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'm not sure why all the gnashing of teeth over the bomber, sure it needs to slow down to be at it's most effective, but I'm fairly sure that's by design, given all the references to extra thrusters and mobility in the Strikefighter fluff with no obvious in game effect.

The difference is the Strikefighter is fully effective while cruising around 36", while the Bomber is a bit more versatile and packs a bigger punch, but is slower to achieve that.

Even still, your drones are only losing 1 BS when you go above 18 inches, which is hardly the end of the world, and can be offset by the networked markerlight on the Bomber. Not to mention, when actually using their Interceptor rule it doesn't matter how far you flew.

The bad bit about the drones snapfiring means they lose the ability to drop 2 blast markers with surprising accuracy (TL Blast at BS2 is better than non-TL blast at any BS) :( You can't offset that.

How could TL Blast as BS2 be better than Blast at BS10?

Throwaway comment, sorry.
TL Blast at BS2 is about as good as Blast at BS4, but has the (massive) added advantage in this case of being much less likely to get hot, and (when the drones are embarked) Gets Hot only affects the drones rather than the Flyer itself.

Well, Interceptor Drones have the Jet Pack Infantry (Drone) Unit Type. Jet Pack confers the Relentless Special Rule, so I would say it doesn't matter how far the Sun Shark Bomber moves, as the Interceptor Drones would count as stationary for the purposes of conducting their shooting.

The same would go for any model in any army. If the model as Relentless and the ability to shoot from a Fire Point or other special rule, it shoots as if it remained stationary. Gunnery Sergeant Harker with his Heavy Bolter shooting out of the top of a Chimaera, for instance.

Except Relentless has no effect on passengers shooting, as the rules specify passengers snapshot if it moves cruising speed.

Relentless makes you count as stationary even if you have moved.

Hrm...you are apparently correct. That's fething stupid. I still think common sense-wise and RAI-wise that attached drones, be they of the Gun or Interceptor varieties should be able shoot at the full BS.

Why is it RAI?

Should terminators ina chimera be able to move 12" and fire?

Yes, they should!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why is it RAI?

Should terminators ina chimera be able to move 12" and fire?

Slightly off topic, and maybe a silly question, but which codex lets you put terminators in a chimera?

Back on topic:
I disagree and do not think relentless passengers getting full BS is RAI. The jet pack isintended to provide a stable firing platform, by being in a vehicle you are not using that platform, you are using the vehicle as a firing platform. In the case of terminators or other relentless/SnP units, in a vehicle they are going alot faster than usual, and do not come with gear that helps adjust thier aim for the difference in speed. So from my point of view, the RAW is RAI.

cryhavok wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why is it RAI?

Should terminators ina chimera be able to move 12" and fire?

Slightly off topic, and maybe a silly question, but which codex lets you put terminators in a chimera?

Back on topic:
I disagree and do not think relentless passengers getting full BS is RAI. The jet pack isintended to provide a stable firing platform, by being in a vehicle you are not using that platform, you are using the vehicle as a firing platform. In the case of terminators or other relentless/SnP units, in a vehicle they are going alot faster than usual, and do not come with gear that helps adjust thier aim for the difference in speed. So from my point of view, the RAW is RAI.

To answer your first question, Grey Knight Terminators can embark within a Chimera. (so yes, silly question, because they're Grey Knights, and that's how they roll )

I believe Relentless/Slow and Purposeful are fully capable of shooting accurately from a moving transport. Terminators are genetically engineered super-human soldiers in badass armor that provides them stability, even on the move; I don't think it should matter just how they are moving. Terminators can Deepstrike and shoot at their full BS, which I would think is a bit more disorienting/not-so-stable than traveling at cruising speed in a transport. Jet Pack units have a combination of computer assisted targeting, gyro stabilisers, anti-grav tech, and thrusters to provide for their stable firing platform. Jet Pack units can also Deepstrike and shoot at their full BS (again, I think that would be more disorienting/not-so-stable), why not when they are attached to a vehicle that they are specifically designed to be apart of as well?!

