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 tend to agree when a FAQ clarifies what the rules couldn't be arsed to do in the first place....and not before.

I got the same reply from Spencer today regarding the SAG not scattering.

sourclams wrote:I got the same reply from Spencer today regarding the SAG not scattering.

Was it just for the "Bzzap" result?

My reading:
The Codex tells us that we roll for STR before checking for scatter.
If we roll a double or 5,6 then we check the table (Still before scatter).
The table tells us what the effect of the gun is (Some referring to continuing the attack with some modifiers).
5,6 tells us which model is hit.
We then continue to resolve the attack.
The 5,6 result has determined who gets hit before scatter dice are rolled.

Bingo.

BlackSpike wrote:My reading:
The Codex tells us that we roll for STR before checking for scatter.
If we roll a double or 5,6 then we check the table (Still before scatter).
The table tells us what the effect of the gun is (Some referring to continuing the attack with some modifiers).
5,6 tells us which model is hit.
We then continue to resolve the attack.
The 5,6 result has determined who gets hit before scatter dice are rolled.

And as I've pointed out numerous times, the rule doesn't tell us a model is hit; if it did say something like: "The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" then I'd be on your side of the argument.

But it doesn't say that. It says:

"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10."


The fact that it says "only" tells us that we are still using the normal rules for blast weapons with an exception: that only the model under the center hole is hit by the blast. There is nothing at all to indicate that this is an immediate command instead of just an exception to the normal rules for resolving blast weapons. And because it doesn't we have to follow the normal rules for blast weapons except for when we get to the part where we normally determine which models are hit by the blast the special Shokk Attack rule for the 5,6 result applies instead.

You (Yakface) once jumped on me for positing that Calgar's God of War does not suffer No Retreat! wounds because it said '...may choose to pass...all leadership tests", not "...may choose to [automatically] pass...all leadership tests". Your opinion was that they read the exact same way and therefore the meat of the rule was identical.

So, based on precedence set by your prior rulings, how do you justify your position on this one?

"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation

"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation

Honestly, how can you say that these two wordings are different enough to warrant completely different results by RAW? Not to mention that the first wording is terrible from a technical standpoint because it makes no mention of what happens to the other models covered by the blast.

sourclams wrote:
"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation

"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation

"only the model under the template hole is hit" ... normal rules for blast weapons are that all models under the template are hit after it scatters. In this case only the model under cenrel hole is hit. Since no change have been made to stop the scatter, the template will scatter before hitting any thing.

"Suffers a strenth 10 hit" ...It has been hit

sourclams wrote:You (Yakface) once jumped on me for positing that Calgar's God of War does not suffer No Retreat! wounds because it said '...may choose to pass...all leadership tests", not "...may choose to [automatically] pass...all leadership tests". Your opinion was that they read the exact same way and therefore the meat of the rule was identical.

So, based on precedence set by your prior rulings, how do you justify your position on this one?

"The model under the center hole suffers a S10 hit" <--- doesn't scatter by Yakface interpretation

"Only the model under the template hole is hit, but the shot is Strength 10." <--- does scatter by Yakface interpretation

Honestly, how can you say that these two wordings are different enough to warrant completely different results by RAW? Not to mention that the first wording is terrible from a technical standpoint because it makes no mention of what happens to the other models covered by the blast.

I fully agree with you in that the rule would have to be more explicit than that to indicate that the model under the blast suffers a S10 hit (and no other models do). It would have to say something in the realm of: "The attack is not resolved except that the model under the blast suffers a S10 hit".

Although my example wasn't the best, I still stand by the idea that the current wording for the 5,6 SAG result only indicates an exception from who is hit by the blast when following the normal rules for shooting.

The problem is that the misfire table specifies a model as hit before any scatter can take place. You could still roll for scatter, but at the point at which "only the model under the centre hole is hit", the marker is still in its original location. Scattering it later wouldn't change which model has been hit as this has already been worked out.

I would have to say unless the ork codex specifically says not to scatter, it will still scatter.

40k is a permissive rules set. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

And since someone brought it up, strictly speakin GoW doesn't cause no retreat.

Specific wording is a criteria for a rule interpretation.

I cant see why some people think it wont scatter, there is nothing in the rule stating that it wont even after rolling on the table. The standard "If it isnt there, it doesnt apply" seem to be the thing here.

Also, like Yak said.. There is no contradition where codex>BGB sine there is nothing in the codex that sais anything about not rolling scatters.

I can't believe that I'm posting a reply as I know what the response will be but I feel obligated to so here goes. I emailed GW with this question,"Does the Shokk Attack Gunn scatter after the roll of a double or 5,6? Or do you just use the chart in the ork codex and resolve the hit without scattering?" I recieved this response from Joe Spencer, "Hello, It does not scatter on that result. Thanks!" Now, I know that this post will be countered by, "I haven't seen any FAQ that states that, nor will I accept any change until I have seen said FAQ." And as I have stated earlier I have no hope of changing the minds of those out there, however I will defer to the company that wrote the book, developed the game, & control the copyrights and follow what I was told by them.

If I am told by my local Redshirt that it does indeed scatter, am I not told by the company that wrote the book, developed the game & control the copyrights?

Steelmage99 wrote:If I am told by my local Redshirt that it does indeed scatter, am I not told by the company that wrote the book, developed the game & control the copyrights?

