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 am not assuming, the word "another" is quite specific. Show me why you are allowed to ignore it

Where is the bomb that you use to make a Bombing Run

Under the ranged weapons profile chart.

In circles we go

 Lt.Soundwave wrote:
I am not assuming, the word "another" is quite specific. Show me why you are allowed to ignore it

In circles we go

I'm not ignoring it.
It's a misused word RAW as there's no bomb in the first place.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Right and rules as is, no weapon can fire... at all... there being no rules for ammo is the exact argument you are making... since they dont exist we cant play the game... and who said it isnt a weapon? did we ever stop to think that bomb is the generator profile? hence why it can only fire one at a time?
again, with this whole RAW and RAI bull... stop trying to grasp for straws, and just play the bomber...

The Wargear says it has a 'bomb generator' which has a chance to generate a Pulse Bomb áfter a bombing run.
The weapon profiles mentions a 'Pulse bomb', this is the actual weapon.
A Pulse Bomb Generator and a Pulse Bomb are therefore two different things!

So to keep it short:
After you use the 'one use only' weapon, you can use the Wargear to create another one of those weapons.
The problem is that it doesn't have the weapon to start with.

And can we stop complaining that people are discussing the rules in a RULES-FORUM?
Twist it any way you want, nobody will ever complain about this in a game but the fact is that GW screwed up with the wording/ruling on this bomber.

Kangodo wrote:

The Wargear says it has a 'bomb generator' which has a chance to generate a Pulse Bomb áfter a bombing run.

No. It has a chance to generate another pulse bomb.

 Crimson wrote:
No. It has a chance to generate another pulse bomb.

So?
It heavily implies that the bomber was already carrying a Pulse Bomb.
But the flyer nor the Generator actually carry a Pulse Bomb.

It generates "another" Bomb after you used a Bomb.
But our issue is that the flyer doesn't have a Bomb to start with.
And every flyer so far has their bombs listed in the Wargear.

Conclusion: GW 'dropped a bomb' on this one.

 Lt.Soundwave wrote:
I have an entry for the pulse bomb generator telling me that after I make a bombing run I have a chance for the generator to either make "another" bomb or to cease functioning.

Which lets you make another bomb after making a bombing run.


If a rock thrown up into the air returns to your hand each time, does that mean that you have a rock?

Clearly not. all it means is that if you have a rock, it will return when thrown.

Page 12 did not contain the requested text.

Nominate a unit to shoot: During the shooting phase a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

That doesn't say that you have to have a ranged weapon to shoot. It just only gives you a procedure for shooting if you have one.

The bombing run is the same. It doesn't specifically state that you have to have a bomb.. it just only outlines a process that involves having one.

So if you don't have a bomb, those rules simply do not apply.

 Iranna wrote:

Dracoknight wrote:
....it says pulsebomb generator, and you presume its EMPTY on arrival?...

Seriously?...some people....

It says: "This mechanism produces and contains a ball of incadescent plasma which hangs beneath the bomber, ready to be dropped when a suitable target is reached"

Sooo... did you miss the italic? its a description, not pure fluff...

We're arguing RAW, not RAI. I'm sure everyone would let people start with a bomb no problem.

However, you're using the description of the weapon in questions (i.e fluff) to argue your case, which is completely irrelevant.

Under the rules section of the bomb generator, it does not say that it comes with a bomb as standard. Therefore, it cannot perform a bombing run in the first instance and therefore, cannot generate "another" bomb.

Also, your tone is really not appreciated. By assuming the worst in people, you're just going to get flakk for it. Do yourself a favour and be civil when people are debating a point.

Iranna.

This is a little late, but I've never seen a profile for hurricane bolters. Only ever the description for them, which says "Each hurricane bolter consists of three twin-linked bolters, fired as a single weapon."
Which, by your logic, means they can't be fired, as they don't have profiles and therefore aren't weapons. They are only described.

Edit: I also realize that if the description for the bomber was the rule, then it would ALWAYS have a bomb in it, and never need to roll to make a new one.

The fluff description of the weapon actually DOES matter for RAW.

Remember when the GK anti-plasma thing came out, and suddenly they said that pulse rifles and burst cannons were affected by it?

Why?