Just saying, I think its ludicrous that a Relentless unit can not benefit from its full BS and Relentlessness when embarked on a transport (or attached in the case of drones). I do concede that RAW makes them fire Snap Shots, but this wouldn't be the first time we as 40K players have had to deal with a stupid rule, or in this case, a rule that doesn't make a special dispensation for a unit that, at least to me, it should, namely anything with Relentless/Slow and Purposeful.

Exc ept you are definitely in the minority. I know of no other player who thinks that just because you are jetpack / terminator / etc that you get to fire on trhe move

Your armour (etc) is designed to make YOUR platform stable while YOU move. It isnt designed to make it stable whlie something is is moving you.

You're not even CLOSE on RAI, in my opinion

Yeah, and from a realistic stand point it doesn't really make any sense. Try shooting out of a moving car, and tell me how easy it is.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, and from a realistic stand point it doesn't really make any sense. Try shooting out of a moving car, and tell me how easy it is.

Shooting accurately from a moving aircraft isn't all that hard as long as you have had some necessary training... Nor is shooting an aircraft's forward-firing weapons... But that is real-world and totally irrelevant to this discussion.

@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Because RAI argumets generally boil down to who can gather more support for his cause, Shas'O is currently loosing.

I agree with you in principle about RAI arguments (in so far as they can EVER be resolved), however, RAI arguments (and making judgements about who is closer to 'true RAI') are pointless on YMDC...

Beast wrote:
@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Did he say that absolutely? Or did he qualify it with "in my opinion"?

Oh, you're trying to say that he's taking a position he's not, and then arguing against it. Good show old chap.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Did he say that absolutely? Or did he qualify it with "in my opinion"?

Oh, you're trying to say that he's taking a position he's not, and then arguing against it. Good show old chap.

Your post is so far off the mark I'm not even sure where to begin. I didn't say he was taking ANY position, he did. He stated his opinion on RAI and how far he thinks Shas'O is from it, which is pointless here and both you and he know that... I'm not arguing for or against against any position, only the pointlessness of criticising someone else's RAI interpretation on YMDC. So good job ascribing false actions to me... old chap...

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:
@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Did he say that absolutely? Or did he qualify it with "in my opinion"?

Oh, you're trying to say that he's taking a position he's not, and then arguing against it. Good show old chap.

Your post is so far off the mark I'm not even sure where to begin. I didn't say he was taking ANY position, he did. He stated his opinion on RAI and how far he thinks Shas'O is from it, which is pointless here and both you and he know that... I'm not arguing for or against against any position, only the pointlessness of criticising someone else's RAI interpretation on YMDC. So good job ascribing false actions to me... old chap...

You said "I never knew RAI was so knowable, ..." indicating nos was asserting fact.
He wasn't. He said what his opinion was. That's it.
And RAI discussions are perfectly fine in YMDC. You just need to say that you're making a RAI argument. Which nos did.
Attacking him for stating his opinion makes zero sense, and that's what you did.

Actually it is based on 3 editions of the ruleset not allowing relentless models the abiltiy to fire more accurately than non-relentless models while in a vehicle.

That is as close to literal RAI as you can get - they have not altered their rules regarding this, despite changing the underlying rules 3 times (12" move and fire in 4th, 6" in 5th, 12" for snapfire in 6th, roughly) in the past 3 editions, despite being aware that models are treated the same with those rules (and their equivalents in earlier editions)

The same as the pivot trick is most likely RAI, partially for the same reasoning, and partially from people i know in the studio saying they are aware of it - it is a known consequence of the abstracted vehicle rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Beast - you did misrepresent what I said. You stated I had said I "know", whereas I stated "my opinion" making it a belief.

