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.

Ok, here's the situation. You have a dreadnought in a Lucious Pattern Drop Pod (basically, an open-topped drop pod where the unit can stay inside it).

A flyrant then flies up to the drop pod and hits it with Electroshock Grubs (a haywire template). The unit inside should be taking D6 hits due to No Escape. My question is, are these D6 hits haywire as well?

Thanks.

Yes, the unit suffers D6 hits from the weapon you shot, since the weapon has the haywire special rule, the dreadnought suffers D6 haywire hits.

DaPino wrote:
Yes, the unit suffers D6 hits from the weapon you shot, since the weapon has the haywire special rule, the dreadnought suffers D6 haywire hits.

That's not what the No Escape rule says.

The weapon hit the vehicle - no argument.

There's nothing that says the weapon is what's causing the hits on the embarked unit.

the rule doesn't tell you to use the weapons special rules.

it only gives permission to cause d6 hits on the unit using the weapons S and AP.

If there was supposed to be permission for using the weapons special rules the 'no escape' rule would say that the hits would benefit from any special rules the weapon had, or something similar, but there is no such permission granted.

normally you can'thit embarked units when you hit a vehicle with a template weapon, the 'no escape' rule grants permission to cause d6 hits at the str and ap of the weapon on the embarked unit. none of that says anything else about the weapons profile, be it rending, concussive, destroyer, haywire, strikedown, whatever.

blaktoof wrote:
the 'no escape' rule grants permission to cause d6 hits at the str and ap of the weapon on the embarked unit. none of that says anything else about the weapons profile, be it rending, concussive, destroyer, haywire, strikedown, whatever.

I think you make the case right there. RAW is inconclusive on this topic. RAI is pretty clear. Weapon special rules would apply.

However, a more interesting question is what armor facing is hit on the embarked dreadnought. This is more likely to come up because most flamers don't have special rules like Rending or Haywire, and it is more likely to have a diversity of answers. Here are the answers and the supporting reasoning as I understand them:
Random -> hits are "Randomly Allocated", so roll off to pick the Armor Facing, and then you have to determine if each hit rolls off or if all of them hit the same side.
Side -> In situations where you can't determine a point of origin for the damage (i.e. Vector Strike) side armor is used.
Front -> I paid for an AV13 Dreadnought, and now you are telling me you can hurt it with a heavy flamer? Waaaa! No Fair!
Back -> If Flames are surrounding the thing, they are going to inflict the most damage to the lightest armor.

My ruling in the few (3-4) times I've encountered it has been to say roll for the number of hits and then roll off for each hit. Which is fine and good for when I'm TOing. Does anyone think LVO will rule differently?

tag8833 wrote:
I think you make the case right there. RAW is inconclusive on this topic. RAI is pretty clear. Weapon special rules would apply.

The RAW is conclusive. The weapon's special rules do not apply.

tag8833 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the 'no escape' rule grants permission to cause d6 hits at the str and ap of the weapon on the embarked unit. none of that says anything else about the weapons profile, be it rending, concussive, destroyer, haywire, strikedown, whatever.

I think you make the case right there. RAW is inconclusive on this topic. RAI is pretty clear. Weapon special rules would apply.

No, the RAW is not inconclusive. The fact that it doesn't mention using the weapon's special rules means that you don't use the weapon's special rules. You just use the strength and AP of the weapon, because the rule says so.

 insaniak wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the 'no escape' rule grants permission to cause d6 hits at the str and ap of the weapon on the embarked unit. none of that says anything else about the weapons profile, be it rending, concussive, destroyer, haywire, strikedown, whatever.

I think you make the case right there. RAW is inconclusive on this topic. RAI is pretty clear. Weapon special rules would apply.

No, the RAW is not inconclusive. The fact that it doesn't mention using the weapon's special rules means that you don't use the weapon's special rules. You just use the strength and AP of the weapon, because the rule says so.

That the argument for why model special rules like Smash (AP:2) wouldn't apply on MSS, and yet nobody actually plays that way. Am I wrong? Should I be taking armor saves when MSS makes my Barbed Heirodule (3+) hit himself with his Scything Talons (AP:6)?

It seems like that precedence would clearly apply in this situation as well.

tag8833 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the 'no escape' rule grants permission to cause d6 hits at the str and ap of the weapon on the embarked unit. none of that says anything else about the weapons profile, be it rending, concussive, destroyer, haywire, strikedown, whatever.

I think you make the case right there. RAW is inconclusive on this topic. RAI is pretty clear. Weapon special rules would apply.

No, the RAW is not inconclusive. The fact that it doesn't mention using the weapon's special rules means that you don't use the weapon's special rules. You just use the strength and AP of the weapon, because the rule says so.

That the argument for why model special rules like Smash (AP:2) wouldn't apply on MSS, and yet nobody actually plays that way. Am I wrong? Should I be taking armor saves when MSS makes my Barbed Heirodule (3+) hit himself with his Scything Talons (AP:6)?

It seems like that precedence would clearly apply in this situation as well.

