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.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

They would FAQ it because vehicles have two Sides but only one front and rear. So the question was "which side does it hit" - not which facing, but which of the two sides.

GW said "the nearest side" which makes sense because it is still the side but clarifies which one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:
Side means left or right. If it said "nearest facing" then I could see a problem, but it doesn't.

But that's the problem, it doesn't. They use the word "side" not "side armor facing". Anyone could easily argue that back side is a side, so is front side. Why would they bother to include anything about assuming where the shot is coming from if it's always going to hit side armor value anyways?

What I'm getting at, is that their use of only the word "side", not "side armor value", stating that we're assuming the shot's coming from the center of the blast, and the fact that it's the same way infantry wounds are allocated, leads me to interpret that they intended for barrage blasts to hit the nearest armor facing of the vehicle based on which is closest to the blast center.

I'm not saying anyone's interpretation is wrong, but this is the kind of lazy wording of rules and FAQ's from GW that I hate.

They would FAQ it because vehicles have two Sides but only one front and rear. So the question was "which side does it hit" - not which facing, but which of the two sides.

GW said "the nearest side" which makes sense because it is still the side but clarifies which one.

There is no reason to specify which side though, as there is no vehicle in the game that has 2 sides with different armor. If it always struck side armor, it would be irrelevant which side as there is no scenario I can think of where it matters which side you hit. Even in vehicle listings, it's just "F/S/R", not "F/S/S/R". In normal English, when you say the word side without any adjectives around it, it means any side, not just right or left.

If someone was standing behind me, and I told you they poked my nearest side, and then asked you what side they poked, what would your answer be? You would say my back. You wouldn't say right or left because I've used no other terms or adjectives that would exclude my rear.

By using the word "side" without the words "armor facing" or "armor value" to specify that they're referring to an actual game value or concept, not just the general concept of side, they're failing to exclude the front and rear armor.

As far as overthinking it, I'll point out that I didn't question what the BRB FAQ stated and meant. I was pretty certain what it meant after one read through. Someone else questioned my interpretation. I questioned why GW's FAQ's directly conflicted, not what they meant as currently worded.

There are things in the game that make it matter which side is hit though, such as a Knight's ion shield, which can protect the right but not the left side.

And yes, you would be correct if the rulebook didn't already say to use Side Armour Value and the FAQ just clarified which "side" since vehicles have two and sometimes it matters, if a vehicle has some type of direction that can only protect one Side Armou facing at a time.

It never matters whether the blast is hitting left or right armor facing, because the ion shield is determined by the direction of the firer, not the blast, per the IK codex FAQ. The ion shield is determined in a completely different manner than the armor facing with barrage, which removes it as a valid example of why left or right would ever matter.

I'm still failing to come up with any example of why it would ever matter whether something hits left or right side armor value on a vehicle, and if I can't come up with an example of why that would matter I can only be led to believe that they meant the general English meaning of "side" not "side armor value".

Also, they've already demonstrated in multiple FAQ's that they're perfectly willing to put out FAQ's that directly contradict what the actual rulebook says, so saying the rulebook says one thing is not a valid argument or line of logic either.

Refusing to read the information provided that explains the reason is probably why you just aren't getting.

This dead horse is fully flogged, time to move along.

SJ

You know, it's ok to say the horse is dead and agree to disagree and all. But next time, don't tell another poster that they're just "refusing to read the information" because you don't agree with them. Use manners. Have a great day.

chrispy1991 wrote:It never matters whether the blast is hitting left or right armor facing, because the ion shield is determined by the direction of the firer, not the blast, per the IK codex FAQ. The ion shield is determined in a completely different manner than the armor facing with barrage, which removes it as a valid example of why left or right would ever matter.

I'm still failing to come up with any example of why it would ever matter whether something hits left or right side armor value on a vehicle, and if I can't come up with an example of why that would matter I can only be led to believe that they meant the general English meaning of "side" not "side armor value".

Saves are the reason why, Invul or Cover matters. Barrage Weapons also determine the direction of the Attacker based on the center of the marker, not the direction of the model firing the Weapon.

Depending on the Weapon, it is entirely possible for a Barrage Weapon to be hitting the side opposite of the firer AND be hitting across Cover (though, less likely for a Knight, but the concept still applies for its consideration of the Ion Shield).

chrispy1991 wrote:Also, they've already demonstrated in multiple FAQ's that they're perfectly willing to put out FAQ's that directly contradict what the actual rulebook says, so saying the rulebook says one thing is not a valid argument or line of logic either.

