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.

RAW it can not grinding advance. Not the worst GW RAW mistake I have seen them make. Back in 5th ed turret mounted template weapons on many tanks like the Baal predator technically couldn't fire at all because when the tip of the template touched the edge of the barrel it would catch the firing tank under it's own template.

U02dah4 wrote:
It's Raw and the convention is that Raw trumps Rai

In your world, perhaps.

In competitive 40k the convention is that the Judges/TOs make a ruling.

I used Hammer of Sunderance in a 50 player ITC rated tournament and the TO said "of course it's an effing battle cannon it literally says it right there! Who is saying it's not?"

Not everyone plays "AHHH! GOTCHA!" with the rules like that.

 Silentz wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It's Raw and the convention is that Raw trumps Rai

In your world, perhaps.

In competitive 40k the convention is that the Judges/TOs make a ruling.

I used Hammer of Sunderance in a 50 player ITC rated tournament and the TO said "of course it's an effing battle cannon it literally says it right there! Who is saying it's not?"

Not everyone plays "AHHH! GOTCHA!" with the rules like that.

So the TO made a house rule, what's your point?

And the covention of those ruleings is usually that RAW overrules RAI because RAI is subjective and while it might have been GW's intention to allow it to double fire as I would suspect. GW might have intended you to only single fire it and make a choice of better gun vs fire twice.

The ruling of one TO doesnt stand for all TO's and where does it say its a battle cannon rules quote please note is a vattle cannon is not the same as replaces.

Your making the choice most advantageous to yourself and thats fine but RAW it doesn't work that way and as such I would rule against you and I expect that many TO's would.

The events I play in, the TOs use ITC, but when they make rulings, they do apply RAI when it is reasonably clear.

And, btw, it's clear here. The Hammer is described as a battle cannon in the text. It's is clearly intended to be a relic battlecannon.

And that, thus, is the perennial failure of RAW: nothing is designed to be read exactly as written, with no context or interpretation. I've been on dakka for a long time, and people keep arguing that RAW is the only true way to avoid ambiguity, which I suppose is true. But the rules aren't designed to read that way. Almost nothing is.

Strict RAW is pretty much the entirely wrong way to play 40k.

To quote from the rulebook for this game...

"THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that make the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!"

Clearly in a tournament situation you would hope for a third party ruling, and clearly the rules as written in a rulebook play a MASSIVE part in the decision.

But, GW do not write rules which are intended to withstand strict RAW.

You are forcing your own mindset on a game then complaining when it breaks.

 Silentz wrote:
Strict RAW is pretty much the entirely wrong way to play 40k.

To quote from the rulebook for this game...

"THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that make the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!"

Clearly in a tournament situation you would hope for a third party ruling, and clearly the rules as written in a rulebook play a MASSIVE part in the decision.

But, GW do not write rules which are intended to withstand strict RAW.

You are forcing your own mindset on a game then complaining when it breaks.

Ok, I want you to allow all your opponents to automatically hit and wound from now on, since RaW doesn't matter to you.

Come on lad you're smart enough to not just chuck reductio ad absurdum around all the time.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Strict RAW is pretty much the entirely wrong way to play 40k.

To quote from the rulebook for this game...

"THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that make the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!"

Clearly in a tournament situation you would hope for a third party ruling, and clearly the rules as written in a rulebook play a MASSIVE part in the decision.

But, GW do not write rules which are intended to withstand strict RAW.

You are forcing your own mindset on a game then complaining when it breaks.

Ok, I want you to allow all your opponents to automatically hit and wound from now on, since RaW doesn't matter to you.

According to RAW: You're not his opponent, so you have little say in the matter.

I doubt that makes much since to him either.

Anyway... it's now RAW as well as RAI

New FAQ

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

 Silentz wrote:
Anyway... it's now RAW as well as RAI

New FAQ

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

It's actually a Special Snowflake FAQ that ignores the RaW, and only applies to this specific situation, but I'm glad it's sorted.

Also, the answer to what counts as a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment means it's totally broken, since you cannot include a Valkyrie in a detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine if you're running actual MILITARUM TEMPESTUS models, but you can if you pick a custom <REGIMENT> with the Storm Troopers doctrine. GW why do you hate us so?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Anyway... it's now RAW as well as RAI

New FAQ

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

It's actually a Special Snowflake FAQ that ignores the RaW, and only applies to this specific situation, but I'm glad it's sorted.

