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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

I enjoy playing board games by the rules. When I play Chess I know I can rely on the rules actually working. It's not unreasonable to ask a company who makes you pay for the rules to their game in addition to the horrendously overpriced models to put even the tiniest bit of effort into the rules.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

Not at all, that's just following the two active player stages in trying to inflict wounds. That's the same as looking at the stratagem and saying 'ok, I can select a unit to shoot twice at the closest legal target, and if the first round wipes it out I shoot at the next closest', as one would look at the main 12 pages of rules, see you have to roll to hit according to BS, then wound S v T, then your opponent gets a save.
What you're doing is deliberately trying to break something very simple by not performing the obvious and clear instructions given, just because they haven't stated it in terms that leave zero wiggle room.
Actually, if we're going down the analogy route, I think I have one.
The needless nitpicking around the wriggle room in the rule is not at all like "it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound"
Instead, it's far more like the foreman on a construction site telling you to carry that plank of wood from one end of the site to the other, so instead of picking it up like any sane person and walking, you're sitting there going 'well, he didn't say I can't use a tank to drive the plank the 50 metres from A to B... so my foreman hasn't given me nearly clear enough instructions'

So is everyone just gonna bitch about this and descend into Rule 1 violations and logical fallacies for two weeks, or are peeps going to just shut up and email their intractable POVs to GW FAQ hotline? I mean, it'll be the former but the Mods would likely thank you if it were the latter...

 doctortom wrote:
Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

A) it's command points for future reference
B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So is everyone just gonna bitch about this and descend into Rule 1 violations and logical fallacies for two weeks, or are peeps going to just shut up and email their intractable POVs to GW FAQ hotline? I mean, it'll be the former but the Mods would likely thank you if it were the latter...

Not sure there are any rule 1 violations, yet, and there don't have to be.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:


B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline

Ah, so somebody who wants to follow the rules is a dunderhead. Got it.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.

Thi may be the say to handle it short tem, though I do have to say in this cas what you have claimed is obvious is not obvious at all, and you really haven't provided anything to indicate that GW's intention is what you claim. So, really, insisting on not following a rule like it's written needs to be discussed beforehand. You try to spring that in the middle of a game and it would be a TFG move trying to insist that you d6 it then. JohnnyHell has the solution for the long term, bug GW about it if you're not willing to accept it so that it can be FAQ'd. Until then, expect to play the rule the way its written unless you can get an opponent to agree otherwise.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

hat you're doing is deliberately trying to break something very simple by not performing the obvious and clear instructions given, just because they haven't stated it in terms that leave zero wiggle room.

That's pretty rich given that you're the one insisting that they meant "closest legal" unit when they wrote only closest unit, and you're not "performing the obvious and clear instructions given". You're tarring yourself with your own brush.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

A) it's command points for future reference
B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.

I mean, there's already precedent.

There is potentially a precedent already with the Flash Gitz 'Gun-Crazy Showoffs' rule. They have to target the closest unit, and this is from the Xenos 2 FAQ :

Q: What happens when a unit of Flash Gitz’ Gun-crazy
Showoffs ability triggers, but the nearest enemy unit is not
a viable target (e.g. it is not visible to the Flash Gitz, or it is
within 1" of a unit from your army)?
A: If the nearest enemy unit is not a viable target then
this ability has no effect this time.

[formatting ruined post]