The difference here is that MSS uses any of the character's rules or weapons special abilities to apply on the hits. IE Force, or Deathwing Knight's Smite Mode.

tag8833 wrote:
That the argument for why model special rules like Smash (AP:2) wouldn't apply on MSS, and yet nobody actually plays that way. Am I wrong? Should I be taking armor saves when MSS makes my Barbed Heirodule (3+) hit himself with his Scything Talons (AP:6)?

It seems like that precedence would clearly apply in this situation as well.

From the description of Mindshackle Scarabs from Codex Necrons:

These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength, and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which, if there is a choice).

No Escape has no such similar wording that would allow the weapon's special rules to be used.

 Ghaz wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
That the argument for why model special rules like Smash (AP:2) wouldn't apply on MSS, and yet nobody actually plays that way. Am I wrong? Should I be taking armor saves when MSS makes my Barbed Heirodule (3+) hit himself with his Scything Talons (AP:6)?

It seems like that precedence would clearly apply in this situation as well.

From the description of Mindshackle Scarabs from Codex Necrons:

These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength, and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which, if there is a choice).

No Escape has no such similar wording that would allow the weapon's special rules to be used.

Yes. That is what I was saying. Smash is not an ability or penalty from a close combat weapon. It is a model ability. I brought this example up, because since weapon special rules are explicitly invoke, and yet model special rules are not, there is a significantly stronger RAW argument against not applying things like Smash and Toxin Sacs. And yet, all tourneys seem to rule that Mind Shackle Scarabs get the benefit of non-optional model special rules like Smash and Toxin Sacs. It appears to be a widespread embracing of a purely RAI concept that applies in this situation as well. Personally, I would probably have gone RAW and allowed neither model special rules for MSS nor Weapon Special rules for "No Escape", but since we have started on that path, at the very least we can be consistent, right?

And how does a model's ability factor into using a weapon's special rules for 'No Escape'?

smash does state it affects all of the models close combat attacks.

regardless of the wording of smash.

the rule for no escape permits you to do certain things that you cannot normally do.

hit an embarked unit with d6 hits equal to the weapons S and AP.

it would still need to state permission to hit with the abilities or penalties of the weapon if it were granted permission to do that as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Yes, the unit suffers D6 hits from the weapon you shot, since the weapon has the haywire special rule, the dreadnought suffers D6 haywire hits.

That's not what the No Escape rule says.

Spoiler:

No Escape
If a Template weapon hits a building’s Fire Point or an Open-topped vehicle and there is a unit embarked inside that building or vehicle, then in addition to any other effects that unit suffers D6 hits, resolved at the Strength and AP of the weapon. These hits are Randomly Allocated.

The weapon hit the vehicle - no argument.

There's nothing that says the weapon is what's causing the hits on the embarked unit.

Ok, I think you're right. RAW the hits would not be Haywire.

tag8833 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
That the argument for why model special rules like Smash (AP:2) wouldn't apply on MSS, and yet nobody actually plays that way. Am I wrong? Should I be taking armor saves when MSS makes my Barbed Heirodule (3+) hit himself with his Scything Talons (AP:6)?

It seems like that precedence would clearly apply in this situation as well.

From the description of Mindshackle Scarabs from Codex Necrons:

These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength, and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which, if there is a choice).

No Escape has no such similar wording that would allow the weapon's special rules to be used.

Yes. That is what I was saying. Smash is not an ability or penalty from a close combat weapon. It is a model ability. I brought this example up, because since weapon special rules are explicitly invoke, and yet model special rules are not, there is a significantly stronger RAW argument against not applying things like Smash and Toxin Sacs. And yet, all tourneys seem to rule that Mind Shackle Scarabs get the benefit of non-optional model special rules like Smash and Toxin Sacs. It appears to be a widespread embracing of a purely RAI concept that applies in this situation as well. Personally, I would probably have gone RAW and allowed neither model special rules for MSS nor Weapon Special rules for "No Escape", but since we have started on that path, at the very least we can be consistent, right?

Individual tournaments can do what they want. RAW is Smash doesn't apply and neither would Haywire (in this situation).
Have many tournaments ruled otherwise? Sure. That doesn't change the actual rules though.

rigeld2 wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Yes, the unit suffers D6 hits from the weapon you shot, since the weapon has the haywire special rule, the dreadnought suffers D6 haywire hits.

That's not what the No Escape rule says.

Spoiler:

No Escape
If a Template weapon hits a building’s Fire Point or an Open-topped vehicle and there is a unit embarked inside that building or vehicle, then in addition to any other effects that unit suffers D6 hits, resolved at the Strength and AP of the weapon. These hits are Randomly Allocated.

The weapon hit the vehicle - no argument.

There's nothing that says the weapon is what's causing the hits on the embarked unit.

You can say that it's heavily implied that it's the weapon that cause the hits on the embarked unit. After all, nothing else is shooting. Which would mean yes, the unit takes Haywire hits.

So do you take armour saves against Gets Hot! results?