there is quite a useful distinction between the two words, one you ignored

No rigel, you still don't get it, but that's fine, this is a pointless alley to go down... I only asked questions (and a few rhetorical ones at that) in the post you are referring to, so unless you have answers to those (which you can't possibly have) then you are just looking for something to pick at which isn't there... So good day old chap... :-)

Beast wrote:
No rigel, you still don't get it, but that's fine, this is a pointless alley to go down... I only asked questions (and a few rhetorical ones at that) in the post you are referring to, so unless you have answers to those (which you can't possibly have) then you are just looking for something to pick at which isn't there... So good day old chap... :-)

Actuaslly you stated "how do you know...?" when I never said "I know"

Youre not getting it either.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Oh, and Beast - you did misrepresent what I said. You stated I had said I "know", whereas I stated "my opinion" making it a belief.

there is quite a useful distinction between the two words, one you ignored

No Nos, I rhetorically said *I* never knew RAI was so knowable... So now who is mis-stating things? There is a distinction between the words 'you' and 'I'. It is a useful one, but one YOU ignored...

In any case, this is pointless, snarky sniping which doesn't further the thread, so I respectfully propose we move on to something else...

I respect the fact that I may be in the minority on this, however, just because I'm in the minority doesn't automatically make me wrong. My argument for RAI and common sense was not just based on their armor and special equipment, but also their ability to Deep Strike without having their BS affected; and in the case of Drones, they're specifically designed to be attached to a vehicle that moves, wouldn't they be designed in such a way to allow them shoot at full effect?

When a Terminator Deep Strikes it is the teleportation device on a ship that moves him, likewise, when Jet Pack units Deep Strike it is the low-flying vehicle they jumped out of that is moving them, as well as gravity.

I find it difficult to believe that at the very least the RAI for Interceptor Drones was to restrict their usefulness when the bomber moves anything faster than Combat Speed, specifically not being able to shoot with their overcharged profile.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sadly I must be off to work :(, but i will check back this evening to see how the discussion has progressed...or not progressed .

Beast wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Oh, and Beast - you did misrepresent what I said. You stated I had said I "know", whereas I stated "my opinion" making it a belief.

there is quite a useful distinction between the two words, one you ignored

No Nos, I rhetorically said *I* never knew RAI was so knowable... So now who is mis-stating things? There is a distinction between the words 'you' and 'I'. It is a useful one, but one YOU ignored...

Oh really? Then I guess you didnt actually say....

Beast wrote:@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Oh wait. You did. If you were going to lie so blatantly you really really should try to cover up things with at least an incriminating edit.

I have bolded and then underlined the pertinent part where you misrepresented a claim of opinion by saying it was a statement of fact. Please apologise not only for this initial misrepresentation, but the lying and snarkiness that followed

To be fair, he was probably referring to the coloured text, rather than the underlined bit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Beast wrote:
No Nos, I rhetorically said *I* never knew RAI was so knowable... So now who is mis-stating things? There is a distinction between the words 'you' and 'I'. It is a useful one, but one YOU ignored...

Oh really? Then I guess you didnt actually say....

Beast wrote:@Nos, how do you know what RAI is and how far off Shas'O is or isn't from it? Were you in the planning meetings when they developed the rules at GW? I never knew RAI was so knowable, and if it is, then why do we need a YMDC?

Oh wait. You did. If you were going to lie so blatantly you really really should try to cover up things with at least an incriminating edit.

I have bolded and then underlined the pertinent part where you misrepresented a claim of opinion by saying it was a statement of fact. Please apologise not only for this initial misrepresentation, but the lying and snarkiness that followed

Also, the word "snarky" is being thrown around quite liberally these days on the Dakka. We live in interesting times.

It always bums me out when these sorts of arguments happen on the forums. I chalk it up to the communication medium more than anything else. Things are easily misinterpreted/not concisely written enough, and the door is opened. It's a shame when it happens, as it always detracts from the thread, and more importantly, the parties involved can end up getting rather snarky (there it is again!) and generally being off-putting to one another, which isn't good for the community in general. I've always believed that if these disagreements occurred face-to-face, they would end up much more cordial, with the possibility of it ending on good terms for all parties involved.