Also, the answer to what counts as a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment means it's totally broken, since you cannot include a Valkyrie in a detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine if you're running actual MILITARUM TEMPESTUS models, but you can if you pick a custom <REGIMENT> with the Storm Troopers doctrine. GW why do you hate us so?

the flying guys... Aeronautica Imperialis? Don't break <REGIMENT> So it's fine. I think commisars are the same.... Officio Prefectus or something. Both can be included without breaking regiment rules

Problem is militarum tempestus specifies that a detachment must consist solely of tempestus units. The rules are in conflict and GW have never bothered to clear it up. That said the existence of the tempestus drop force lends weight to the interpretation that you can include valk's etc while keeping stormtroopers.

 gbghg wrote:
Problem is militarum tempestus specifies that a detachment must consist solely of tempestus units. The rules are in conflict and GW have never bothered to clear it up. That said the existence of the tempestus drop force lends weight to the interpretation that you can include valk's etc while keeping stormtroopers.

And where there is smoke in valks, there is fire in the rest of the Advisors and Auxillia list.

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Anyway... it's now RAW as well as RAI

New FAQ

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

It's actually a Special Snowflake FAQ that ignores the RaW, and only applies to this specific situation, but I'm glad it's sorted.

Also, the answer to what counts as a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment means it's totally broken, since you cannot include a Valkyrie in a detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine if you're running actual MILITARUM TEMPESTUS models, but you can if you pick a custom <REGIMENT> with the Storm Troopers doctrine. GW why do you hate us so?

the flying guys... Aeronautica Imperialis? Don't break <REGIMENT> So it's fine. I think commisars are the same.... Officio Prefectus or something. Both can be included without breaking regiment rules

MT have a more restrictive rule than other regiments. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755709.page#9947889 You lose the Doctrine if you include anything except MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Anyway... it's now RAW as well as RAI

New FAQ

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

It's actually a Special Snowflake FAQ that ignores the RaW, and only applies to this specific situation, but I'm glad it's sorted.

Also, the answer to what counts as a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS Detachment means it's totally broken, since you cannot include a Valkyrie in a detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine if you're running actual MILITARUM TEMPESTUS models, but you can if you pick a custom <REGIMENT> with the Storm Troopers doctrine. GW why do you hate us so?

the flying guys... Aeronautica Imperialis? Don't break <REGIMENT> So it's fine. I think commisars are the same.... Officio Prefectus or something. Both can be included without breaking regiment rules

MT have a more restrictive rule than other regiments. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755709.page#9947889 You lose the Doctrine if you include anything except MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

I think you're on your own with this one BCB.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

MT have a more restrictive rule than other regiments. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755709.page#9947889 You lose the Doctrine if you include anything except MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Gutted that this still hasn't been cleared up. While it's not been an issue on my local scene I've been tempered to switch my Dkok air cavalry "storm troopers" to normal scions for the sake of simplifying rules disagreements if I want to play with other groups, since the points reductions and the formation benefits.
But if there's still grey areas not sure it worth giving up the points savings, ws3 and flexibility in taking other units like priests, for a few units getting +1bs for a turn, or two if they get lucky n manage to jump back in.

ragnorack1 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

MT have a more restrictive rule than other regiments. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/755709.page#9947889 You lose the Doctrine if you include anything except MILITARUM TEMPESTUS.

Gutted that this still hasn't been cleared up.

I mean, indirectly it was.

The Drop Troops detachment gives a keyword to Valkyries in an MT detachment, and they define MT detachment as those detachments that have the stormtrooper doctrine. You can argue a tortured reading, or you can accept that the MT rules basically say "you can add MT to another regiment and keep doctrine, but you can't add another regiment to MT and keep doctrine."

I think GW wants to give valkryies in detachments with the stormtrooper doctrine a rule, all while calling it an MT detachment. I feel very comfortable allowing it.

 Polonius wrote:

I mean, indirectly it was.

The Drop Troops detachment gives a keyword to Valkyries in an MT detachment, and they define MT detachment as those detachments that have the stormtrooper doctrine. You can argue a tortured reading, or you can accept that the MT rules basically say "you can add MT to another regiment and keep doctrine, but you can't add another regiment to MT and keep doctrine."

I think GW wants to give valkryies in detachments with the stormtrooper doctrine a rule, all while calling it an MT detachment. I feel very comfortable allowing it.

Would this have any impact on being able to take priests in an MT detachment in your opinion?
If I try and follow the logic of RAW I end up in a bit of a loop of being able to take a valkyrie because they have the storm trooper Doctrine but the can't have the Doctrine because they have a valkyrie.
My interpretation is that RAI is that the allowances made for none regiment units must not break the doctrines for the MT detachment like with other regimental detachments, which would be nice for offering a bit more freedom. But that definitely wouldn't be RAW. (sorry for venturing into you make da call territory here)

ragnorack1 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I mean, indirectly it was.

