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.

Out of respect for the FAQ post, I'm not posting on there. I feel like most of the questions on the FAQ are most people trying to find ways around the rules they don't like when most of them are quite clear. This post will contain citations and quotations when answering the FAQs. I will update this as more questions come into the FAQ thread. Please feel free to add more quotes from rules that contradict my findings. I will either add it as evidence to either side, or prove it wrong using rules citations.

Please keep in mind. All answers are strictly RAW despite anyone's opinion on what it should be, including my own.

WEAPONS

• Are vehicles that suffer an Immobilization result from Grav weapons able to take a Cover Save or Invulnerable Save to ignore the effects?
Answer: No, although clarification would be useful.
C:SM pg. 121 Grav-Weaponry "... suffers an Immobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."
BRB pg 75. Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it..."
Grav-weaponry does not cause a glancing or penetrating hit. No cover save is allowed. I can see this being FAQed to allow it though.

• Do Immobilised vehicles that suffer an Immobilisation result from Grav Weapons lose 1 or 2 Hull Points?
Answer: 2
C:SM pg. 121 Grav-Weaponry "... suffers an Immobilised result and loses a single Hull Point."
BRB pg. 74. Vehicle Damage Table - Immobilised "Any Immobilised result suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle [...] instead remove an additional Hull Point."
Grav-weaponry causes an immobilized result, and additional immobilized results cause an additional Hull Point. Never does it specifically say anything about glancing or penetrating hits.

Argument for the other side so far, and why it's invalid:
Q: If a vehicle suffers the effects of a Crew Shaken, Crew
Stunned, Weapon Destroyed or Immobilised result from the
Vehicle Damage table, does this automatically mean that it loses
a Hull Point? (p74)
A: No, unless it specifically suffers a Glancing or Penetrating
hit, or some other effect that specifies that a Hull Point is
lost.

My response to this: Let's break this down. If it suffers an effect from the vehicle damage table does it AUTOMATICALLY lose a Hull Point? The answer is no. It further goes on to say that it only loses a hull point if it suffers a glancing hit, penetrating hit, or other effect that specifies that it removes a hull point. Looking back at how grav weapons work, it specifies that it does in fact lose a hull point. I would like to further point out that this specific FAQ does not say that further immobilsed (or other results) don't lose a Hull Point if you were already immobilized. For rules regarding this, we must use the chart, which says we lose an additional hull point if the vehicle is already immobilized. In short, this FAQ does not apply.

• How do Grav weapons work with mixed armour save units?
Answer: Unknown
There are no rules that apply specifically to this. This is one of the few good questions. I would argue BRB pg. 14 'Multiple Toughness Values' can apply and therefor use the majority armor. However, this is flawed since you do not roll to wound against armor (only using the value of the armor as what you must roll) nor does the armor value take the place of the toughness value.

• Do Grav weapons use the base save value or do they use the current Save value?
Answer: No RAW found, but seems obviously the modified value.
I'm guess this is referring to certain modifiers, such as the Eldar power to modify the armor save. I've dug through the BRB, and no where does it actually say that modifiers become the actual value. However, since in all other instances we treat the modified value as the actual value, I would argue that the modified armor save is the value used when rolling to wound with grav-weaponry.

SPECIAL RULES
• Do Space Marine armies with the Black Templar Chapter Tactics follow the Space Marine or Black Templar column for Allies?
Answer: Black Templar
C:SM pg. 78 Designer's Note "Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule."
(WARNING: I'm about to abbreviate a lot) We've all seen this quoted several times on the BT allies thread. There have been many arguments both ways on this one. I come to give you RAW regardless of what I, or anyone else, feels like it should be.
BRB pg. 113 Allies Matrix "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment" There is a row that says Black Templars. Since this is calling it a codex, it is Codex: Black Templars. When we hit this, we must use the codex rules (since as many have pointed out, codex trumps BRB) which tells us that any older publication (i.e. BRB) that refers to Codex: Black Templars we instead use (see: replaces with) BT chapter tactics. Therefor, the entry on the allies matrix that says C:BT can instead be read as C:SM (BT chapter tactics). For those saying that they use C:SM because it says find your codex and use that one, remember that now anything that says C:BT actually should be read as C:SM (BT chapter tactics) which still refers to C:SM and is therefor not breaking or fudging any rules.