I think I can sum up the response with, "Would you trust the janitor at Games Workshop to give you the correct rules interpretation?" The janitors have just as much rules training as the red shirts.

Red shirts do = GW
GW =/= Perfect rules
Perfect rules = perfect rulings
Red shirts do =/= perfect rulings

just a bit of fun ^_^

Redshirts are salesmen/women, not games rules gurus.

By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...

I wasn't arguing that the Redshirt had anything even remotely relevant to say.

I was showing Dawgofwagh how little sense the last line in his post above mine made.

I'm not sure how you can say that didn't make sense. I stated that I was going with the ruling of the people who created the game. I apologise if that wasn't clear to you.

dawgofwagh wrote:I recieved this response from Joe Spencer, "Hello, It does not scatter on that result. Thanks!"

There's your problem The GW "Answer Guy" is John Spencer.
Rumor has it that Joe is the Janitor.

By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...

Just to play devil's advocate, cause i don't care either way about this argument.

But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."

Daggermaw wrote:

By your arguments, you'd feel perfectly safe if you're flying in an airline and the stewardess took over for the pilots...

Just to play devil's advocate, cause i don't care either way about this argument.

But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."

Just playing devil's advocate? Well, I disagree. Just because someone works in a plane doesn't mean that they've got any idea of how to fly.

dawgofwagh wrote:I'm not sure how you can say that didn't make sense. I stated that I was going with the ruling of the people who created the game. I apologise if that wasn't clear to you.

But you haven't got a ruling from the people who created the game, now do you?

No, you have a "ruling" by an employee who by his own admission isn't games designer, isn't official and isn't even on the same continent as the designers, let alone in the office next door. He has the same stamp of approval as my local GW blackshirt.

And we know how much trust we put in him, don't we?

That is my point.

Daggermaw wrote:But I'd trust a stewardess to fly a plane over a guy in the aisle next to me who says "I've read the book on flying from cover to cover and know all the rules of flying in and out."

Hell, not me. I'd trust a guy with hundreds of hours of simulator time and a 767 manual under his arm over the flight attendant every day of the week.

Wait a second. Did someone just imply that Joe Spencer is a stewardess?

The FAQ is the company's official word. If they choose to codify Spencer's word, then it should appear in the next FAQ (right after the codex in question is re-released).

I think his availability is the big flaw with taking his ruling. As we're all on this forum we know he may have told you something, but there's no reasonable expectation that anyone at your FLGS is going to be aware of the e-mail answer man's opinions. The published FAQs are available to anyone who has toured their website.

Gitzbitah wrote:Wait a second. Did someone just imply that Joe Spencer is a stewardess?

The FAQ is the company's official word. If they choose to codify Spencer's word, then it should appear in the next FAQ (right after the codex in question is re-released).

I think his availability is the big flaw with taking his ruling. As we're all on this forum we know he may have told you something, but there's no reasonable expectation that anyone at your FLGS is going to be aware of the e-mail answer man's opinions. The published FAQs are available to anyone who has toured their website.

GW themselves admit that the only thing 'official' is the errata posted in the faq and that the faq and answers are nothing but their own house rules to be used as the players deem fit. They are no more valid than any local 'house rules' that folks might use at their local venue.

FAQ's are not gospel, not official rulings (outside of errata) and you can use them as you would like. Putting spencer's or yak's name at the end of the faq doesn't really mean squat.

Considering the quality of those faq's, is it hardly suprising that rules are brought up again and again and again and again and again? Or that they are 'house rules'? Or that they hardly answer the tough questions? Or why anyone would want to be 'officially' linked to them at all?

Did you people read my post? I said I'd trust the stewardess over a guy in coach who said he knew how to fly because he read the book.

Daggermaw wrote:Did you people read my post? I said I'd trust the stewardess over a guy in coach who said he knew how to fly because he read the book.

Then, not to be to crude, you're suicidal. Because I'd trust someone who'd read the operating manual on a 747 over someone who's job is to serve drinks and help people exit in an emergency.

imweasel wrote:

GW themselves admit that the only thing 'official' is the errata posted in the faq and that the faq and answers are nothing but their own house rules to be used as the players deem fit. They are no more valid than any local 'house rules' that folks might use at their local venue.

FAQ's are not gospel, not official rulings (outside of errata) and you can use them as you would like. Putting spencer's or yak's name at the end of the faq doesn't really mean squat.

Considering the quality of those faq's, is it hardly suprising that rules are brought up again and again and again and again and again? Or that they are 'house rules'? Or that they hardly answer the tough questions? Or why anyone would want to be 'officially' linked to them at all?

Quite right

The section he is talking about is the little 'page' before you go to the actual FAQ page, and it describes that the only 'official' changes are the erratas. Anything else is just a 'house rule' and can be played as GW 'house ruled' it or as you see fit.

So, Mr. Spencer, yakface, INAT FAQ, you and me, etc... are all just as 'official' as the GW FAQs (not the erratas) per GW own words.

The truth of the matter is the validity of a GW FAQ is never in question which is why it is universally accepted. Which helps keep the pick-up-game situation where you might run into some guy who uses the 'I heard/read it somewhere' response as low as possible.

I personally think that you would roll scatter.
It is an insertion in the flow as it is written, so after the insertion, the flow would continue. If is specifically said "end the flow of sag determination" then you would not use a template. It does not, so unless directed otherwise, you follow the rules as written.