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 have a question after getting my hands on the codex

For the flakk missles,,,

is it 15pts for a regular missle launcher and then another 10 to add the flakk
or is it
15 for regular missles
or
10 for flakk?
I hate the way they are righting these codexs now,with all the rules and points costs split up in different sections.

It is 15 points for a middle launcher with frag/krak missiles.

It is another 10 points for the flakk missiles.

Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Gomericus wrote:
Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Larger bubble, more wounds, can have both.
Primaris is overall better though.

Gomericus wrote:
Ok heres another one

Whats the point of the wydrence psykers vs a regular primus?

Wyrdvane.

You usually take wyrdvanes if you already have 3 primaris. Wyrdvanes also work really well in fortifications - they're easy to hide and don't die to glancing hits.

Apologies if this has been asked already - search doesn't seem to be working currently!

So Heavy Weapon Teams are treated "for all game purposes" as a single, bulky, 2 wound model. This leads me to three assumptions / questions:

1. I assume for any upgrades with a point cost per model, you would only pay once. For example, Carapace Armor in a CCS is 2 points per model. I assume, then, buying Carapace for the HWT would be 2 points, not 4.

Likewise this would reduce the cost of, say, krak grenades because the squad has 1 fewer models. Unless it's a vet squad, because the cost for vets is per unit not per model. Probably not intended, but means Guardsmen with HWT can take krak grenades for 9pts, vs 10pts for vets.

2. In regards to "the loader having a lasgun." The rules say 2 Guardsmen/Veterans "may form a Heavy Weapons Team" and must take an item from the Heavy Weapon list. It does not say the Lasgun is replaced by the Heavy Weapon (as is the case with special weapons). However, the HWT is a single model. I read this as meaning the HWT model can either shoot the Heavy Weapon or shoot it's Lasgun, but not both. You probably wouldn't want to do this often, maybe if you moved. Thoughts?

3. Hypothetical - Since the HWT is a single model, and since the Heavy Weapon is in addition to (rather than replacing) the model's lasgun, it stands to reason a HWT in a Command Squad (PCS or CCS) can replace its Lasgun with a Laspistol and CC Weapon. This would presumably be represented on the miniature via the loader. The result would be an extra attack (3 total) for HWT model in assault.

Thoughts on all this?

Thanks!

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
You're really sticking to the word "Charater" then? Strict RaW only? So Wraithguard can't shoot or assault?

You wouldn't consider ever replacing the word "character" with the word "model" when applied to a non-character?

That wouls be re-writing the rule. And will still break Eldar sharpshhoot, Sniper rifles, Advanced Targeting, and The Emperor's Benediction.

Why would I re-write a rule for RAW if it then conflicts with other things, when I can read it as it is already written and it functions fine?

Pecision shots has 2 meanings:
1) The special rule, which includes the first sentence and causes the effect called "Precision shots"
2) the effect which is everything in the special rule after the first sentence.

Sniper: rolling a 6 to hit are precision shots. Not gains the special rule, has the effect.
Eldar Sharpshot: always the effect, not the special rule.
Telion's Eye of Vengeance: always the effect, not the special rule.
Tau Advanced Targeting: Rolls of 6 gain the effect, Characters who roll a 5 or 6 gain the effect(only serves to extend the special rule for characters to rolls of 5 as well).
Take Aim: models in the unit gain the special rule(Hey look, different wording!, why it must be different).
Emperors benediction: has the Special rule Precision Shots; The whole rule, not just the effect. This is told to us by the BRB Page 51 under the subheading Type(found on page 50 and continuing to page 51). Type Consists of the, well type of weapon, the number of Shots, and any special rules the weapon has. Precision Shots is listed as a special rule for the Emporers benediction without any further information supplied, therefore it has the Special rule "Precision Shots" which requires a character to roll a 6 to hit in order to gain the effect "Precision Shots"

Maybe you should try and actually read the rules you are talking about a few times and grasp their meaning; everything except Take Aim specifies the shooting attacks are precision shots(even if it requires a 6 or other roll to gain the effect); The Precision Shots special rule's first sentence tells you a character's shooting attacks that roll a 6 to-hit are Precision Shots

Now you are taking a minority of Publications(AM Epub version) and stating that its definition of Precision Shots somehow takes precedence over the other 2 publications(iBook and physical) which both either reprint the special rule in whole, or say nothing about it so you have to go to the Special rule in the BRB(and read it in whole).