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

Except the formation did not specifically say first turn. It says automatically enter from Reserves..... Which do not happen until turn 2 normally

Guys I can agree with Jeffersonian000 that the argument is dead. Really, let's not get into what a FAQ is. I feel like we're delving into the mysteries of life now.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

Look up what "errata" and "amendment" are. The errata and amendments change the written words, the FAQ tells you how to handle the rules.

Again, that is assuming you are following it at all. Some areas prefer their own FAQ or one of the tournament circuit FAQs rejecting GW's.

 Charistoph wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

Look up what "errata" and "amendment" are. The errata and amendments change the written words, the FAQ tells you how to handle the rules.

Again, that is assuming you are following it at all. Some areas prefer their own FAQ or one of the tournament circuit FAQs rejecting GW's.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Tau_Empire_v1.0.pdf

In the faq section. So back your condescension right back to 0

 chrispy1991 wrote:
You know, it's ok to say the horse is dead and agree to disagree and all. But next time, don't tell another poster that they're just "refusing to read the information" because you don't agree with them. Use manners. Have a great day.

I explained why sides matter and why AV facing is not the same thing as which side was hit. Continuing to make statements about nit understanding why it matters after its already been explained means that you are either choosing to ignore the explanation or you fail to read the explanation. So did you read the explanation?

SJ

I sure did. And they're all invalid. Have you considered that your explanations could have holes? That your explanations can be disagreed with while fully understanding their meaning? That you could be human and thus your explanations are fallible? Have you read my explanations?

At no point did I simply state you were wrong because you were wrong. I explained why your explanations were invalid in my eyes. You simply disagreed with them, and then decided that I must not have read your explanations because I disagreed.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

Look up what "errata" and "amendment" are. The errata and amendments change the written words, the FAQ tells you how to handle the rules.

Again, that is assuming you are following it at all. Some areas prefer their own FAQ or one of the tournament circuit FAQs rejecting GW's.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Tau_Empire_v1.0.pdf

In the faq section. So back your condescension right back to 0

Don't tell someone to back off their condescension when you are applying it liberally, please.

Your link provides no such definition. Now look up the Rulebook Errata and read the second paragraph which does. Heck, look up the definitions of those things in general and you have an explanation of what I have stated.

And this still does not separate player choices from the consideration. They can choose to follow the FAQ or the written word as they choose, so being aware of both is good.

 Charistoph wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It matters if you don't follow their FAQ. The FAQs do nothing to change the book, just how we are to read it.

Except for where the FAQ directly contradicts the written rules.. The mont'ka book has a formation of 3 razorshark fighters (pretty garbage tier by most measures) that automatically come on if your opponent has a flyer/skimmer/jetbike/FMC in swooping mode, even in first turn. Faq decided that no, despite in the formation specifically saying its ok in first turn, they actually just automatically pass reserve rolls which start turn 2. So automatically come onto the field, even in first turn became, auto-pass reserve rolls.

So it can in fact change the rules, not just the reading of it.

Look up what "errata" and "amendment" are. The errata and amendments change the written words, the FAQ tells you how to handle the rules.

Again, that is assuming you are following it at all. Some areas prefer their own FAQ or one of the tournament circuit FAQs rejecting GW's.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Tau_Empire_v1.0.pdf

In the faq section. So back your condescension right back to 0

Don't tell someone to back off their condescension when you are applying it liberally, please.

Your link provides no such definition. Now look up the Rulebook Errata and read the second paragraph which does. Heck, look up the definitions of those things in general and you have an explanation of what I have stated.

And this still does not separate player choices from the consideration. They can choose to follow the FAQ or the written word as they choose, so being aware of both is good.

My link was to the GW final FAQ which has an Eratta section, which does contain information, and an FAQ section, which has the answer to which i was referencing. So it wasn't a formal definition, but posting from GW what they consider it, a FAQ.

