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.

Thought I would put this up because I know it is going to be a RAW vs RAI problem. There is a bit of RAW wiggle room though, so a debate on that is possible.

The new Emperor's Fist specialist detachment has a relic battlecannon called "Hammer of Sunderance", which replaces a battlecannon. In the weapon profile, it appears as "Hammer of Sunderance". The problem is that this does not appear in the list of weapons allowed to double shot by grinding advance. That would disallow it by simple RAW, however the Grinding advance rule uses the wording "...shoot its turret weapon..." but does not fully define what that means. It does state "The following weapons are turret weapons:...", but it does not state that only those weapons are turret weapons. Of course, there is the argument that if you allow Hammer to be a turret weapon under that wording, why not stubbers etc?

So, HYWPI, I imagine most will agree that it is a turret weapon and gets full benefits that grinding advance gives. However, I'm imagining that it would be disallowed under RAW. Probably file this under "stupid things that will be FAQed straight away if GW actually notices.

What do you think?

I honestly cannot imagine anyone saying it doesn't count as a turret weapon. Anyone who would argue that is not someone I want to play against in the first place.

 Horst wrote:
I honestly cannot imagine anyone saying it doesn't count as a turret weapon. Anyone who would argue that is not someone I want to play against in the first place.

Yeah, I agree, but there is definitely merit towards discussing RAW problems. Acknowledging the problems with the rules is the first step to fixing them after all. I doubt many people who argue RAW here actually try to play like that in a game.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I honestly cannot imagine anyone saying it doesn't count as a turret weapon. Anyone who would argue that is not someone I want to play against in the first place.

Yeah, I agree, but there is definitely merit towards discussing RAW problems. Acknowledging the problems with the rules is the first step to fixing them after all. I doubt many people who argue RAW here actually try to play like that in a game.

I'm sure he'll be here any moment...

But yes, RAW it does not get Grinding Advance. I don't imagine many people will play it that way, but for serious games (eg tournaments) I'd still check beforehand.

Considering the Hammer of Sunderance relic was not part of the game when the Grinding Advance rule was printed into the codex, it should come as no surprise that its not mentioned in its text.


The relic itself is just a battlecannon with bling and more expensive shells though, so it definitely was intended to be used with grinding advance.

I think this will be a perfect time to remind GW to update the rules for Grinding Advance to include "or any Relic replacing one of the aforementioned weapons".

RaW it doesn't permit you to use Grinding Advance on it. It's the price you pay for flat 3 damage. There needs to be an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ for it to be anything else.

...there we go.

In reality, I don’t see any opponents well ackshuallying this one.

And standard comment of write. to. GW. Oversights can be fixed in the two-week errata.

I had the genuine pleasure of playing a truly excellent 40k player this weekend - he's top 3 in the current ITC rankings and has won a few majors.

He also won this weekend's tournament.

He beat me down like a red headed stepchild and I enjoyed every minute

Anyway pretty much my first interaction with him after saying hello (while explaining my list) was him saying "you know that doesn't get grinding advance, right?"

Haha. The mindset of a properly competitive player.

Luckily for me the TO said "shut up of course it does!".

I've emailed GW 40k faqs. This (below) is exactly what is needed

 alextroy wrote:
update the rules for Grinding Advance to include "or any Relic replacing one of the aforementioned weapons".

Mindset of a [DELETED BY DAKKA’S DECENCY FILTERS] morelike...

I feel like that was a great mindset. They didn't wait to address something they knew could be an issue. They said what they thought knowing that some people will disagree. They hoped their agreement would benefit them the most, but by bringing it up it allowed both players a chance to settle it amicably. The TO ruled it that way, but could've ruled it the other. Good form, I'd say.

Clearly I was referring to “your turret weapon is not a turret weapon” as a mindset... which I find truly sad. But no, clarity between players is always a good thing as you say. Just... way to be that guy, that guy...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Clearly I was referring to “your turret weapon is not a turret weapon” as a mindset... which I find truly sad. But no, clarity between players is always a good thing as you say. Just... way to be that guy, that guy...

Nah, "That Guy" would pull that gak on you when you go to fire it, and then argue it to the death.

He was a guy who wanted to know if his opponent agreed with him. And let's be honest, RAW it definitely doesn't get grinding advance. The TO overruled the written rules to ones that make sense, and all is right with the world.

