ignoring him is best option. Leaves only other peoples quotes of his lies to be seen.

To be fair to BCB, I don't think his position is that he literally believes RAW is always RAI. I take the position to be that RAW is the only meaningful indication we have of RAI, so must be taken as such.

I don't subscribe to that mind you, I think we can infer RAI beyond simple RAW.

 MattKing wrote:
Look guys, I had a kooky little theoretical here, that I thought would be neat to pick at. My question has been thoroughly answered with both reasonable HIWPI, RAI and RAW.
Let's not turn this personal.

You must be new here. This is par for the course in YMDC, unfortunately: bring up an interesting question, get an acknowledgement the rules don't really work and a solution everyone (bar one specific person) is fine with, then watch the thread devolve into pointlessness.

Slipspace wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
Look guys, I had a kooky little theoretical here, that I thought would be neat to pick at. My question has been thoroughly answered with both reasonable HIWPI, RAI and RAW.
Let's not turn this personal.

You must be new here. This is par for the course in YMDC, unfortunately: bring up an interesting question, get an acknowledgement the rules don't really work and a solution everyone (bar one specific person) is fine with, then watch the thread devolve into pointlessness.

Not entirely. To be fair to BCB, I normally agree that we can't assume RAI, so we should go with the RAW whenever possible. The only thing is, until now, i assumed that even he would rather, you know, play the game rather than stop an otherwise fine game when a game breaking situation came up. Nothing wrong with being a stickler for the rules, but if that causes you to not actually play the game, well, then you're not actually playing the game, so you're opinion means bunk.

I am playing the game though. I am just following the rules. You're free to make up house rules, I simply choose not to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am playing the game though. I am just following the rules. You're free to make up house rules, I simply choose not to.

The rules do not tell you to end the game in a game-breaking situation, like the Magic the Gathering does with infinite loops beyond a player's control (like the hilarious 3 Oblivion Rings with no other legal targets loop, which at a tournament results in a draw for both players; 421.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)). So, you ending the game, is itself a house rule! No matter what the outcome of this is, you are creating a house rule to deal with it. I prefer the house rule that lets us keep playing the game. You prefer a house rule that ends the game. I would rather keep playing, thank you.


(editted to updated Magic rule # in current comprehensive rules)

I'd never thought about using this stratagem on a VEHICLE CHARACTER before. It even works on a Land Raider Excelsior! I might need to use it sometime...

You'd fire at the BS indicated by the lowest bracket assuming the vehicle has one.

Doesn't 'Only in death does duty end' say that you fire before removing the model? Which is before the final wound has been lost?

For any rules questions such as these can I ask that the OP writes the exact rule/stratagem they want examining out or posts a pic of it or something so we can all see exactly the wording of the thing in question?

As an aside there should be no situation where the game ceases to play or breaks - there is a rule, in the book, known as 'the most important rule' that specifically states that for any issues where 2 players can't come to an agreement or if the rules interactions are unclear they can decide via a roll off or between themselves as they wish. This is a literal rule in the game.

 MattKing wrote:
Look guys, I had a kooky little theoretical here, that I thought would be neat to pick at. My question has been thoroughly answered with both reasonable HIWPI, RAI and RAW.
Let's not turn this personal.

seems we're done then.