The Drop Troops detachment gives a keyword to Valkyries in an MT detachment, and they define MT detachment as those detachments that have the stormtrooper doctrine. You can argue a tortured reading, or you can accept that the MT rules basically say "you can add MT to another regiment and keep doctrine, but you can't add another regiment to MT and keep doctrine."

I think GW wants to give valkryies in detachments with the stormtrooper doctrine a rule, all while calling it an MT detachment. I feel very comfortable allowing it.

Would this have any impact on being able to take priests in an MT detachment in your opinion?
If I try and follow the logic of RAW I end up in a bit of a loop of being able to take a valkyrie because they have the storm trooper Doctrine but the can't have the Doctrine because they have a valkyrie.
My interpretation is that RAI is that the allowances made for none regiment units must not break the doctrines for the MT detachment like with other regimental detachments, which would be nice for offering a bit more freedom. But that definitely wouldn't be RAW. (sorry for venturing into you make da call territory here)

This is ridiculous arguing. The hammer of sunderance is described in it's entry as a battlecannon. "The Hammer of Sunderance is a battlecannon with a glorious history". That's not paraphrasing, that is verbatim in the book. In addition, it is explicitly stated it replaces the battlecannon, which is a turret weapon.

Open your codex right now and go to page 86. Read the effing Grinding Advance rule. "If a model moves under half speed in the movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of it's current move characteristic) it can shoot it's turret weapon twice in the following shooting phase." It then goes on to list the turret weapons just in case a player wasn't familiar with their names. One of which is, shockingly, a battlecannon.

Where is the Hammer of Sunderance mounted? In the turret. You know how I know? Because it replaces the default battlecannon, and last I checked those aren't mounted in sponsons or the hull. RAW, it is a turret weapon, it interacts with grinding advance. RAW, it is a battlecannon, it interacts with grinding advance. This argument represents the worst side of players in the hobby, deliberately employing language that would make a lawyer blush. It is incredibly clear that this works unless you are and twisting words around just to feel clever over pointing out how dumb GW is. GW writes some bad rules, don't get me wrong, but this isn't one. It doesn't need to be FAQ'd because if this is the stuff we need faqd to make the game work then pistols can't even function in combat.

And while I'm at it, the argument that commissars, Valkyries, and other auxiliary break the stormtrooper doctrine is also asinine. The start collecting box comes with a commissar and the new formation includes Valkyries. It is blatantly clear that they are intended to allow the stormtrooper doctrine to function and that the Auxilia rule is what takes precedence. You know, like it always has and was written in the first place.

Can we please put these two arguments to rest? Unless you are intentionally trying to break the game, these interactions are perfectly clear. GW has shown that, any TO worth running an event has shown it, even most players who don't even know our codex understand it. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

Edit: got a little heated and realized I had let language slip through, censored to save models the trouble

Keep Kicking MrMoustaffa! I want to see blood coming out of his mouth!

Glad I just saw Moustaffa's post had just rejigged my list as if I couldn't use priests and ended up with an army that I actually preferred, then realised that if I went with the no auxiliary units ruling the list was still broken as it had yarrick in it, and then realised MT wouldn't even be able to have 2 battalions and still have doctrines.
So yeah think I'll go with the more sensible RAI interpretation.

Going back to tactics, how do people feel about having the warlord grav chute commando with two 5 man squads maxed out with plasma and power fists instead of 2 plasma command squads? The +1 to hit should balance out the - 1 ws, and I've only just noticed the tempestor sergeants have ws3 making them quite attractive for blasting and charging something for n the first turn.

ragnorack1 wrote:
Glad I just saw Moustaffa's post had just rejigged my list as if I couldn't use priests and ended up with an army that I actually preferred, then realised that if I went with the no auxiliary units ruling the list was still broken as it had yarrick in it, and then realised MT wouldn't even be able to have 2 battalions and still have doctrines.
So yeah think I'll go with the more sensible RAI interpretation.

Going back to tactics, how do people feel about having the warlord grav chute commando with two 5 man squads maxed out with plasma and power fists instead of 2 plasma command squads? The +1 to hit should balance out the - 1 ws, and I've only just noticed the tempestor sergeants have ws3 making them quite attractive for blasting and charging something for n the first turn.

Sound idea. Not sure why I didn't think of it. Hitting on 3's with Power fists is an okay use of points in an emergency, but remember these are strength 6 fists with only 2 attacks.

Aye originally was going for power mauls and a priest, but realised the points saved dropping the priest would pay for the fists with change to spare and the quality of hits would balance the drop in number.

