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.

You wont get it, you are simply wrong and have shown you do not understand the interaction of rules or the arguments presented.

There is no point in engaging you on the rules discussion any further.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 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.

Actually I called you out on responding criticism with criticism. Where's the personal attack? This is getting juicy!

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 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.

Actually I called you out on responding criticism with criticism. Where's the personal attack? This is getting juicy!

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

Tu Quo Que is a fallacy of its own since it's so prevalent, I can see how you would see it as an ad hominem. I can give you a more correct definition in a PM if you'd like.

At any rate, this issue should be resolved in the new rulebook, so I feel it's best we put it to bed for now.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

Tu quoque is a specific kind of ad homenim, as far as I'm aware? Not so much a personal attack as a fallacy in argument to suggest that Kel is wrong by virtue of his flimsy excuse to back out of the scenario before ever actually providing evidence or support for any of his endless string of interesting claims.

Tu Quo Que is a fallacy of its own since it's so prevalent, I can see how you would see it as an ad hominem. I can give you a more correct definition in a PM if you'd like.

At any rate, this issue should be resolved in the new rulebook, so I feel it's best we put it to bed for now.

Probably. I can only expect that come the 24th (if Naftka is to be believed) the new section of special rules will include precision shot and an exact definition.

My assumption is it will be the same as the epub. But we don't know, so may as well twiddle our thumbs and wait. For those that haven't seen it:


Codex: Astra Militartum, epub, glossary

And duly noted on the fallacy side. I'll have a look into it, you've gone and got me curious.

Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

 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..

That response and your holding on to your different version of the rule shows you either do not understand at all or are simply trolling.

Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

Fragile wrote:

 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..

That response and your holding on to your different version of the rule shows you either do not understand at all or are simply trolling.

Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

Just a note, I already tried the argument eluded to in this post. It doesn't work.

Fragile wrote:
Either way, you still need 6's with Take Aim.

I have a rule book, published by GW, with a rule written specifically in it, and used within its pages, which tells me how do to a precision shot. It has zero mention of 6's anywhere. No, no I do not need a 6. And never did.

And it all again comes down to the fact that it only became a Precision Shot special rule in Codex: Astra Militarum.

Here's a thought experiment. Go through every single book and codex prior to C:AM, and replace the words 'precision shots' with 'the precision shots special rule'. Because that's the change that C:AM introduced. Changed a mechanics rule into a universal special one.

"If any of your characters shots roll a 6 to hit, these have the precision shot special rule" would be an up to date version of the first line in the ibook precision shot special rule. Sadly, the BRB version it copied is a listing that was intended for describing both characters and precision shot and is woefully out of date. But it still means the same thing, importantly.

Sadly, the ibook copy-pasted the same paragraph.

But even so, the 6's to hit is not a requirement for precision shot. The 6's to hit is a condition for characters that gives precision shot to a model that did not already have it. The two rules overlap, not contradict.




The very next line instructs us on how precision shots works.

"Wounds From Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice...." The take Aim! order gives us precision shots already, we don't need to roll the 6 to get them when we already have them.

If your characters roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots. If your character is wielding the emperor's benediction, these are precision shots. If your model has the take aim! order applied, these are precision shots.

 grendel083 wrote:
Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Does the ePub list that rule anywhere other than the Glossary?
If so does it differ?

Glossaries have been wrong on WAY more than one occasion as they tend to be shortened versions of the rule.
This is already conflicting with the iBook version.

Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

The Glossary and pop-ups sometimes vary.

And how do you know the iBook has superfluous rules, and the ePub isn't missing out vital rules?
The ePub being a glorified PDF is much more copy/paste than the interactive versions.

 grendel083 wrote:

brachiaraidos wrote:Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

The Glossary and pop-ups sometimes vary.

And how do you know the iBook has superfluous rules, and the ePub isn't missing out vital rules?
The ePub being a glorified PDF is much more copy/paste than the interactive versions.

It doesn't matter either way, is the thing.

You can use either definition and it still ends up with the same result for Take Aim! and the Emperor's benediction, the ibook just has some character specific rules included on top.

Yes, if your characters roll a 6 to hit, they are(/have the) precision shots (special rule). Yes, if you issue take aim, your units have the precision shots special rule. Yes, if your LC has the Benediction, he has the precision shots special rule.

The first line just also lets us know what characters get them on 6's, just outside of the characters section of the BRB. Where that information is rather un-needed.

Anyone worked up over this particular toy soldiers topic should now be stepping away for a long, long breather. This thread is incredibly close to being shut down and several warnings handed out. Rule #1 and rule #2 are non-optional. Be polite, don't derail the thread into 2 pages going 'no you!' About reading ability.

Thanks MT11

Azmordean wrote:

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.

Yep, sounds perfectlty legit.

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?

Yes, the team has a lasgun and a heavy weapon, and can fire either. Might be useful for moving mortar teams, for example.

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.

Nope. It says "Any guardsman/veteran may replace..." It does not apply to HWTs.

Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

 SwampRats45MK wrote:
Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

The unit gains the rule, they have to follow the whole rule(which includes the requirement for a ld test)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 SwampRats45MK wrote:
Just to re-ask what someone posited earlier, with the order "Smite at Will" do you indeed have to make a second leadership test to activate the split-fire USR or since it technically activates as the squad ordered passes its leadership test to even make use of the order that leadership result is used in its place?

The unit gains the rule, they have to follow the whole rule(which includes the requirement for a ld test)

And they have a 50% chance of wasting your order as a result.

Ld8 isn't that bad....