• Does Pedro Kantors special rule work with all units in the detachment, or only those with Chapter Tactics: Imperial Fists?
Answer: The whole detachment. I'm assuming this is referring to Oath of Rynn.
C:SM pg. 115 Oath of Rynn "[...] all friendly models in Crimson Fists detachments [...]"
This does not say "only models with Chapter Tactics," nor is it listed as a chapter tactic. Yes, this even means Vulkan makes vehicle meltas mastercrafted as well.

• The Forgefather rule for Vulkan states that "Combi-meltas are treated as Mastercrafted" is this just for the meltagun portion or does it also work on the boltgun portion?
Answer: Whole weapon
BRB pg. 56. Combi-Weapons. No quote here, but it is a single weapon with two firing modes, a primary and secondary.

• If you have 2 primary detachments (at 2000+ point games), can you choose 2 different chapter tactics, or can you only differ from chapter tactics between primary and allied detachments? In other words, in a 2000+ game, could you basically have 4 different chapter tactics if you have 2 primary and 2 allied detachments, or just 2?
Answer: Any number of Chapter Tactics up to 4
BRB pg. Bigger Games "All primary detachments must be taken from the same codex."
BRB pg. 109 Allied Detachments "[...] your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army."
C:SM pg. 77 "When choosing a SM detachment, whether primary or allied, choose one of the Chapters listed in this section. [...] All models benefit from the appropriate chapter tactics for their detachment's Chapter"
The argument could be made for 3 max, but RAW, the Bigger Games section says "from the same codex" and technically the different chapters are all the same codex. On top of that, the codex specifically says to choose a Chapter per detachment. The only restriction on having to be a different chapter comes from Allies and the second primary isn't an ally so it can be the same chapter. As long as the allies are different chapters from the primary, they can be the same chapter too. Also, with the exception of Salamanders (as per fluff but not rules so this probably won't hold up to argument) the allied chapter could be a successor and use the same tactics so it could be one set of Chapter Tactics.

•Does Vulkan give the Master-crafted special rule to melta-weapons from Salamander-units in your additional detachment in games over 2000 points?"
Answer: Two detachments with the same chapter tactics count as one. So Vulkan and Kantor applies their rules to every model in every detachment that has the same chapter tactics (Note: their rules work on stuff without chapter tactics).
C:SM pg. 77 Chapter Tactics - Allies "Note that you can field models from two different chapters that have the same Chapter Tactics [...] they count as a single army on the battlefield."

UPGRADES
•Bikes have the option to take special weapons, yet do not have a close combat weapon or boltgun to swap. Do they need to swap out a weapon (if so, what) or do they ignore the weapon swap requirement?
[b]Answer: OFFICIALLY FAQED!
Page 174 – Bike Squad, options
Add the following option to this list.
Any model may replace his bolt pistol with a chainsword......free

• Can a Relic be taken in both a Primary Detachment and Allied Detachment?
Answer: Probably not
C:SM pg. 127 Chapter Relics "Only one of each of the following items may be chosen per army."
BRB Choosing Your Army starting on page 108. Just read this whole section. Army does not equal detachment. The army, as shown in the The Army List section, is the combination of all of your points for your own list.
NOTE: There are many different places, such as C:SM pg. 77, any many other books, that contradict this finding. A FAQ would be nice for clarification.

• Can models in a Command Squad take upgrades?
Answer: OFFICIALLY FAQED!
Page 164 – Command Squads, options
Add the following option to this list.
“Any Veteran may take items from the Special Weapons list.”

 Sothas wrote:

• Bikes have the option to take special weapons, yet do not have a close combat weapon or boltgun to swap. Do they need to swap out a weapon (if so, what) or do they ignore the weapon swap requirement?
Answer: No weapon swap required
C:SM pg. 174 Bike squad options "Up to two SM bikers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list."
Never does it say you have to replace a weapon. Pretty cut and dry. A few options, like Sternguard, have the same wording.

Perhaps you should look at the sentence before the upgrade cost in the Ranged Weapons Armory.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:

• Bikes have the option to take special weapons, yet do not have a close combat weapon or boltgun to swap. Do they need to swap out a weapon (if so, what) or do they ignore the weapon swap requirement?
Answer: No weapon swap required
C:SM pg. 174 Bike squad options "Up to two SM bikers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list."
Never does it say you have to replace a weapon. Pretty cut and dry. A few options, like Sternguard, have the same wording.

Perhaps you should look at the sentence before the upgrade cost in the Ranged Weapons Armory.

Thanks for that. Fixed in my post.

The special weapon on bikers argument is going on in a few places, so I thought I'd put my interpretation here.

Page 51 of the BRB states that pistols can be used as ccws, and that they use the ccw profile, which in turn includes the melee rule.

