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.

I just reread the FAQ for Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum and I'm a bit... surprised about the wording giving some Malcadors Grinding Advance.

In short under the units affected there are listed the Malcador Defender (no real turret, but 5 Bolters in a casematte structure, 2 sponsons and a hull Demolisher) and the Malcador Annihilator (Twin Lascannons in a more or less turret, two sponsons, hull Demolisher) while the normal Malcador (Battlecannon in a "turret", hull bolter, two sponsons) is left out.

Then it goes on to list which weapons are "turret weapons" that can be doubletapped, which include the Demolisher cannon and Twin Lascannons.


So, the fact that the only weapon the Defender has that is on this list is the Demolisher implies that it can doubletap this, right?
Does that mean the Annihilator can doubletap it's hull Demolisher AND it's twin Lascannon?
Rules as written it seems like that, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

The reason the Malcador Heavy Tank doesn't have grinding advance is because it doesn't have the ability in the printed version of the Index.

The Annihilator can't double tap the lascannon because "twin lascannon and Vanquisher battle cannon" are not the same as "twin lascannon". Note the use of semicolons. You need both twin lascannons AND a Vanquisher Battle Cannon to be able to double tap them. The Annihilator doesn't have a Vanquisher Battle Cannon, so it doesn't have ""twin lascannon and Vanquisher battle cannon". Now, I somewhat suspect there might have meant to be a semicolon after twin lascannon, as I can't find anything with "twin lascannon and Vanquisher battle cannon", but there isn't at the time of writing. (Darn you Oxford Semicolon!)

The Defender can indeed use Grinding Advance on it's Demolisher cannon.

The last two things are meant to be separate options, poor list formatting but intent is abundantly clear. Ignore the over-literal reading above. If you’re using or playing against FW Index models you need a reasonable approach as not even the FAQs fix all the issues.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The last two things are meant to be separate options, poor list formatting but intent is abundantly clear. Ignore the over-literal reading above. If you’re using or playing against FW Index models you need a reasonable approach as not even the FAQs fix all the issues.

I didn't realise you were on the FAQ team JohnnyHell! Can you please forward to whomever is responsible to fix this issue? I assume you're on the FAQ team since you "know" the last two things are meant to be separate options.

I agree that the reading that something must have a vanquisher AND a twin lascannon is most likely a bit much, but regardless it's... weird.

SOMEBODY seems to have taken the time to go through the index and collect possible affected models. It's hard to think that he/she did not have the time to take at least a look at the three Malcadors because neither of the two readings makes sense.
If BCB is right: why can the Defender fire the Demolisher, but the Annihilator can't?
And if not: why can the Annihilator doubletap its "turret" weapon, but the Battlecannon variant can't?

OK, fingers crossed they clear it up in the FW "Codex".

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I agree that the reading that something must have a vanquisher AND a twin lascannon is most likely a bit much, but regardless it's... weird.

SOMEBODY seems to have taken the time to go through the index and collect possible affected models. It's hard to think that he/she did not have the time to take at least a look at the three Malcadors because neither of the two readings makes sense.
If BCB is right: why can the Defender fire the Demolisher, but the Annihilator can't?
And if not: why can the Annihilator doubletap its "turret" weapon, but the Battlecannon variant can't?

OK, fingers crossed they clear it up in the FW "Codex".

Because GW are incompetent when it comes to rules. It's not the first and won't be the last "stupid" rule that doesn't make sense.

Where is the weapon profile for this twin Lascannon and Vanquisher battlecannon? It has to have it’s own profile if it is a single weapon.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The last two things are meant to be separate options, poor list formatting but intent is abundantly clear. Ignore the over-literal reading above. If you’re using or playing against FW Index models you need a reasonable approach as not even the FAQs fix all the issues.

I didn't realise you were on the FAQ team JohnnyHell! Can you please forward to whomever is responsible to fix this issue? I assume you're on the FAQ team since you "know" the last two things are meant to be separate options.

Because you’re being deliberately obtuse and provocative (quelle surprise), let’s do a little experiment for everyone else’s benefit.

Is there a single vehicle in the FW IA Indexwith this weapon option? No. Do the two weapons exist as separate turret options? Yes. So we can conclude it’s a typo/punctuation error, blatantly, obviously, by any metric. That’s called applying critical judgement. There’s another path you’ve chosen, BCB, which is to pretend a weapon combo that doesn’t exist exists, and two actual weapons don’t benefit from the rule they’re designed to benefit from. I’ll leave it to people reading this to decide which option allows them to play the game and is sensible, and which is just being ridiculous. This forum is as much about how to effectively play the game as it is “RAW ad absurdum”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The last two things are meant to be separate options, poor list formatting but intent is abundantly clear. Ignore the over-literal reading above. If you’re using or playing against FW Index models you need a reasonable approach as not even the FAQs fix all the issues.

I didn't realise you were on the FAQ team JohnnyHell! Can you please forward to whomever is responsible to fix this issue? I assume you're on the FAQ team since you "know" the last two things are meant to be separate options.

Because you’re being deliberately obtuse and provocative (quelle surprise), let’s do a little experiment for everyone else’s benefit.