Even If the E-pub and iBook versions of all 3 Eldar, Tau Empire, and Space Marines listed the definition of Precision Shots without the first sentence, that would be Fine, because those books do not grant the special rule, only the effect.

Precision shots do not have two meanings. Precision shots are one special rule. They mean that wounds are allocated. The first sentence in the subheading is there because it's in the character's subheading, and even as a part of the special rule it does not demand that any source of precision shots requires a rule to 6.

There's no ambiguity here. The epub has a tidy version, but it does not conflict with the BRB or the ibook.

I point you back to the post ion the previous page where I describe how grammar works and illustrate this in detail. Here, read it again.

"If any of your characters' shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots."

We begin with the subject of the sentence. The character. More specifically, any of your characters. This sentence establishes the subject of itself, and it is any of your characters. Subjects in English grammar are words, phrases, and clauses that perform the action of or act upon verbs. Simple, yes?

Step 1 down, whew!

So what do we have next? We have our subject. We also have out condition! Roll a 6 to hit. Simple enough, I shouldn't need to describe that one, right? The subject has acted and has rolled a 6 to hit, our if clause is satiafied. So we move on to the bit after the comma, what does rolling a 6 to hit with precision shots mean?

".., these are precision shots"

So if your characters, the subject, roll a 6, the condition, these rolls are precision shots. Makes sense! What this means is that any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

Allow me to emphasize that. Any roll of a 6, is a precision shot.

So any roll of a 6 on your characters is a precision shot, right? Simple. If subject A preforms action B it becomes special rule C.

But this does not mean that B is equal to C. Precision shot is not demanded to require a roll of a 6 by this sentence. Precision shot is never even hinted to require a roll of a 6. Rolling a 6 on a character is simply an optional entry condition for precision shot. I can't stress this enough. It's an inclusive condition that does not equate to the only condition. Even as it's listed in the ibook, or in the BRB.

That sentence makes no demands on precision shots, as a subject, only activating on 6's.
It only demands that characters with 6's get precision shots.

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

Obviously not, with your flawed interpretation.

Fragile wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Trust me, I grasp their meaning. I know it perfectly well.

Obviously not, with your flawed interpretation.

Bold statement. Feel free to refute me with an explanation on how the first sentence makes any demand of any source of precision shots requiring 6's. Here's a hint, it doesn't.

But go on. Explain to me. Elucidate your amazing understanding of the English language.

Boy let me see;
BRB page 63 Precision Shots Special rule:
If any of your character's shots roll a 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots

The first sentence of the special rule gives you the name of the effect, which happens to be the same name. The rest of the rule use the term in regards to the first sentence, the effect.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Boy let me see;
BRB page 63 Precision Shots Special rule:
If any of your character's shots roll a 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots

The first sentence of the special rule gives you the name of the effect, which happens to be the same name. The rest of the rule use the term in regards to the first sentence, the effect.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning.

Well, no. You're implying that a part of a sentence has a meaning that it needs additional qualification in order to require.

These are precision shots. You know what these refers to? These refers to characters that have rolled a 6 to hit. That roll is a precision shot.

There are, however, is not an exclusive condition. I can have a bunch of squares. There are quadrilaterals. They are not the only type of quadrilateral. Saying that these are means they they are, but does not mean that they are the only.

As I keep stating. It's an inclusive condition. Rolling a 6 with a character nets you precision shots. Having the Emperor's Benediction also nets you precision shots. Issuing the order Take Aim! also nets you precision shots.

So Models with a weapon that does not roll to hit and has the gets hot Special rule can ignore the condition of first rolling a 1 on a d6, they will always "Get Hot" since they have the rule, always take the wound, and never fire?

Right?

That is your assertion, that you can ignore a part of the rule that dictates an effect when that effect has the same name as the Special rule.

Or you are just wrong, do not know the English language and grammar quite as well as you keep claiming(as is so often the case when someone mentions them at least every other post, while failing to prove their point), and have to fall back on convoluted claims that the words do not state exactly as they state.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So Models with a weapon that does not roll to hit and has the gets hot Special rule can ignore the condition of first rolling a 1 on a d6, they will always "Get Hot" since they have the rule, always take the wound, and never fire?

Right?

That is your assertion, that you can ignore a part of the rule that dictates an effect when that effect has the same name as the Special rule.