Also, there was no insult to you prior, or saying you don't know the definition of an eratta, but came back like a bitch with "look up what eratta and amendment are," when i was citing the section that GW referenced, which was FAQ. So you met polite disagreement with being a bitch. So you got a request to back it down. But instead you decided to double down on bitch. Normally you are a more composed poster, so I am not sure what stress is going on in your personal life to stress you out, but man is that toxic.

 pumaman1 wrote:
My link was to the GW final FAQ which has an Eratta section, which does contain information, and an FAQ section, which has the answer to which i was referencing. So it wasn't a formal definition, but posting from GW what they consider it, a FAQ.

You looked up what was listed in them, not what the words/sections are or for.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Also, there was no insult to you prior, or saying you don't know the definition of an eratta, but came back like a bitch with "look up what eratta and amendment are," when i was citing the section that GW referenced, which was FAQ. So you met polite disagreement with being a bitch. So you got a request to back it down. But instead you decided to double down on bitch. Normally you are a more composed poster, so I am not sure what stress is going on in your personal life to stress you out, but man is that toxic.

You assumed I was attempting to insult you or be condescending, and I offered back what I was given. Do not assume your reception of tone in written language is what is intended. I was giving my response quickly and without emotion. You assumed I was being condescending, because you wanted it to be condescending. You wanted to be offended by it and so took it as such.

I can get very verbose when I am explaining something, so I truncate sometimes as people have commented on how much I actually put in a post. Do not take it as an attempt to be condescending.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
It never matters whether the blast is hitting left or right armor facing, because the ion shield is determined by the direction of the firer, not the blast, per the IK codex FAQ. The ion shield is determined in a completely different manner than the armor facing with barrage, which removes it as a valid example of why left or right would ever matter.

I'm still failing to come up with any example of why it would ever matter whether something hits left or right side armor value on a vehicle, and if I can't come up with an example of why that would matter I can only be led to believe that they meant the general English meaning of "side" not "side armor value".

Also, they've already demonstrated in multiple FAQ's that they're perfectly willing to put out FAQ's that directly contradict what the actual rulebook says, so saying the rulebook says one thing is not a valid argument or line of logic either.

The BRB also states you determine hits wound allocation and cover saves from the nearest models or cover to the centre of the blast template. It also then states side armour of vehicles is hit.

There has never been confusion nor FAQ required nor asked for under this system. The only case this would be relevant is with the aforementioned Ion Shields where it does cause issues.

Also.....

"Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side."

Does not contradict "Hit's against vehicles are always resolved against their side armour"

So I can 'hit' the frontal armour, but that hit is resolved using the vehicles side AV.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
The BRB also states you determine hits wound allocation and cover saves from the nearest models or cover to the centre of the blast template.

Can you give a page citation for this claim? I cannot find this in Blasts. I do see it in Barrage.
Wound allocation on Blasts has absolutely nothing to do with "the centre of the blast template."

 Baldeagle91 wrote:


"Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you
determine which side is hit?
A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the
blast marker and hits the nearest side."

Does not contradict "Hit's against vehicles are always resolved against their side armour"

So I can 'hit' the frontal armour, but that hit is resolved using the vehicles side AV.

You could not hit "frontal". The FAQ says nearest "side", which would be left or right side.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
I sure did. And they're all invalid. Have you considered that your explanations could have holes? That your explanations can be disagreed with while fully understanding their meaning? That you could be human and thus your explanations are fallible? Have you read my explanations?

At no point did I simply state you were wrong because you were wrong. I explained why your explanations were invalid in my eyes. You simply disagreed with them, and then decided that I must not have read your explanations because I disagreed.

Not sure who you think you are arguing with, you might want to check first.

The explanation given is that the side actually hit might have value to some rules, which is why knowing which side was actually hit by an attack is important. Which AV facing is used is a different matter, as there are rules specifically written regarding AV facings.

Wall of Mirrors is not hitting the actual rear of a vehicle unless the shooter is standing behind the target. However, Wall of Mirrors specifies that the hits are counted against rear AV. Barrage specifies using side AV regardless of which facing is actually hit, but cover is determined as if the shot originated from the center of the blast while Ion Shields count the attack as having originated from the shooter.

So, for example, a Wall of Mirrors barrage attack against a Knight Titan in cover where the cover is between the shooter and the Knight, and the Knight's Ion Shield is not facing the shooter would need to know where the blast ends up after scatter to determine which facing got hit regardless of which AV is used, as it will determine which save is used if any.

Please show where any of that is false, invalid, or refuted.

SJ