As such, pistols, including bolt pistols, have two profiles, their ranged profile, and a melee profile, making them both ranged and melee weapons.

As such, a biker would replace his bolt pistol with a special weapon.

Remember, grenades are weapons according to the core rulebook, therefore they can be swapped out for the bikers

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Remember, grenades are weapons according to the core rulebook, therefore they can be swapped out for the bikers

Nice catch too.

You know what would be awesome (but impractical)? If they allowed players to argue rules disputes before a GW court, similar to how people argue before the Supreme Court.

In re: Can SM Bikers take Special Weapons

The court could then either narrowly tailor the answer (bikes ignore the weapon swap rules), or make it wider ranging (may replace grenades too, and bolt pistols are ccws).

The main question is, who would be the Antonin Scalia of that court?

From that other thread:
A lot of abilities refer to "units from this detachment". Double FOC is basically an additional detachment.
So my question: "Does Vulkan give the Master-crafted special rule to melta-weapons from Salamander-units in your additional detachment in games over 2000 points?"

• Can models in a Command Squad take upgrades?
Answer: Yes. I'm confused by this question.

The box has them with a special weapon, the codex doesn't give them special weapons.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Remember, grenades are weapons according to the core rulebook, therefore they can be swapped out for the bikers

Salamander-characters with Master-crafted Melta-bombs sounds stupid

BRB pg. 52 Pistols "A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase"

Doesn't count as a CCW to swap it for a Special Weapon since it only counts as a CCW during the Assault phase and not normally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
From that other thread:
A lot of abilities refer to "units from this detachment". Double FOC is basically an additional detachment.
So my question: "Does Vulkan give the Master-crafted special rule to melta-weapons from Salamander-units in your additional detachment in games over 2000 points?"

This was answered in my original post. According to Chapter Tactics rules for Allies, the two Salamander detachments count as one and therefor both benefit from Vulkan, Khan, and Kantor's special rules (and any others with similar rules) source: C:SM pg. 77. EDIT: oops, I answered one of the questions with this answer. I'll replace that question with this and answer the other question. Please see my new updated answer in my original post for exact quotes.

• Can models in a Command Squad take upgrades?
Answer: Yes. I'm confused by this question.
The box has them with a special weapon, the codex doesn't give them special weapons.

A box of GKSS has teleporter back packs but can't take them. This is an option for a different type of unit, even if that unit can be built with that box, the GKSS still can't take the teleporter. On the reverse side, several units can take options that their boxes do not contain. Box/sprues do not equal unit choice. There is no confusion here, only people wishing it was different.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
Remember, grenades are weapons according to the core rulebook, therefore they can be swapped out for the bikers

C:SM pg. 159 Special Weapons "A model can replace his Melee weapon or boltgun with one of the following:"
A grenade is neither of these things and therefor cannot be replaced with a Special Weapon. There is no weapon on the bike that can be replaced with a Special Weapon. This require errata. There is no way around it.

Salamander-characters with Master-crafted Melta-bombs sounds stupid

I disagree, this sounds awesome! Just call them sticky bombs! lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Added clarification to bike special weapons upgrade. Fixed double FoC Combat Tactics question. Added Double FoC SC w/ detachment special rule question.

For bikes rules, I think you're wrong on the bolt pistol issue and probably on the grenade issue too.

They talk about bolt pistols in terms of cc on 51 and 52. Remember that "counts as" isn't like when you count a rhino as a land raider because you don't have the model. The way it makes sense to interpret "counts as" in that sentence is that it is both weapons in one. This interpretation makes sense in light of the way they discuss it on page 51, where they say it can be used as a cc weapon. This is not something special that gets added to pistols in only certain circumstances, it is inherent to pistols. If pistols could only be used as cc weapons in only some assault phases while being ranged weapons in all shooting phases, then you could make the argument that the melee profile is special, but as it stands it is built into the weapon.

The fact that they aren't used that way outside of the assault phase means nothing, by that same logic a bolt pistol isn't a ranged weapon because its ranged profile is discarded in the shooting phase for a melee profile.

Look at page 50 under the type heading. It says that shooting weapons can only ever be used to make shooting attacks, and includes pistols there. It then turns around and says melee weapons can only ever be used in close combat.

And yet, pistols are able to do both.

The implication is that either pistols are something of an exception, with two profiles and types (pistols in the shooting phase, melee in the assault), OR that pistols are neither shooting nor melee weapons since they can be used in both phases. I'd have to go back and see what in-game implications there would be if all pistol weapons were no longer counted as shooting weapons, but I imagine there'd be a few changes here and there.