Is there a single vehicle in the FW IA Indexwith this weapon option? No. Do the two weapons exist as separate turret options? Yes. So we can conclude it’s a typo/punctuation error, blatantly, obviously, by any metric. That’s called applying critical judgement. There’s another path you’ve chosen, BCB, which is to pretend a weapon combo that doesn’t exist exists, and two actual weapons don’t benefit from the rule they’re designed to benefit from. I’ll leave it to people reading this to decide which option allows them to play the game and is sensible, and which is just being ridiculous. This forum is as much about how to effectively play the game as it is “RAW ad absurdum”.

You can suspect it's a typo, as I actually said in my original reply. We can't know for certain anything other than what is written.

You still have a choice to express it that way and have a discussion, or just gakpost to try and get a rise, but you do you.

If it’s obvious to you it’s likely a typo/punctuation error then my other logic shouldn’t be tough to follow. Let’s try and make rules work instead of saying two tanks don’t get their rules, eh? Bit of critical judgement goes a long way with the FW rules in particular.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You still have a choice to express it that way and have a discussion, or just gakpost to try and get a rise, but you do you.

If it’s obvious to you it’s likely a typo/punctuation error then my other logic shouldn’t be tough to follow. Let’s try and make rules work instead of saying two tanks don’t get their rules, eh? Bit of critical judgement goes a long way with the FW rules in particular.

You're free to play it however you want. My replies are always from a RAW perspective.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You still have a choice to express it that way and have a discussion, or just gakpost to try and get a rise, but you do you.

If it’s obvious to you it’s likely a typo/punctuation error then my other logic shouldn’t be tough to follow. Let’s try and make rules work instead of saying two tanks don’t get their rules, eh? Bit of critical judgement goes a long way with the FW rules in particular.

You're free to play it however you want. My replies are always from a RAW perspective.

Right, but thats clearly not how its written. The rules writers have said as much at times. So a purely RAW perspective is inherently flawed.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You still have a choice to express it that way and have a discussion, or just gakpost to try and get a rise, but you do you.

If it’s obvious to you it’s likely a typo/punctuation error then my other logic shouldn’t be tough to follow. Let’s try and make rules work instead of saying two tanks don’t get their rules, eh? Bit of critical judgement goes a long way with the FW rules in particular.

You're free to play it however you want. My replies are always from a RAW perspective.

Right, but thats clearly not how its written. The rules writers have said as much at times. So a purely RAW perspective is inherently flawed.

If it's not in the rulebook, it isn't rules, period. I don't care if Jes Goodwin himself sends out a tweet saying that the rules don't matter, until it's in the rulebook, it's not rules.

As usual, people have derailed the thread because they dislike my RaW replies. It's a little tiring tbh.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You still have a choice to express it that way and have a discussion, or just gakpost to try and get a rise, but you do you.

If it’s obvious to you it’s likely a typo/punctuation error then my other logic shouldn’t be tough to follow. Let’s try and make rules work instead of saying two tanks don’t get their rules, eh? Bit of critical judgement goes a long way with the FW rules in particular.

You're free to play it however you want. My replies are always from a RAW perspective.

Right, but thats clearly not how its written. The rules writers have said as much at times. So a purely RAW perspective is inherently flawed.

If it's not in the rulebook, it isn't rules, period. I don't care if Jes Goodwin himself sends out a tweet saying that the rules don't matter, until it's in the rulebook, it's not rules.

As usual, people have derailed the thread because they dislike my RaW replies. It's a little tiring tbh.

You posted an openly-mocking post and then cry ‘thread derailment’? That’s a bit rich. You went out of your way to slag off another approach, so don’t get to cry foul if people disagree with your hot take.

As it stands the game breaks (your way), or you can use some critical judgement and make it work just fine. I’d wager one is more useful here, but you’re free to adopt whatever stance you feel.

Got to agree you fully bring it on yourself BCB.

Its explicitly in the forum rules, that RAW isn't everything. Your belligerent refusal to accept anything beyond a tunnel visioned obsession with RAW doesnt make it the correct approach.

 Stux wrote:
Got to agree you fully bring it on yourself BCB.

Its explicitly in the forum rules, that RAW isn't everything. Your belligerent refusal to accept anything beyond a tunnel visioned obsession with RAW doesnt make it the correct approach.

I actually try and make an effort to be clear that you're free to play however you want. Nothing I say can change that. It's simply my choice that all my answers will be from a strict RaW perspective, and that I don't personally play with any house rules whatsoever.

Me pointing out the logical inconsistency of the "Ignore the RaW" perspective isn't a "belligerent refusal".

Anyway, the question has been answered, let's leave it be, eh?

Once again, no one is ignoring rules here. Stop trying to get one last dig in. Just leave it. As you say, answered, both dogmatically and pragmatically by now. Quit attempting one final barb and attempt to discredit by saying others are making stuff up. It is honestly truly tiresome.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


Anyway, the question has been answered, let's leave it be, eh?

Fair enough. Happy to leave it there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Got to agree you fully bring it on yourself BCB.

Its explicitly in the forum rules, that RAW isn't everything. Your belligerent refusal to accept anything beyond a tunnel visioned obsession with RAW doesnt make it the correct approach.

I actually try and make an effort to be clear that you're free to play however you want. Nothing I say can change that. It's simply my choice that all my answers will be from a strict RaW perspective, and that I don't personally play with any house rules whatsoever.

Me pointing out the logical inconsistency of the "Ignore the RaW" perspective isn't a "belligerent refusal".

Anyway, the question has been answered, let's leave it be, eh?

Gwar!? Is that you?

This seems to have been answered as best it's going to be.

The snarky back and forth from both sides would have been better done without.


Moving on.