Because they said in their DESCRIPTION, the fluff of the weapon, that they fired plasma bursts. Even though they weren't "plasma _____" weapons, they were affected by it.

So here we have, again, the Tau Codex that describes the generator making another bomb for the shark. Is there RAW for it having a bomb? Nope. Is there RAI AND a precedent for fluff actually mattering, when it's obviously applicable? Yes, absolutely.

Though honestly, people have stopped actually allowing the argument to go anywhere. You have the people that want RAW but will allow people to play it RAI, for which it doesn't really matter, the people that want RAW and will be idiots about it until there is actually a RAW clarification for it (these may or may not ALSO be people that demand an errata, rather than an FAQ, because GW said their FAQs aren't actually set in stone official), and we have the RAI guys that don't care what the RAW says, they'll do what makes sense.


And after four pages, they really are very unlikely to budge. The words haven't changed in the book since 2 days ago, so I doubt some new gem will be discovered. Let's go our separate ways and get back to gaming, folks.

Late to the party but Can't ANY flyer make a Bombing run and elect to drop no bombs as it says under the Bombs & Bombing Runs Entry in the BRB?

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Late to the party but Can't ANY flyer make a Bombing run and elect to drop no bombs as it says under the Bombs & Bombing Runs Entry in the BRB?

As far as I can tell, it says that it can drop UP to one bomb. Meaning zero is a possibility. So while it doesn't start with a bomb, it can make a bombing run so that it can then generate a bomb.

Of course, not how I'd actually play it, but that's what I see so far from the RAW.

Spellbound wrote:
The fluff description of the weapon actually DOES matter for RAW.
Remember when the GK anti-plasma thing came out, and suddenly they said that pulse rifles and burst cannons were affected by it?

Was that also in the rules or in a FAQ? Because if it's not in the rules, it can't be used.

Because they said in their DESCRIPTION, the fluff of the weapon, that they fired plasma bursts. Even though they weren't "plasma _____" weapons, they were affected by it.

I am willing to bet that this is bs and that they actually made a FAQ to put this stuff from the description in the rules.

Though honestly, people have stopped actually allowing the argument to go anywhere. You have the people that want RAW but will allow people to play it RAI, for which it doesn't really matter, the people that want RAW and will be idiots about it until there is actually a RAW clarification for it (these may or may not ALSO be people that demand an errata, rather than an FAQ, because GW said their FAQs aren't actually set in stone official), and we have the RAI guys that don't care what the RAW says, they'll do what makes sense.

And we have people that love to discuss the rules of Warhammer and like to find errors in the book.
And we have people who can't believe that the holy GW made a mistake and need to yell "YOU ARE WRONG" when people do nothing but pointing out a mistake in the book.

This thread would have been over a long time ago if people could just see that they forgot to add a bomb to the plane.

Rihgu wrote:
This is a little late, but I've never seen a profile for hurricane bolters. Only ever the description for them, which says "Each hurricane bolter consists of three twin-linked bolters, fired as a single weapon."
Which, by your logic, means they can't be fired, as they don't have profiles and therefore aren't weapons. They are only described.

Funny that you mention those!
Because there is no weapon called 'bolter' in my BRB, we do have a Boltgun, Stormbolter and Heavy Bolter.

Kangodo wrote:

Funny that you mention those!
Because there is no weapon called 'bolter' in my BRB, we do have a Boltgun, Stormbolter and Heavy Bolter.

Lol why is this thread still going on even. When I started it I wasnt expecting much, maybe two or three comments. Fourpages of repeating the same drama is ridiculous.

Fortunatly ridiculous is entertaining, so please continue. The rules resemble mobius spaghetti, no begining, no end, and completely tangled, therefor all tau units are equiped with pulse bombs.

 MajinMalak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Late to the party but Can't ANY flyer make a Bombing run and elect to drop no bombs as it says under the Bombs & Bombing Runs Entry in the BRB?

As far as I can tell, it says that it can drop UP to one bomb. Meaning zero is a possibility. So while it doesn't start with a bomb, it can make a bombing run so that it can then generate a bomb.

Of course, not how I'd actually play it, but that's what I see so far from the RAW.