Then look at the Range section on page 50. It mentions that if a weapon's profile contains a range of " - " it is considered a melee weapon. Bolt pistols (and grenades, for that matter), have a melee profile with a range of " - ". A weapon with "-" range is a melee weapon "unless otherwise stated". What "statement" would be required to make a melee weapon not a melee weapon I don't know, but the interpretation that makes the most sense is that unless a weapon with range " - " is specifically stated to not be a melee weapon in special rules, then it is a melee weapon. (It would probably be something like "pick the closest enemy unit" and not include a range)

Grenades make sense too. Page 61 of the BRB states that a model can use a grenade as a melee weapon. It has a melee profile in addition to that on page 62.

This whole "bikers can't take special weapons according to RAW" argument is based on interpreting words in RAW automatically away from the result that would make them melee weapons, despite the fact that there is no real reason to do that.

Lastly, it's worth looking at the "no specified melee weapon" rule on page 51. It states that if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon. "Treated as being armed" could mean two things, either you act as though it has the weapon while it really doesn't, or you add the ccw into the character's wargear.

The thing is, this rule, if bolt pistols aren't melee, is problematic for lots of units. Think about Tac marines. If bolt pistols aren't melee weapons, but rather pseudo-melee, then they would be treated as having a ccw based on the rule. Whether that "treated as being armed with" means they have it among their wargear or not likely doesn't matter, because either way the Tac marines would end up with TWO cc weapons for the purposes of assaults.

If you're thinking that "treating a model as armed with" and "being armed with" are different enough that the Tac marines don't get the extra attack in cc, think about models with two pistols. Those, for the purposes of melee, count as 2 ccws resulting in an extra attack. Under the "bolt pistols aren't ccws" logic, that means that pseudo-melee weapons that "count as" or can be "used as" but aren't actually melee can be used as melee weapons for the purposes of the assault phase. What, then, is the difference between "treated as armed with" and "counts as/used as"? Even assuming that neither is a true melee weapon, the result is that you act as though you have 2 ccws.

Also, if you're thinking that bolt pistols aren't melee, but they count as melee for the "no specified melee weapon" rule, keeping Tac squads from getting another ccw, the "no specified melee weapon" rule states that "if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type," which implies that one of their weapons MUST be a melee weapon or else the "no specified melee weapon" rule is invoked. The result is that if bolt pistols aren't melee weapons, krak grenades must be, and if they aren't, then they get a free counts as from the rule, which results in them having 2 for the purposes of cc with their "no specified melee weapon" weapon and the bolt pistol.

That is clearly not the case, so bolt pistols or krak grenades must be melee weapons.

Also, while krak grenades would be melee weapons, they don't count as an "extra" weapon because using them in cc has certain special requirements (only against MCs and vehicles, only ever 1 attack).

If the pistol simple said "counts as a close combat weapon" then I would agree with you. However, it says that it only can be used as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase. This absolutely is a specifically designated time that the pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If, (hypothetically) there was a possible way to use a close combat weapon in any other phase as a close combat weapon then the pistol would not be able to be used since it is only a CCW during the assault phase. This is also true during army creation, which does have specified rules and time placement in regards to playing a game (i.e. before the game starts). During this time frame, the pistol is NOT a CCW and cannot be swapped.

Ok, so the argument of range of - is valid, but it isn't solid. First off, this would only apply to krak grenades for the bikers. Pistols do not, at any time, have a range of -. In the Assault phase, they count as close combat weapons and CCWs have a range of -. This is not the pistol's profile.

The counter I have is that grenades are specified as a specific type of weapon as per BRB pg. 61 giving grenades their own heading and section that is completely separate from Melee weapons and ranged weapons. Grenades are a unqiue type of weapon that can be used in both the shooting and the assault phase.

Under type, when they have an Assault listing, they are all listed as -, but they also have a shooting value giving them a type of shooting weapon. Perhaps they can count as melee weapons, but I think they are neither ranged weapons nor melee weapons. They are grenades. They're different. Different rules, different section, different heading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lastly, it's worth looking at the "no specified melee weapon" rule on page 51. It states that if a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon. "Treated as being armed" could mean two things, either you act as though it has the weapon while it really doesn't, or you add the ccw into the character's wargear.