No, because the Gets Hot! rule is causing the damage, not the weapon. Same here

 N.I.B. wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Yes, the unit suffers D6 hits from the weapon you shot, since the weapon has the haywire special rule, the dreadnought suffers D6 haywire hits.

That's not what the No Escape rule says.

Spoiler:

No Escape
If a Template weapon hits a building’s Fire Point or an Open-topped vehicle and there is a unit embarked inside that building or vehicle, then in addition to any other effects that unit suffers D6 hits, resolved at the Strength and AP of the weapon. These hits are Randomly Allocated.

The weapon hit the vehicle - no argument.

There's nothing that says the weapon is what's causing the hits on the embarked unit.

You can say that it's heavily implied that it's the weapon that cause the hits on the embarked unit. After all, nothing else is shooting. Which would mean yes, the unit takes Haywire hits.

No, the No Escape rule is causing the hits. It doesn't matter if nothing else is shooting.

I fire a lascannon at a vehicle and it explodes. Do the marines standing next to it get to take armor saves? After all, the only thing shooting was the lascannon...

Whether or not the "No Escape" rule applies the weapon special rules was a topic of this other thread over here. It was inconclusive. However, there was no mention of what facing the hits would be done against.

It's especially important for the Necron Abyssal Staff - it's strength 8, but with the "Shroud of Despair" special rule that says it rolls to wound against Leadership, not Toughness, and doesn't affect vehicles. It's therefore in the same (open-topped) boat as electro-grubs.

Not really "inconclusive". It was one person ignoring how English works to make it read their way vs how the sentence actually reads and the RAW.

Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't this situation not possible? There is no way to stay embarked on the Lucius Drop Pod, the benefit you get via its rule "Burning Retros" is that the model gains the "Shrouded" Special Rule the turn it arrives and confers that rule to the Dreadnaught it was carring should it remain in contact with any part of its structure. "Drop Pod Assault" Rule still states the the doors of the pod are opened upon deployment.

so the situation OP described can't happen and instead both the Dreadnaught and the Pod would take a single Haywire Template hit? but that is what I see as I checked the Rules for the Pod found on page 160 of Imperial Armour Volume 2 Second Edition.

 CronikCRS wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't this situation not possible? There is no way to stay embarked on the Lucius Drop Pod, the benefit you get via its rule "Burning Retros" is that the model gains the "Shrouded" Special Rule the turn it arrives and confers that rule to the Dreadnaught it was carring should it remain in contact with any part of its structure. "Drop Pod Assault" Rule still states the the doors of the pod are opened upon deployment.

so the situation OP described can't happen and instead both the Dreadnaught and the Pod would take a single Haywire Template hit? but that is what I see as I checked the Rules for the Pod found on page 160 of Imperial Armour Volume 2 Second Edition.

There's nothing forcing the Dreadnaught to disembark in the current rules for the pod.

 CronikCRS wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't this situation not possible? There is no way to stay embarked on the Lucius Drop Pod, the benefit you get via its rule "Burning Retros" is that the model gains the "Shrouded" Special Rule the turn it arrives and confers that rule to the Dreadnaught it was carring should it remain in contact with any part of its structure. "Drop Pod Assault" Rule still states the the doors of the pod are opened upon deployment.

so the situation OP described can't happen and instead both the Dreadnaught and the Pod would take a single Haywire Template hit? but that is what I see as I checked the Rules for the Pod found on page 160 of Imperial Armour Volume 2 Second Edition.

Reread the Lucius rules in their entirety, and note that they are NOT forced to disembark. Not all DPA rules are born equal.

wait!!

People use Smash with MSS?

That is not allowed with MSS!

edit:
sorry off track there

40k-noob wrote:
wait!!

People use Smash with MSS?

That is not allowed with MSS!

edit:
sorry off track there

See here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/585587.page

If you argue that you can't use a weapons special rules when using No Escape than neither can you when Overwatching. Pretty sure Overwatching just allows you to use the Strength and AP of the weapon - similarly worded as No Escape.

(Don't have my book on me, so this is from memory when I was trying to figure out this situation myself when I faced some Dreadnaughts in Lucius pods).

rollawaythestone wrote:
If you argue that you can't use a weapons special rules when using No Escape than neither can you when Overwatching. Pretty sure Overwatching just allows you to use the Strength and AP of the weapon - similarly worded as No Escape.

(Don't have my book on me, so this is from memory when I was trying to figure out this situation myself when I faced some Dreadnaughts in Lucius pods).

Nope. You're 100% incorrect. Wait for your book to be in front of you to form a coherent argument please.

Sorry what I meant was the "Wall of Flame" text on Overwatch. It states you only use the Strength and AP of the flame template.

rollawaythestone wrote:
Sorry what I meant was the "Wall of Flame" text on Overwatch. It states you only use the Strength and AP of the flame template.

It's different.

In this case, No Escape is providing the hits. For Wall of Death (the correct name for the rule) the Template weapon is still causing the hits.

rollawaythestone wrote:
Sorry what I meant was the "Wall of Flame" text on Overwatch. It states you only use the Strength and AP of the flame template.

Yes, and? That's what the rule has been it isn't new.