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.

Am i right in thinking that a vehicle which explodes on a 6 only explodes when a 3 is rolled ?

Technically, yes, but I seriously doubt that's what GW intended with the Stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, some things explode on a #+ roll, so (in those cases), it would actually adjust the roll as it should. A Snazzwagon, for example, explodes on a 4+, so using this Stratagem would make it explode on a 1+. But vehicles that say "on a roll of 6" would just be shifting the number required to explode, rather than increasing the range.

Well done GW, looks like imperial vehicles are very resilient against sabotage from alpha legion

I am aware that its different for vehicles which explode on X+.

As flandarz stated, GW seem to have forgotten that most vehicles explode on 6, not 6+.

While this may be intended, I would not be surprised to see them errata the stratagem to say "to a maximum of 6", as opposed to errataing almost every single vehicle in the game.

Wait, now I have to check Hellhound's wording...

Well, good thing they used a keyworded rule with a unified wording so they only need to change it in one place...

Related to that, is Crash and Burn an explosion?

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, good thing they used a keyworded rule with a unified wording so they only need to change it in one place...

Related to that, is Crash and Burn an explosion?

Just checked rules on this and yeah, it is in effect the same rule as explodes , just under a different name. you still have a roll to see if it explodes, meeting the requirements for the stratagem.

Tristanleo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, good thing they used a keyworded rule with a unified wording so they only need to change it in one place...

Related to that, is Crash and Burn an explosion?

Just checked rules on this and yeah, it is in effect the same rule as explodes , just under a different name. you still have a roll to see if it explodes, meeting the requirements for the stratagem.

Repulsor Datasheet P.123 Blood Angel Codex wrote:Explodes:If this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing the model from the battlefield and before any embarked models disembark. On a 6 it explodes, and each unit within 6" suffers D6 mortal wounds.

This is the rule the stratagem is referencing.

Crash and Burn is not the Explodes rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, good thing they used a keyworded rule with a unified wording so they only need to change it in one place...

Related to that, is Crash and Burn an explosion?

Just checked rules on this and yeah, it is in effect the same rule as explodes , just under a different name. you still have a roll to see if it explodes, meeting the requirements for the stratagem.

Repulsor Datasheet P.123 Blood Angel Codex wrote:Explodes:If this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing the model from the battlefield and before any embarked models disembark. On a 6 it explodes, and each unit within 6" suffers D6 mortal wounds.

This is the rule the stratagem is referencing.

Crash and Burn is not the Explodes rule.

Except the stratagem doesn't reference the Explodes rule, which would be denoted as Explodes. It references when your opponent makes a roll to see if the vehicle explodes, which you do for both the Crash and burn and Explodes rule.

Is anyone in doubt of how this actually works?
Is there any legitimate confusion, save for posturing?
Is this actually an issue outside of internet points scoring?

No, it isn’t. Everyone knows what to do. Nothing to see here.

I actually had one member of our group asking whether he could make my burna bommers auto-crash&burn with that stratagem - so it's a real question.

 Jidmah wrote:
I actually had one member of our group asking whether he could make my burna bommers auto-crash&burn with that stratagem - so it's a real question.

I meant the 6/6+ thing from the OP. There is no problem there.

Crash & Burn also uses the words ‘explodes’ so it’s covered.

Huh, I actually never noticed that.

Thanks.

This all being said, looks like GW needs to do quite a bit of work fixing the wording on this Stratagem.

Need to do a tiny bit of work
(To a maximum of 6) fixes it completely.

An FAQ regarding Crash and Burn would also be welcome (because GW can't ever write rules clearly).

Crash and burn is a Roll to explode, which this rule covers. I don't see the issue

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crash and burn is a Roll to explode, which this rule covers. I don't see the issue

Where is this defined in the rules though? "Crash and Burn" is not synonymous with "Explodes" in English. Grenades explode, they don't crash and burn.

I don't have the exact ruling at hand, but I believe people are saying the the stratagem isn't referencing the "Explodes" rule by name, but rather any time the opponent "rolls to see if a VEHICLE model from their army explodes". There are a number of rules that can make a model explode that aren't the "Explodes" rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crash and burn is a Roll to explode, which this rule covers. I don't see the issue

Where is this defined in the rules though? "Crash and Burn" is not synonymous with "Explodes" in English. Grenades explode, they don't crash and burn.

As JohnnyHell correctly pointed out, all those rules (and others, like the DG 7" explosion) actually tell you that the vehicle explodes as part of their bespoke rule. The name actually doesn't matter.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crash and burn is a Roll to explode, which this rule covers. I don't see the issue

Where is this defined in the rules though? "Crash and Burn" is not synonymous with "Explodes" in English. Grenades explode, they don't crash and burn.