Or you are just wrong, do not know the English language and grammar quite as well as you keep claiming(as is so often the case when someone mentions them at least every other post, while failing to prove their point), and have to fall back on convoluted claims that the words do not state exactly as they state.

No, because gets hot weapons that do not need to roll to hit (blast and similar) have a rule that quantifies how they work with relevant wording.

The first sentence is there because it was originally in the characters subheading. It quantifies how characters get a precision shot. Notably, it also only applies your characters- if the first part of the rule does somehow apply to everyone all the time, it's worth noting that Take Aim! will do nothing to anything that's not a character and the Emperor's Benediction does absolutely nothing ever.

But that's irrelevant, because it's not a demand for precision shots. Characters do not have a precision shots special rule, they get them on 6's. Precision shots are described mechanically after that line. And the roll of 6's is not a demanded to be required.

It applies in this case because of language, and not to gets hot because of the exact same reason.

If that were to be the case the qualifier would be under the sub heading "Characters and shooting", but it is not, it is a part of the special rule, just like Gets Hot and weapons that do not roll to hit.

If the Emperors benediction always has Precision shots without the qualifying conditions being met because it has the special rule "Precision Shots, Then Plasma Cannons always Get Hot without the qualifying conditions being met because they have the Special rule "Gets Hot" and do not roll to hit.

The sentence about gets hot is there because that is how you get the effect of the special rule; it quantifies how your weapons get hot.

I will admit to Take Aim being poorly written in that it references a rule that only applies to characters, we can extend logic to determine it must apply to all the models in the unit because it gives all the models in the unit the special rule.

Extending the sentence through logic is less breaking the rule than ignoring the sentence altogether.

We must look at the interaction of the 2 rules and say that they must mean to treat all the models in the ordered unit like characters fort the duration of the shooting attack; not that since they have no way to meet the qualifications of the special we can ignore those qualifications.

Language tells us that the Precision Shots special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is written in plain black and white. Language also tells us that the Gets Hot special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is exactly the same situation

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If that were to be the case the qualifier would be under the sub heading "Characters and shooting", but it is not, it is a part of the special rule, just like Gets Hot and weapons that do not roll to hit.

Here's the thing. It wasn't a special rule until the AM codex. It was just an advanced rule and art of the shooting mechanics. The precison shots subheading is there because that's where they decided to list in in the BRB. And it's a part of the text of the rule in the ibook, certainly, but even as a part of the text it makes no demands of all shots meeting the perquisite.

If the Emperors benediction always has Precision shots without the qualifying conditions being met because it has the special rule "Precision Shots, Then Plasma Cannons always Get Hot without the qualifying conditions being met because they have the Special rule "Gets Hot" and do not roll to hit.

But it doesn't. We have a very clear subheading instructing us about gets hot and not rolling to hit. It tells us that Weapons that do not roll to hit must roll a d6 for each shot immediately before firing. That's why it applies universally. It's a universal qualifying statement.

If the first line said 'models with the precision shot special rule may allocate their wounds on a roll of a 6' then Precison shot would function the same way. It does not. It tells us that If any of our characters roll a 6 those are precision shots, and leaves it at that. There is a massive difference in meaning because of the huge difference in form.

The sentence about gets hot is there because that is how you get the effect of the special rule; it quantifies how your weapons get hot.

And it does it with a clause that applies to everything.

I will admit to Take Aim being poorly written in that it references a rule that only applies to characters, we can extend logic to determine it must apply to all the models in the unit because it gives all the models in the unit the special rule.

Extending the sentence through logic is less breaking the rule than ignoring the sentence altogether.

We don't ignore it. We use it exactly as it is written.

How it is written is that characters that roll a 6 to hit get precison shots.

How it is not written is that any model with precision shots must then roll a 6 to hit to allocate the wound.

We don't ignore the sentence. We use it as it written.

What you are doing in giving a sentence more meaning than it has. You're extending the coverage of a sentence to scenarios and cases it does not apply to. The sentence never once mentions models with precison shot before they roll a 6, only that models that are characters have precision shot after they have roll a 6 regardless of other modifiers.

We must look at the interaction of the 2 rules and say that they must mean to treat all the models in the ordered unit like characters fort the duration of the shooting attack; not that since they have no way to meet the qualifications of the special we can ignore those qualifications.