You have to use a bomb to initiate a bombing run (page 81, I've quoted it before).
Can you use something you don't have?

rigeld2 wrote:

 MajinMalak wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Late to the party but Can't ANY flyer make a Bombing run and elect to drop no bombs as it says under the Bombs & Bombing Runs Entry in the BRB?

As far as I can tell, it says that it can drop UP to one bomb. Meaning zero is a possibility. So while it doesn't start with a bomb, it can make a bombing run so that it can then generate a bomb.

Of course, not how I'd actually play it, but that's what I see so far from the RAW.

You have to use a bomb to initiate a bombing run (page 81, I've quoted it before).
Can you use something you don't have?

Actually, from re-reading your quote, I have to disagree. You posted:

Page 81 BRB wrote:
Unlike other weapons, bombs are used during the Flyer's Movement phase, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run.

However, that states that bombs are used during a bombing run, not that you MUST have bombs to make a bombing run. So bombs are used in a bombing run. Got it. Does that say you MUST have one to make a bombing run? No.

To make a Bombing Run, a Flyer must be Zooming. After the Flyer has finished moving, centre the bomb's blast marker on any one model the Flyer has passed over that turn and scatter it D6".

If you wanted to make a case, you should have use this sentence. It specifically says to make a bombing run you have to

1) Zoom
2) After moving, center the bomb's blast etc etc. Which means you actually have to use the bomb.

Those two sentences imply that you have to use a bomb to make a bombing run.

Other than using a bomb, find permission to make a bombing run.
Remember, you can't use a rule unless you have permission to do so. With a bomb you do - because that's how it's used.

Find permission when you don't have a bomb.

File this under stupid crap like "bouncing flying monstrous creatures."

RAI usually wins the day. Unless you're a Tyranid or Eldar player. Then you get FAQ'd into obscurity.

No need to argue about it. If someone ACTUALLY tried to argue this after setting down models, that person would not be playing anyone else in my area.

One of two things will happen: It will either be FAQd by GW or it is falls under "it's so common sense, you'd have to be a fool to believe it" and it never gets FAQd. In either case, BOMBS AWAY!

Wow...As a new person, I've lost much respect for this section of the board. >.< Running the same argument in circles is just silly...

 troa wrote:
Wow...As a new person, I've lost much respect for this section of the board. >.< Running the same argument in circles is just silly...

Welcome to YMDC.

I thought this would be over people would just chuckle about the oversight and it would be funny and would become an almost running joke. But this is just absurd.

I do think it's amusing.
It's more people who come in and say "THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS YOURE WRONG IT HAS TO BE CORRECT" that I don't understand.

The rule is obviously flawed. It would be dumb to ever play that way. No one will.

That doesn't change the fact that it's flawed.

Can't make a bombing run without something that lets you center a blast marker, IE a bomb.

 insaniak wrote:

The phrase 'man-eating lion' and 'man, eating lion' are very similar, and yet have completely different meanings. And the third and also similar phrase 'man eating lion' can, ridiculously enough, have the same meaning as either of those first two.

I would actually say that there are three possible meanings in those three phrases. The first, "man-eating lion," refers to a lion that eats humans. The second, "Man, eating lion," sounds like the answer to a query: "Whatcha doin'?" "Man, eating lion." ("Man" is used as a familiar greeting.) The third, "man eating lion," would be written on a sign in a wax museum, showing a caveman chowing down on a large cat.

So yes, hyphens and commas are very important. A famous example from theological history is Luke 23.43. Christ is on the cross, and he turns to one of the guys next to him and says, "I say to you today you will be with Me in paradise." Now, there's no commas in ancient Greek, but translations are translations and thus include some punctuation.

Some Bibles print it with a comma after "today," and some have the comma before "today." Putting the comma after "today" means that Jesus is speaking today, at this moment. Putting it after means that the man will be in paradise today, ie. right after he dies.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The phrase 'man-eating lion' and 'man, eating lion' are very similar, and yet have completely different meanings. And the third and also similar phrase 'man eating lion' can, ridiculously enough, have the same meaning as either of those first two.