The thing is, this rule, if bolt pistols aren't melee, is problematic for lots of units. Think about Tac marines. If bolt pistols aren't melee weapons, but rather pseudo-melee, then they would be treated as having a ccw based on the rule. Whether that "treated as being armed with" means they have it among their wargear or not likely doesn't matter, because either way the Tac marines would end up with TWO cc weapons for the purposes of assaults.

Ok, you edited this in after I started replying. I read it, read the rules you talked about, and my head exploded. These rules totally contradict each other. I would absolutely say RAW a Tac marine gets an extra CCW, but obviously that's not the case so the pistol must be a CCW all the time, because there's no way a grenade is.

Mind = Blown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I have updated my original post to include Pistol as a swappable CCW. This is the only logical conclusion I can come up with.

When else do you use close combat weapons? They are all only ever used in the assault phase. That doesn't make them not melee weapons. It doesn't say they "only" count as melee during the assault phase, it says "also," which implies they are both things.

You're reading a phase limitation into the rule that isn't specifically stated. The interpretation that it is a melee weapon all the time but is only ever used as such in the assault phase is as valid as saying it's only a ccw in the assault phase and then reverts to being a pistol.

Based on the fact that melee weapons function the exact same way as the first interpretation (melee all the time, but only used as melee in the assault phase), I would argue that the wording on 52 implies that pistols retain their melee profile all the time.

You're also ignoring the change in wording from 52 to 51. On 52 they use "counts as" while on 51 they use "used as." First, it's not necessarily true that something that "counts as" doesn't have the ccw profile inherently, that is, as I said above, you reading in a limitation that isn't specifically stated. However, even if that limitation is applied to "counts as," it doesn't necessarily apply to "used as." Something being used as implies it does have that profile.

On top of that, 51 doesn't have any reference to the assault phase. Taking the wording on 51 and 52 together, the implication is that your interpretation, that a bolt pistol only counts as a ccw during the assault phase and then reverts, is likely wrong.

And the argument that grenades aren't melee weapons because of their separate heading clashes with page 50. In order to not be a melee weapon it must be stated as being otherwise. Your interpretation doesn't involve a statement in the rule book, it involves a drawing of conclusions from a bunch of different sources, none of which directly oppose the rule on page 50 about range "-".

The interpretation that krak grenades are simply BOTH melee AND shooting weapons is equally valid as them being neither, as there is a similar amount of proof for both. In fact the rules appear to weigh in favor of the former interpretation, as it complies with page 50's range rules, while the latter does not appear to.

In addition I went through an edit storm up there, but the No Specified Melee Rule has some implications for this debate as well.

EDIT: Haha, I saw your edit to the last post after I finished typing this one. Yeah, I read that no specified melee weapon rule while bouncing around pages 50-52 and it created some very interesting implications.

I do have to say, this was a fun exercise. Got me thinking a lot, and was a lot more interesting than writing my appellate brief for class that I was working on earlier, haha. I will say, if bolt pistols weren't melee weapons, Tac squads would totally have just become grey hunters and be super freakin' useful. Alas, they must remain their usual underwhelming selves.

Biles have twin-linked Bolters. The whole "no special weapon hurr durr GW is stoopid" is a tempest in a teapot.

We're have an editing war here. Reread my last post if you haven't already. My mind is still blown over this conclusion.

I do still feel like the grenade argument is valid. The book specifically lists ranged weapons under that heading, melee weapons under that one, and grenades under that one. I'm not saying I'm 100% on this one, it's just my personally opinion that I'd be willing to change if some life altering event such as the 'no melee weapon' rule were to show itself. It's hard to come up with a time that a range - would not be a melee weapon in any other case, so saying that sometimes range - isn't a melee weapon as long as it is listed as something else would be useless unless that something else was grenades.

I think at this point, we can just let the grenade argument go.

As long as bikers have something they can switch in for specials, and so long as a bunch of units don't start randomly invoking that "No specified melee rule," I think all is right in the world, and we can let GW tackle the grenades issue if they feel so inclined.

I'm good with that, but even still I'm not 100% on the grenade thing either. I think the only logical conclusion I can come to with this is simply...


Go home BRB. You're drunk.

Um am I the only one that noticed that grav weapons specifically state that a single hull point is lost?

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Um am I the only one that noticed that grav weapons specifically state that a single hull point is lost?

The problem isn't that, it's the Clause in the immobilised result for if you're already immobilised. It boils down to "Are two hits from the same shooting attack resolved simultaneously or sequentially?" If they're simultaneous, the vehicle would need to be immobilised before the grav-guns fire to trigger the clause under immobilised. If they're sequential (and I believe they are as wounds and squadron vehicle hits are resolved sequentially) then for the second hit the vehicle is already immobilised by the first hit.

right but the problem is RAW it specifies that a single hull point is lost. Note if you lose two or more from this result it is not single.