No, we mustn't. Because A) They're not, and B) It's not required.

Language tells us that the Precision Shots special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is written in plain black and white. Language also tells us that the Gets Hot special rule has a qualifying condition in order for it to be applied; it is exactly the same situation

It really dosen't. Language tells us that a certain subset of unit (characters) have a condition by which they gain the special rule. It's not in any way exactly the same situation because they are written differently.

Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do.

'If any of your infantry's shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots'. Is that how you want the rule to read? Because I'd be all for having ever model able to be a sniper at any time ever.

Hell. Why don't we replace 6's with 3's? That could be interesting too. Why bother using the rule at all? let's just swap out anything for anything else and say that's how we want to play.

It has always been a Special rule, One with an effect that has the same name.

In the special rule characters gain the effect under certain conditions, as do other models with special rules that grant the effect(sometimes under certain conditions).

We also have very clear instructions for how the effects of Precision shots are applied; there is no diference in form, Characters must meet the qualifications for the effect just like the plasma cannon must meet the qualifications for the effect(Note: Lord Commissars, the only model that can take the Emperors Benediction, is a Character).

That clause(Gets hot and weapons that do not roll to hit) does not apply to everything. It only applies to gets hot weapons that do not ro9ll to hit. It does not apply to boltguns. It Does not apply to Assault cannons.

Characters that roll a 6 to hit get the effect Precision Shots, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

Just like Plasma Cannons that roll a 1 on the d6 get the effect Gets Hot, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

If you ignore the condition for one effect because the model or weapon has the special rule, you must ignore the condition for the other.

Yes, I am extending the coverage of the sentence, do you know why I am extending the coverage of the sentence? Because another rule is in Place that grants the rule(containing that sentence) to models that are not within the coverage of that sentence. And the rule that grants the Precision Shots rule to the models that are not within the coverage [i[very specifically[/i] grants the precision shots special rule to those models.

Ignoring the qualifications for the effect outright because the models granted the rule by an outside agency is a far more drastic change to the rule than simply altering 1 word within the qualification to encompass those models granted the rule by an outside agency but not the correct type to ever meet the qualifications.

Yes we must look to the interaction of the 2 rules, otherwise there is no discussion because all we are looking at is the 1 rule that simply does as it says. There is an interaction between the 2 rules: Rule 1 grants rule 2 to models that cannot use rule 2, that is an interaction we need to decipher.

You should go back and read both rules, they are not written differently. A subset of weapons with the gets hot rule(ones that do not roll to hit) have a condition by which they gain the same named effect(exactly like characters and the Precision Shots special rule). But if we go by your interpretation a plasma Cannon does not have the Gets Hot Special Rule until it rolls a 1 on the d6(meets the condition to "Gets Hot"), but it does not have to roll that d6 unless it is a weapon with the gets hot Special Rule. So which is it? Does it never have to roll the d6 toi see if it has the special rule? Or does it have the special rule and therefore whether it rolls the 1 or not it has the special rule and the special rule goes on to say that weapons that do not roll to hit and have the special rule that then have the special rule do not fire and cause a wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Its funny how you completely ignore any kind of context to argue your point. Even when shown that the links in those book cite the same rule that you argue against. The ability links to a special rule that mentions characters, yet you refuse to accept that characters can be replaced with anything.

If we replace the characters with (infantry), than all infantry get precision shots on a 6 even if they don't have Take Aim! applied to them (or similar) in the same way characters do.

This is the single most worthless sentence you have yet written and shows exactly why you are arguing nonsense.

You do not understand how 2 rules interact.

No one is saying to completely, in all cases, replace the word characters. We are saying when an outside rule(Take Aim) grants the rule to models that are not characters, we should replace the word characters for something akin to simply "model" for the express purposes of resolving the outside rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yes and back to your earlier assertions that Characters do not have the Precision shots Special Rule:

Yes they do, Exactly the Same as how Jet pack/Jump subtypes have the skyborne special rule. And Jet Pack subtypes have the thrust move special rule
Or how Bikes and Jetbikes have the Turbo-boost Special Rule.
Or how Flying Monstrous Creatures have the Swooping hunters, Leaving Combat Airspace and Hard to Hit special rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It has always been a Special rule, One with an effect that has the same name.

In the special rule characters gain the effect under certain conditions, as do other models with special rules that grant the effect(sometimes under certain conditions).