I would actually say that there are three possible meanings in those three phrases. The first, "man-eating lion," refers to a lion that eats humans. The second, "Man, eating lion," sounds like the answer to a query: "Whatcha doin'?" "Man, eating lion." ("Man" is used as a familiar greeting.) The third, "man eating lion," would be written on a sign in a wax museum, showing a caveman chowing down on a large cat.

So yes, hyphens and commas are very important. A famous example from theological history is Luke 23.43. Christ is on the cross, and he turns to one of the guys next to him and says, "I say to you today you will be with Me in paradise." Now, there's no commas in ancient Greek, but translations are translations and thus include some punctuation.

Some Bibles print it with a comma after "today," and some have the comma before "today." Putting the comma after "today" means that Jesus is speaking today, at this moment. Putting it after means that the man will be in paradise today, ie. right after he dies.

This thread is stupid. You guys know how it's meant to work, AGREE ON HOW IT SHOULD BE PLAYED, but continue to argue the wording. No matter how much you internet, the ink will not move on your page.

RAW: Complete feth up.

HIWPI: You get one to start, until an FAQ says otherwise.

Taow wrote:
This thread is stupid. You guys know how it's meant to work, AGREE ON HOW IT SHOULD BE PLAYED, but continue to argue the wording. No matter how much you internet, the ink will not move on your page.

There's people that come in and say that it works as it's written, and try to mock people who think it doesn't.
That's what has kept this going for so long. It's not the people who understand it's broken... it's the ones who are convinced it's not.

Taow wrote:
This thread is stupid. You guys know how it's meant to work, AGREE ON HOW IT SHOULD BE PLAYED, but continue to argue the wording. No matter how much you internet, the ink will not move on your page.

Welcome to the forums, Taow! I see you're new to Dakka. Post pictures of your armies! Paint, paint, paint!

Now then, this area is called "You make Da Call". Often there are discussions and debates here that include "How is the rule written" "How is it meant to be played" and "How my group plays it". Please don't confuse these three.

Often times, these discussion are really academic in nature, as both parties involved would freely admit that their "How I would play it" differs from their argument. However, GW rules being what they are, people aren't always going to agree with how to handle it. I think you should take a look at the first stickied post in this Subforum.

You'll see that Rule #4 is what I'm talking about.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Also, please note that your post violates Rule 1a and Rule 5.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

Yes, to all those who are new and posting, keep in mind this board is for the intellectual debate of the rules as they are written (RAW in other terms) and that how any individual would interpret or play with said rules is not the point of this board, and should not be posted unless asked for.
And yes, it is silly that it has gone on this long. Especially when it is clear that the problem is simply a missing wargear listing, nothing more. But you always have the so called "White Knights" who believe that they must punish neckbeards and TFG's wherever they might find them. These people instantly assume the worst of their counterparts in a desperate attempt to undermine the morality of their argument.
But they always forget one crucial fact; There is no morality in "You Make Da Call"....
only RAW.
XD
(Of course, i am not in any way suggesting that any poster in this thread is violating any of the tenets of dakka, or is in any fashion belittling or insulting any other poster in this thread. So far it has remained fairly civil.)

Neronoxx wrote:
Yes, to all those who are new and posting, keep in mind this board is for the intellectual debate of the rules as they are written (RAW in other terms) and that how any individual would interpret or play with said rules is not the point of this board, and should not be posted unless asked for.

This is not actually accurate.


There is absolutely no problem with discussing how you choose to play it over RAW. All that we ask is that posters make it clear when the rules interpretation that they are presenting is their own house rule rather than how the rules actually say to do it.

Presenting your opinion on what makes a broken rule function as you believe it is intended to function is perfectly acceptable.

 insaniak wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Yes, to all those who are new and posting, keep in mind this board is for the intellectual debate of the rules as they are written (RAW in other terms) and that how any individual would interpret or play with said rules is not the point of this board, and should not be posted unless asked for.

This is not actually accurate.


There is absolutely no problem with discussing how you choose to play it over RAW. All that we ask is that posters make it clear when the rules interpretation that they are presenting is their own house rule rather than how the rules actually say to do it.

Presenting your opinion on what makes a broken rule function as you believe it is intended to function is perfectly acceptable.

Ah, you are correct sir.
I should say that arguing over how individuals would play it should be refrained from, as it usually is meaningless and contributes little to the discussion.