Furthermore, as is stated in the faq for drop pods the result of immoblized must be rolled on the penetration table in order to create that second hull point lost situation.

And Immobilised says that an additional hullpoint is lost. So you lose one for the Grav-gun, and then another from immobilised. And nothing in Immobilised makes it dependant on rolling to penetrate, and the Drop Pod FAQ is solely to do with the fact that a Drop Pod is immobile "As if it had suffered an immobilised result." Suffering an immobilised result doesn't cause a Hull Point loss by itself, the loss is caused by either a Penetrating/Glancing hit (as per Drop Pod FAQ) or by already being Immobilised, as per Immobilised.

let me ask you, is the damage table more advanced in this instance or is the grav gun rule?

To me the grav gun is more advanced seeings how it tells you specifically what you do in the instance you hit, and what to do afterwards. Where as the damage table tells you what to do in general.

In the end I do think that they will most likely rule that if you are already immobilized and are hit with a grav gun you will get a second hull point of damage.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
let me ask you, is the damage table more advanced in this instance or is the grav gun rule?

To me the grav gun is more advanced seeings how it tells you specifically what you do in the instance you hit, and what to do afterwards. Where as the damage table tells you what to do in general.

In the end I do think that they will most likely rule that if you are already immobilized and are hit with a grav gun you will get a second hull point of damage.

The Damage table is more specific. The particular clause about taking a HP only applies to vehicles which are already Immobilised, while the grav-gun clause applies to all vehicles.

Chrysis wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
let me ask you, is the damage table more advanced in this instance or is the grav gun rule?

To me the grav gun is more advanced seeings how it tells you specifically what you do in the instance you hit, and what to do afterwards. Where as the damage table tells you what to do in general.

In the end I do think that they will most likely rule that if you are already immobilized and are hit with a grav gun you will get a second hull point of damage.

The Damage table is more specific. The particular clause about taking a HP only applies to vehicles which are already Immobilised, while the grav-gun clause applies to all vehicles.

so wait you are saying that the general rule has a more specific clause inside the general rule?

Yes, sometimes that happens.

Not to mention that the Grav-gun just says "a single Hull point." and not "At most a single hull point" or "Only a single Hull Point." while the Immobilised result specifically says "An additional hull point"

redacted


Also please point out where a general rule has more a specific clause in any other case?

It says to apply the immobilized result. So then you read the immobilized result. Which may require a hull point loss.

However, I will say that RAW does not support bolt pistols or grenades as melee weapons. I do not consider marine bikers capable of taking special weapons until the FAQ drops.

 Sothas wrote:

BRB pg. 74. Vehicle Damage Table - Immobilised "Any Immobilised result suffered by an already Immobilised vehicle [...] instead remove an additional Hull Point."

I'll quote the OP for you, rather than going and digging in the rulebook and retyping everything.

I retract my statements, and I do humbly appaulogize. I misread the situation. but I do still question the single hull point caveat.

It's because GW is a foreign company and not used to writing in English..... oh, wait. That's not it. They just don't care to write tight rules.

Martel732 wrote:
It says to apply the immobilized result. So then you read the immobilized result. Which may require a hull point loss.

However, I will say that RAW does not support bolt pistols or grenades as melee weapons. I do not consider marine bikers capable of taking special weapons until the FAQ drops.

You're 100% right. RAW does not support it. However, if you read through the debate I had last night, you would come to the conclusion that I did. It solely is based around the 'No Specified Melee Weapon' rule found on BRB pg. 51. In it is says that if you don't have a melee weapon, then you count as having a single CCW. This becomes problematic with units such as Tactical Squads who don't have a melee weapon, but CLEARLY do not get an extra one because then they'd get the extra attack in assaults. The only logical conclusion is that a pistol must always count as a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Added more clarification to original post on biker special weapon swap.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:

• Bikes have the option to take special weapons, yet do not have a close combat weapon or boltgun to swap. Do they need to swap out a weapon (if so, what) or do they ignore the weapon swap requirement?
Answer: No weapon swap required
C:SM pg. 174 Bike squad options "Up to two SM bikers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list."
Never does it say you have to replace a weapon. Pretty cut and dry. A few options, like Sternguard, have the same wording.

Perhaps you should look at the sentence before the upgrade cost in the Ranged Weapons Armory.

FAQ just fixed this.