Not true. Not only is it not listed in the special rule section, but no other instance of it cropping up is ever listed as a special rule either.

If 'Precision Shot' is a special rule since the BRB, and requires the roll of a 6, why is is not listed alongside rending and pining on sniper rifles? Why is it not in the special rules listing? Why is it that it's suddenly the only example in the BRB of a special rule never described as such?

The vehicles section has a subheading about jink, where it describes 'saves from the Jink special rule'. Monstrous creatures have the 'special rules' subheading where it lists Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash.

Anything that is a special rule is always refereed to as such. Until Codex: Astra Militarum, it was not a special rule. And by continuation, characters cannot have it, as their most recent rules are in the BRB and FAQ and prior to the release of AM.

Precision shots as a thing were only a part of the mechanics of the game, no more a 'Special Rule' than cover saves or ballistic skill.

There are only two sources of the 'Precision shot special rule' in WH40k. And that's the two in Codex: Astra Militarum.

Before, it was an effect you could gain under certain conditions. Now, it's a special rule. And we have two sources that give us a definition legally; the epub and ibook. One of which includes the mention of characters rolling 6's, as it is a copy paste of the subheading in the BRB under characters. And one which has no mention of characters and no mention of 6's, which is unique wording only found in the epub.

But prove me wrong, if you please. Find me any other reference that describes the 'Precision Shot special rule' or a Special rules subheading that includes 'Precision Shot'

We also have very clear instructions for how the effects of Precision shots are applied; there is no diference in form, Characters must meet the qualifications for the effect just like the plasma cannon must meet the qualifications for the effect (Note: Lord Commissars, the only model that can take the Emperors Benediction, is a Character).

We have very clear instructions about Precision Shot in general.

We have sentence 1- Criteria and result. If (rolled a 6 with a character) is met, result is Precision Shot. It's an entry condition for precision shots.

The very next sentence is "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

So we Issue Take Aim!. Out entire unit now has the Special Rule 'Precision Shot'. What does precision shot do? "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

We don't need to roll the 6 to be granted precision shots. Because we already have precision shots, universally.

That clause(Gets hot and weapons that do not roll to hit) does not apply to everything. It only applies to gets hot weapons that do not ro9ll to hit. It does not apply to boltguns. It Does not apply to Assault cannons.

And? If you really can't grasp the specifics of what I said, I'll repeat it with the implicit part too.

The Gets Hot! rules state that Everything (>>With gets hot<< functions in X manner.
By contrast, the Precision Shot first sentence states that Characters which roll a 6 function in X manner.

But I don't need to be a character which rolls a 6 to function in X manner, because that's not everything.

Characters that roll a 6 to hit get the effect Precision Shots, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

They get what used to be a part of shooting mechanics, and is now a special rule, to be exact about it. Just because it has a name, does not mean it is a special rule. Ram is not a special rule just because it has a name and a condition.

But the confusion is easy to understand; they've changed something subtly, after all. See how yet?

Just like Plasma Cannons that roll a 1 on the d6 get the effect Gets Hot, which is also the name of the rule that contains that condition.

Plasma cannons have the special rule gets hot, which forces them onto a roll which has a subsequent effect.
Characters roll dice which produce an effect, after which it begins to take effect.

Gets hot applies all the time, before the rolls for it are made. Precision shot for characters only applies after the roll is made to see if it does. Important difference.


If this were not the case, precision shot would have had to be written as rending is written. Beginning with the condition that precision shot is present on your model. It does not.

If you ignore the condition for one effect because the model or weapon has the special rule, you must ignore the condition for the other.

See above for why the comparison does not work.

Yes, I am extending the coverage of the sentence, do you know why I am extending the coverage of the sentence? Because another rule is in Place that grants the rule(containing that sentence) to models that are not within the coverage of that sentence. And the rule that grants the Precision Shots rule to the models that are not within the coverage very specifically grants the precision shots special rule to those models.

But here's the thing. The sentence doesn't even apply to them. You're trying to force a sentence to apply to a model it did not before and therefore altering the way the rule functions. That's not interpretation, that's editing to better suit your wants.

Take Aim! Grants Precision Shots. As a special rule, what does that do? "Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...."

That's it, plain and simple. ibook has it (subject to objection on faulty grounds) and epub has it explicitly.