"oh I see you brought assault weapons - do you know they don't work when advancing? Do you agree or do we have to go ask the TO?" - sorry, but that's not a competitive approach, nor is it admirable. It's simply trying to exploit a loophole. Doing so in advance doesn't make it much better

nekooni wrote:
"oh I see you brought assault weapons - do you know they don't work when advancing? Do you agree or do we have to go ask the TO?" - sorry, but that's not a competitive approach, nor is it admirable. It's simply trying to exploit a loophole. Doing so in advance doesn't make it much better

That's a false equivalency man. Grinding Advance explicitly states what weapons are counted as turret weapons. The Relic Cannon is not included in there, and the Relic Cannon's rules do not say it gets Grinding Advance. Therefore, RAW, it does not get Grinding Advance. This will probably be FAQ'd, but it certainly isn't an open and shut "Oh it's obvious!" rule.

Your example is nothing like that, because assault weapons can explicitly shoot after advancing.

 Horst wrote:

nekooni wrote:
"oh I see you brought assault weapons - do you know they don't work when advancing? Do you agree or do we have to go ask the TO?" - sorry, but that's not a competitive approach, nor is it admirable. It's simply trying to exploit a loophole. Doing so in advance doesn't make it much better

That's a false equivalency man. Grinding Advance explicitly states what weapons are counted as turret weapons. The Relic Cannon is not included in there, and the Relic Cannon's rules do not say it gets Grinding Advance. Therefore, RAW, it does not get Grinding Advance. This will probably be FAQ'd, but it certainly isn't an open and shut "Oh it's obvious!" rule.

Your example is nothing like that, because assault weapons can explicitly shoot after advancing.

The contention being that you can not even pick a unit for shooting if it has advanced so you don't get to the point of the rule allowing assault weapons to fire after advancing.

40k Battle Primer Page 5 wrote:1. Choose Unit to Shoot With
In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit.

(Emphasis mine)

Yeah but it's patently obvious that Assault weapons are supposed to work.

While it's very likely they index Grinding Advance to apply here, we don't have the same certainty. It's a very different scenario.

Assuming RAW until you have a ruling otherwise makes total sense here to me.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah but it's patently obvious that Assault weapons are supposed to work.

While it's very likely they index Grinding Advance to apply here, we don't have the same certainty. It's a very different scenario.

Assuming RAW until you have a ruling otherwise makes total sense here to me.

As long as you ask your opponent at the start of the game and don't try to pull that mid-shooting phase, yea sure it makes total sense to ask and it's being a good sport.

 Horst wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Clearly I was referring to “your turret weapon is not a turret weapon” as a mindset... which I find truly sad. But no, clarity between players is always a good thing as you say. Just... way to be that guy, that guy...

Nah, "That Guy" would pull that gak on you when you go to fire it, and then argue it to the death.

He was a guy who wanted to know if his opponent agreed with him. And let's be honest, RAW it definitely doesn't get grinding advance. The TO overruled the written rules to ones that make sense, and all is right with the world.

Can’t disagree, fair dos, however the phrasing of the question as posted to me screams “reaching for any shred of advantage” not “reasonable player wanting both parties to have fun”. Hence my post. That has prrrrrobably been dissected/trashed enough now...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah but it's patently obvious that Assault weapons are supposed to work.

While it's very likely they index Grinding Advance to apply here, we don't have the same certainty. It's a very different scenario.

Assuming RAW until you have a ruling otherwise makes total sense here to me.

It’s not exactly a massive mental leap but you are currently correct. Fingers crossed they change it to avoid future well ackshuallyisms over this.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah but it's patently obvious that Assault weapons are supposed to work.

While it's very likely they index Grinding Advance to apply here, we don't have the same certainty. It's a very different scenario.

Assuming RAW until you have a ruling otherwise makes total sense here to me.

And at least to me it's patently obvious that a Relic battle Cannon benefits from Grinding Advance. Assuming that's the intent seems reasonable. That's why I compared it to the Assault weapon idiocy. The only difference is that yes, the Assault thing is even more obvious. But that doesn't change that it's obvious which way the errata will go, and that it's not good sportsmanship to deny players using the relic Grinding Advance until then. Or even attempt to do so.

I'm not arguing that it's not the current rules as written. All I'm saying is that trying to enforce something like this isn't something I'd consider a "great mindset", ever.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW it doesn't permit you to use Grinding Advance on it. It's the price you pay for flat 3 damage. There needs to be an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ for it to be anything else.

Yep, definitely a "price you pay" that makes any sense whatsoever if you understand the math, and completely reasonable to play by RAW and ensure that nobody will ever take the relic.

I don't understand why people get so angry about people wanting to play by the rules. Playing by the rules doesn't make you a bad person.