As JohnnyHell correctly pointed out, all those rules (and others, like the DG 7" explosion) actually tell you that the vehicle explodes as part of their bespoke rule. The name actually doesn't matter.

A fair point, it describes it as a "fiery explosion". I didn't see his post as he is the only (non-spambot) person I have ever blocked anywhere due to a previous arrangement with a former moderator and as per my signature I have a userscript that fully hides blocked users. I guess an FAQ would still be helpful, as this thread proves it's not initially 100% clear, it needs some thought to parse.

a great example of why bringing back USRs would help the game greatly

Tristanleo wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, good thing they used a keyworded rule with a unified wording so they only need to change it in one place...

Related to that, is Crash and Burn an explosion?

Just checked rules on this and yeah, it is in effect the same rule as explodes , just under a different name. you still have a roll to see if it explodes, meeting the requirements for the stratagem.

Repulsor Datasheet P.123 Blood Angel Codex wrote:Explodes:If this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing the model from the battlefield and before any embarked models disembark. On a 6 it explodes, and each unit within 6" suffers D6 mortal wounds.

This is the rule the stratagem is referencing.

Crash and Burn is not the Explodes rule.

Except the stratagem doesn't reference the Explodes rule, which would be denoted as Explodes. It references when your opponent makes a roll to see if the vehicle explodes, which you do for both the Crash and burn and Explodes rule.

(Emphasis mine)

Citation needed. It seems more than unclear. It says explodes, there is a rule that is called explodes, so it works with that.

Crash and burn is not the explodes rule though.

Lets leave it as FAQ needed if it works on Crash and burn.

It says "explodes", not "Explodes". It's not a name of a rule, it's a general descriptor. A bad thing in rules writing, but it is what it is. Agreed on the FAQ needed though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It says "explodes", not "Explodes". It's not a name of a rule, it's a general descriptor. A bad thing in rules writing, but it is what it is. Agreed on the FAQ needed though.

I know it says "explodes", not "Explodes" but that means either only the explodes rule is valid, or anything that mentions explodes even in fluff is valid. So it really needs an FAQ because of GW's terrible rules writing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It says "explodes", not "Explodes". It's not a name of a rule, it's a general descriptor. A bad thing in rules writing, but it is what it is. Agreed on the FAQ needed though.

I know it says "explodes", not "Explodes" but that means either only the explodes rule is valid, or anything that mentions explodes even in fluff is valid. So it really needs an FAQ because of GW's terrible rules writing.

It's really not though, if it was referencing the Explodes rule, it would bold in the word "explodes" in the sentence. It does however bold in the "vehicle" keyword, which means that while yes other models may explode, this only works if you have to roll to see if that model explodes and it it has the "vehicle" keyword.

Tristanleo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It says "explodes", not "Explodes". It's not a name of a rule, it's a general descriptor. A bad thing in rules writing, but it is what it is. Agreed on the FAQ needed though.

I know it says "explodes", not "Explodes" but that means either only the explodes rule is valid, or anything that mentions explodes even in fluff is valid. So it really needs an FAQ because of GW's terrible rules writing.

It's really not though, if it was referencing the Explodes rule, it would bold in the word "explodes" in the sentence. It does however bold in the "vehicle" keyword, which means that while yes other models may explode, this only works if you have to roll to see if that model explodes and it it has the "vehicle" keyword.

Sorry, but that is simply not how it works. Only keywords are specially formatted (Bold Caps), rules are not. See for example the Angels of Death ability, which states

This unit has the following abilities: And They Shall Know No Fear, Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault and Combat Doctrines.

No bolding anywhere. Or how about Chaplains

This model knows the Litany of Hate (see below) and one litany from the Litanies of Battle (pg 188).

also no bolding.

But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine. That rule pertains to VEHICLES and they explode on a certain roll. There’s no need to pretend it applies to exploding weapons or grenades or fluff... that’s trying to complicate matters. TL;DR the wording could be neater for some folk, but it works just fine.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But there is a capital in the rule name “Explodes” but not in (paraphrased) the “when a VEHICLE explodes” colloquial wording of the rule. So it covers Crash and Burn just fine.

Except it really doesn't as written. They reference the explodes rule, not the crash and burn rule.

It doesn't reference the Explodes rule at all... it just says "...opponent rolls to see if a VEHICLE model from their army explodes." Crash and Burn ALSO requires that you make a roll to see if a VEHICLE model from your army explodes. There's no real argument for the Stratagem not being able to apply to both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you're trying to say that, despite Crash and Burn specifically stating "on a 6 it crashes in a fiery explosion", you're not rolling to see if your model explodes when you resolve that rule.