Ignoring the qualifications for the effect outright because the models granted the rule by an outside agency is a far more drastic change to the rule than simply altering 1 word within the qualification to encompass those models granted the rule by an outside agency but not the correct type to ever meet the qualifications.

It's not a qualication for an effect, though. It's a qualification by which you can get the rule. There's no 'Gets hot!' effect. There's no precision shot effect. There are two special rules.

The mechanics of gets hot involve taking a wound/glancing hit based on certain rolls.
The mechanics of precision shot involve allocating your wounds. Also, characters make them on 6's, good for characters.

Yes we must look to the interaction of the 2 rules, otherwise there is no discussion because all we are looking at is the 1 rule that simply does as it says. There is an interaction between the 2 rules: Rule 1 grants rule 2 to models that cannot use rule 2, that is an interaction we need to decipher.

Or more accurately, Order 1 gives Special rule 2 to models. Special rule 2 can be gained by Character's rolling a 6 to hit. Special rule 2 means you allocate wounds.

You should go back and read both rules, they are not written differently. A subset of weapons with the gets hot rule(ones that do not roll to hit) have a condition by which they gain the same named effect(exactly like characters and the Precision Shots special rule). But if we go by your interpretation a plasma Cannon does not have the Gets Hot Special Rule until it rolls a 1 on the d6(meets the condition to "Gets Hot", but it does not have to roll that d6 unless it is a weapon with the gets hot Special Rule. So which is it? Does it never have to roll the d6 toi see if it has the special rule? Or does it have the special rule and therefore whether it rolls the 1 or not it has the special rule and the special rule goes on to say that weapons that do not roll to hit and have the special rule that then have the special rule do not fire and cause a wound?

Gets Hot! is not a named 'effect'. It does not say that if you roll a 1 your weapon has 'Gets Hot!'. It says that if your weapon gets hot, and X happens, Y happens.

Very, very unlike precision shot, where characters that roll a 6 get 'Precision shot'. It does not say characters have 'Precision Shot', and that if you do, and you roll a 6, you allocate the wound.

I don't know where you got this distinction between named rule, and the identically named purpose of said rule being somehow distinct, but please cite anywhere in the BRB something which supports being able to separate the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes they do, Exactly the Same as how Jet pack/Jump subtypes have the skyborne special rule. And Jet Pack subtypes have the thrust move special rule
Or how Bikes and Jetbikes have the Turbo-boost Special Rule.
Or how Flying Monstrous Creatures have the Swooping hunters, Leaving Combat Airspace and Hard to Hit special rules.

None of those are special rules


Let's quote from the 'Jet Pack Units' section. Page 47, BRB.

"Special rules

Jet Pack units have the bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules."

I don't see any Thrust Move listed there, do you?

Special Rules are a very specific subset of rules. They have to be defined as such to be as such. Thrust Move is not a special rule, Flat out is not a special rule, Gliding is not a special rule. They're just part of the mechanics.

Stop calling any advanced rule a special rule, this may be part of your confusion.

Rule #1 is neither optional nor contextual. Edited - mt11

Oh, really?

BRB page 7:

Basic Versus Advanced

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise...

..Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon... ...or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm, or even a tank)...

BRB page 32:

What Special rules do I have?

It may seem obvious, but unless otherwise stated, a model does not have a special rule.



Tell me again how movement rules are special rules? You go find me a quote from the BRB showing how Thrust Move is a special rule, and then come back to me and tell me about learning how the rules work.

For all your talk of language and grammar you seem to have trouble reading what is put in front of you.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
For all your talk of language and grammar you seem to have trouble reading what is put in front of you.

No, seriously. Quote me anything that defines Thrust Move as a special rule and not just an advanced one.

Anything.

No seriously, read my words.

read them

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No seriously, read my words.

read them

I did, and found them lacking.

You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

Or more accurately, my lack of care for your attempts to gloss over your gross lack of understanding by calling me a troll.

There are few arguments so lacking as that.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You continuing to ask me to discuss the rules with you disproves your reading.

Or more accurately, my lack of care for your attempts to gloss over your gross lack of understanding by calling me a troll.

There are few arguments so lacking as that.

Except for this tu quo que response.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Except for this tu quo que response.

I've already alluded my position on his actual argument that his listed mechanics are special rules, any why they're not- Precision Shot included (up until the release of C:AM, anyway).

I'd quite like to get a justification, or lack thereof. Forgive the ad homenim while I wait.