Sorry if I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion, but can someone explain how to handle shooting with one or several wyrwens?

Do you roll scatter dice+2d6 for each of the guns, or do you just roll once and then the scatter die for the other 3 shots?
Can you only reroll the initial hit (scatter die+2d6) or can you also reroll the scatter die for the 3 shots following the first one, since the gun is twin linked?

How do you handle shooting with a squadron of 3? That's potentially 12 gawd damn templates. Do you resolve each wyrwen one by one or do you just place one blast template, roll 2d6+scatter for that initial template and then just scatter die with the remaining 11?

You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

The rules for twin-linked blast weapons says that you MUST reroll both the 2d6 and the scatter. How litereally should that be taken? One could argue that since you do not roll 2d6 on the rolls following the intial scatter, you cannot do this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ld8 isn't that bad....

26/36*26/36=~52%.

You've gotta pass two LD8 tests.

FunJohn wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You follow the rules for multiple barrage. You Reroll the scatter dice for all up to eleven other shots

The rules for twin-linked blast weapons says that you MUST reroll both the 2d6 and the scatter. How litereally should that be taken? One could argue that since you do not roll 2d6 on the rolls following the intial scatter, you cannot do this.

But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

This is a debatable point, there are several pages on it already.

Yep, here's the other thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/590821.page

Fragile wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:But you don't roll 2D6 when you re-roll for a multiple barrage. It's only therefor if you re-roll the first scatter.

This is a debatable point, there are several pages on it already.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

brachiaraidos wrote:Not conflicting, just the ibook has superfluous amounts of rules listed in it's precision shot definition. But the ibook also only lists that in the glossary- it just brings the glossary definition up when you tap on it.

The Glossary and pop-ups sometimes vary.

And how do you know the iBook has superfluous rules, and the ePub isn't missing out vital rules?
The ePub being a glorified PDF is much more copy/paste than the interactive versions.

It doesn't matter either way, is the thing.

You can use either definition and it still ends up with the same result for Take Aim! and the Emperor's benediction, the ibook just has some character specific rules included on top.

Yes, if your characters roll a 6 to hit, they are(/have the) precision shots (special rule). Yes, if you issue take aim, your units have the precision shots special rule. Yes, if your LC has the Benediction, he has the precision shots special rule.

The first line just also lets us know what characters get them on 6's, just outside of the characters section of the BRB. Where that information is rather un-needed.

Please please tell me the ePub books are 100% RaW and never ever incorrect!

Here is my AS ePub:


Initiative 10 with 11 Wounds and Toughness 11? Any day!! =)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please please tell me the ePub books are 100% RaW and never ever incorrect!

brachiaraidos wrote:It doesn't matter either way, is the thing.

You can use either definition and it still ends up with the same result for Take Aim! and the Emperor's benediction

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
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.

I was only backing up the statement that ePubs have many mistakes and would say the ibook is a better source of reference

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
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.

I was only backing up the statement that ePubs have many mistakes and would say the ibook is a better source of reference

My point is it's a copy paste of the characters subheading in the BRB, so it contains a rule for getting precision shot as well as the definition of precision shot itself. Superfluous text. Better source of reference or no, the epub currently has the better writing of the rule; one without a misleading initial line people can try use to break precision shot in the name of trying to make it involve 6's

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
. Superfluous text.

A good term to use against arguments that prove you wrong. That RAW is just superfluous text! Interesting.

Fragile wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
. Superfluous text.

A good term to use against arguments that prove you wrong. That RAW is just superfluous text! Interesting.

he also argues that the precision shots is not a special rule; so Take Aim and Emperors benediction does nothing at all anyways since both refer to or have the special rule: Precision Shots.

Then his argument hinges on 1 publication out of 3 has a different rule listed for precision shots, so Hot Shot volley guns must have gets hot since 1 publication out of 4 have it listed as such in 1 instance of its rules(tempestus Scions armoury).

Fragile wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:
. Superfluous text.

A good term to use against arguments that prove you wrong. That RAW is just superfluous text! Interesting.

This is getting unnecessarily personal. Brachiaraidos is simply saying that the first sentence defines one particular situation in which you get precision shots. It then follows up with a definition of precision shots that doesn't mention rolling 6's. His point is logical and accusing him of not being able to make sense of the definition is rude and dishonest. I happen to agree with Brachiaraidos but it doesn't stop me from understanding where the other side is coming from.

Some of us read "If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots," as stating an example of a situation in which precision shots happen, but other powers/items could also grant or cause precision shots (see: Emperor's Benediction). If they had wanted Take Aim to to require rolling 6's they instead would have made the order grant the Sniper special rule, which is exactly what people are talking about: having to roll a 6 to get precision shots.

The other side of the argument says that "If any of your character's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots," means that rolling a 6 is a requirement. The idea is that the rolling of a 6 is an intrinsic part of getting a precision shot and any situation in which a particular model is granted precision shots would mean that it has to roll a 6 to get that precision shot effect.

I think there's a good list of relevant rules here for consideration: http://armourpiercingpi.blogspot.com/2014/04/astra-militarum-take-aim-and-precision.html

Accusing people of being unable to understand simple concepts, I believe, goes beyond what should be acceptable behavior in civil conversations. Once we start insulting each others' intelligence it all goes downhill and nothing gets accomplished.

Also, on a note, there's no fixation on the word character in the first sentence. The entry could just as easily read "If any of your model's shots roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Shots," and Brachiaraidos and my assertion would remain the same based on the wording of the relevant rules.