I'm also bummed that my post regarding RAI and common-sense seems to have been the thing that started it. I am sorry Nos, Reg, and Beast all got into an argument over it. I am also sorry that my post (not meaning to sound conceited), got buried behind that wall of back and forth, when I, and I'm sure the community in general(??), would have preferred a back and forth regarding what I said as it related to the OP. While some (many?) may have disagreed with my opinion (and that is perfectly acceptable and I respect honest disagreement), I feel it at least added something to the discussion in a concise manner.

Mostly though, I am sorry for the OP, as their Thread got a bit derailed by the whole thing.

Elric - may well have been doing so, however given both myself and Rigeld had pointed out that Beast had misrepresented something I stated, you would hope they had the ability to reread their own post and notice they had said "you".

Apparently it is trolling to point out when someone lies.

 Shas'O...Crap wrote:
It always bums me out when these sorts of arguments happen on the forums. I chalk it up to the communication medium more than anything else. Things are easily misinterpreted/not concisely written enough, and the door is opened. It's a shame when it happens, as it always detracts from the thread, and more importantly, the parties involved can end up getting rather snarky (there it is again!) and generally being off-putting to one another, which isn't good for the community in general. I've always believed that if these disagreements occurred face-to-face, they would end up much more cordial, with the possibility of it ending on good terms for all parties involved.

I'm also bummed that my post regarding RAI and common-sense seems to have been the thing that started it. I am sorry Nos, Reg, and Beast all got into an argument over it. I am also sorry that my post (not meaning to sound conceited), got buried behind that wall of back and forth, when I, and I'm sure the community in general(??), would have preferred a back and forth regarding what I said as it related to the OP. While some (many?) may have disagreed with my opinion (and that is perfectly acceptable and I respect honest disagreement), I feel it at least added something to the discussion in a concise manner.

Mostly though, I am sorry for the OP, as their Thread got a bit derailed by the whole thing.

No worries Shas'O... lol. We are all big boys here on Dakka. Nosfertu was deflecting from my real point and focusing on a part of a rhetorical question (which is not a declaratory statement) and then began throwing around false accusations of lying... I laugh at most of Nosfertu's posts, so it really isn't an argument so much as it is just sitting back and watching the fun (and joining in occassionally)... I suspect he does the same, because his hilarious demands that people constantly retract their statements are always ott and the accusations of lying and the general attitude can't possibly be for real, so I just chalk it up to him trying to be funny in his own way... It's all good for me and provides a bit of comic relief most of the time...

Elric saw right through the confusion Nos and I had, and I assumed Nos had seen it too but chose to continue on his path rather than admit we were talking at cross paths about two totally different parts of a post... And his suggestion that I should go back and try to cover something up with an edit is just his way of being funny I suspect, so I view it that way and just laugh with/at him as do the other dakkanauts around my neck of the woods...

Thanks for the PM- you are spot on, and I agree with what you said there and above.

I tried to step away and let things get back to the topic once already, so hopefully that can happen now...

Edit- spelling sucks today...

...From a post I just dropped in GD, I thought it might be relevant here that you see the implications of reading the rules one way or the other.

According to good ole math-hammer 40k (assuming the entire time that the target is another flyer and it is taking a 5+ cover/invuln save): Summary in orange if you don't want to read the break down...

Against AV12 target, with snap firing drones that do not get rapid fire, the Sun Shark will do .439 hull points a turn... if you get the markerlight hit in (50% chance) that's .643 hull points a turn. If you are in rapid fire range thats .605 without the marker light and .889 with... if the drones DO get their BS that's 1.063 hits with a markerlight and if they get the Bomber's its 1.185....

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/520846.page

Rest of it is over there