 Stux wrote:
While it's very likely they index Grinding Advance to apply here, we don't have the same certainty. It's a very different scenario.

No, it's completely obvious that it applies. The math makes the standard weapon better in all realistic scenarios, you're spending a relic slot (probably paid for with CP) to trade half your shots for a 50% increase in damage. Even against multi-wound targets where the increase is relevant the basic battle cannon will average more wounds per turn. So, given the minor assumption that GW expects people to actually consider using the relic and didn't just put it in the book to fill up a word count quota, it is absolutely obvious that you're meant to be able to shoot twice with it so there is a reason to use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't understand why people get so angry about people wanting to play by the rules. Playing by the rules doesn't make you a bad person.

Because it's a case of masturbating to how closely you're following the rules according to the most over-literal and distorted interpretations of the text, not attempting to have a functional game. It's like how the vast majority of models in 5th edition couldn't shoot or charge (LOS was drawn from "eyes", not helmet lenses/optical sensors/etc), but if you ever tried to argue that in a real game your opponent would congratulate you on being TFG and find something else to do with their time.

Nigel Stillman in White Dwarf, October 1995. Seems relevant.

It is different though.

Assault weapons explicitly state that you get to shoot them when you advance. They didn't implement it in a way that technically works, but we know for a fact what the intention is.

This is not in any way the same. We can ASSUME (with a fair amount of certainty) what the intention was, but it is not an absolute certainty. And that is a big difference. You can claim hyperbolically that it is certain, it simply isn't. It's just very likely.

For friendly games I'd absolutely use it. For a serious competitive game, I'd expect to need clarification from the TO and would absolutely accept it if they sided with the strict RAW.

It’s a turret weapon.
They published the rule later but forgot to update Codex Astra Militarum errata.
What’s not obvious about this?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a turret weapon.
They published the rule later but forgot to update Codex Astra Militarum errata.
What’s not obvious about this?

That it's not listed in the exhaustive list of what defines a turret weapons, and doesn't have an exception to that in its own rules.

As I say, I wouldn't have a problem letting someone play it with Grinding Advance for the reasons you've stated.

All I'm saying is that in a competitive environment it's fair to assume you'll be playing it as written unless there is an explicit ruling otherwise, and checking it is absolutely what you should do.

Again, the idea that you can't shoot twice is nonsense. You have two possible interpretations:

1) It counts as a battle cannon and can shoot twice. It is a viable option that a reasonable person could choose, weighing the value of a flat 3 damage vs. the CP cost to get it.

or

2) It counts as its own unique weapon and can't shoot twice. No reasonable person would ever take it, and it effectively doesn't exist.

The obvious correct answer is the one where the rule does something instead of being blank text for all practical purposes. If a TO tried to rule that the relic doesn't function then I'd call them a TFG and never play in one of their events again.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, the idea that you can't shoot twice is nonsense. You have two possible interpretations:

1) It counts as a battle cannon and can shoot twice. It is a viable option that a reasonable person could choose, weighing the value of a flat 3 damage vs. the CP cost to get it.

or

2) It counts as its own unique weapon and can't shoot twice. No reasonable person would ever take it, and it effectively doesn't exist.

The obvious correct answer is the one where the rule does something instead of being blank text for all practical purposes. If a TO tried to rule that the relic doesn't function then I'd call them a TFG and never play in one of their events again.

By that same logic I could say my Ultramarines have a 1+ FNP. No "Reasonable" Person would say otherwise. If you're going to ignore one rule you get to ignore them all, IMHO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a turret weapon.
They published the rule later but forgot to update Codex Astra Militarum errata.
What’s not obvious about this?

That it's not listed in the exhaustive list of what defines a turret weapons, and doesn't have an exception to that in its own rules.

As I say, I wouldn't have a problem letting someone play it with Grinding Advance for the reasons you've stated.

All I'm saying is that in a competitive environment it's fair to assume you'll be playing it as written unless there is an explicit ruling otherwise, and checking it is absolutely what you should do.

I didn't realise JohnnyHell worked at GW and had the exclusive knowledge that GW "forgot" to add it. GW had errata'd smaller issues before, so you can't argue that "they don't need to" errata it.

In summary, the RaW is clear and unambiguous. What rules you and your opponent actually use in your games is up to you and them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that same logic I could say my Ultramarines have a 1+ FNP. No "Reasonable" Person would say otherwise. If you're going to ignore one rule you get to ignore them all, IMHO.

There is no reading of the text that any reasonable person could interpret as giving your models 1+ FNP. Please do not make ridiculous arguments like this that have nothing to do with reality.