Another point of contention I'm having is in another valkyrie having two 5 man squads with just hotshots and a maul on the sergeant along with a tempestor prime for a little better cc and flexibility in covering objectives. The alternative being a 10 man squad to save a few points and more effective use of the grenadier stratagem incase there's no target suitable for their hotshots?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
This is ridiculous arguing. The hammer of sunderance is described in it's entry as a battlecannon. "The Hammer of Sunderance is a battlecannon with a glorious history". That's not paraphrasing, that is verbatim in the book. In addition, it is explicitly stated it replaces the battlecannon, which is a turret weapon.

Open your codex right now and go to page 86. Read the effing Grinding Advance rule. "If a model moves under half speed in the movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of it's current move characteristic) it can shoot it's turret weapon twice in the following shooting phase." It then goes on to list the turret weapons just in case a player wasn't familiar with their names. One of which is, shockingly, a battlecannon.

Where is the Hammer of Sunderance mounted? In the turret. You know how I know? Because it replaces the default battlecannon, and last I checked those aren't mounted in sponsons or the hull. RAW, it is a turret weapon, it interacts with grinding advance. RAW, it is a battlecannon, it interacts with grinding advance. This argument represents the worst side of players in the hobby, deliberately employing language that would make a lawyer blush. It is incredibly clear that this works unless you are and twisting words around just to feel clever over pointing out how dumb GW is. GW writes some bad rules, don't get me wrong, but this isn't one. It doesn't need to be FAQ'd because if this is the stuff we need faqd to make the game work then pistols can't even function in combat.

And while I'm at it, the argument that commissars, Valkyries, and other auxiliary break the stormtrooper doctrine is also asinine. The start collecting box comes with a commissar and the new formation includes Valkyries. It is blatantly clear that they are intended to allow the stormtrooper doctrine to function and that the Auxilia rule is what takes precedence. You know, like it always has and was written in the first place.

Can we please put these two arguments to rest? Unless you are intentionally trying to break the game, these interactions are perfectly clear. GW has shown that, any TO worth running an event has shown it, even most players who don't even know our codex understand it. I don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

Edit: got a little heated and realized I had let language slip through, censored to save models the trouble

1) anything in italics is fluff text it does not effect the rules so irrelevant
2) replaceing a battle cannon does not make it one irrelevant
3) opening grinding advance clearly lists all turret weapon no emperors fist therefore you are wrong by this reasoning
4) where it is physically mounted on a model is irrelevant when turret weapons are clearly defined

5) if you bothered to read you would find that it has been FAQ'd as a turret weapon and that is the only reason it works

As to MT ask your TO but the faq ruling is clear and gw level stupid

1) By faq : For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist
Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra
Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers
Regimental Doctrine.

2)To have the doctine every unit in the detatchment must be militarum tempestus

3)Auxillia includeing aeronautica dont have the regiment keyword so are not tempestus

4)Therefore the MT rule means you don't get the doctrine if you include one

5)This means the specialist detatchment doesnt work because of the faq as you cant take a valkyrie in it.

If you go for a generous interpretation whats the point of the limitation i mean you can take all tempestus all auxillia and anything regiment can be tempestus so what are you left with
Not takeing non-tempestus special characters - which you couldnt do and get a doctrine anyway.

Either way we now have redundant rules and unfortunately its most likely the new ones- and if in doubt use the interpretation most punishing to yourself

oh well its not like we are the only ones the orks have an apocalypse scale only detatchment. We will have to make do with 3.

N.B. What models come in a box set is irrelevant and you can take valkyrie storm troopers and commisars in the same detatchment legally it just doesn't then benefit from the storm trooper doctrine just any of the others

Maxamato wrote:
A quick question regarding to the relic cannon: Hammer of Sunderance:
Can I do shoot twice with this weapon according the grinding advance rule?

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

U02dah4 the FAQ that just dropped proves I was right on both accounts. Again you are really twisting words around. It was blatantly clear that the hammer of sunderance was a battlecannon, just because it was written in italics didn't mean that it didn't exist. Yes, the italics are usually just flavor text but in this instance when the flavor text says "this is a battlecannon" I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that ruleswise, it was a battlecannon. Could have GW made it a little more blatant by putting it in plain text as well? Probably, but was it really needed, I don't think so.

On the stormtrooper thing, the FAQ has this to say

Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist
Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra
Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine

If taking commissars and Valkyries (who were in the 7th Ed stormtroopers codex as unit options) broke their regiment keyword, this would be impossible. As if I didn't have enough to back up what I had just typed, this seals the deal. GW intends that Advisors and Auxilia does not break Stormtroopers, and further confirms that yes, you can take commissars to fill out an additional stormtrooper batallion for example, or give them Valkyrie support with no issues.

I really don't see any room to argue further on this. If you wish to play it the other way, that's fine, I won't stop you. But I think it would be really asinine and foolish to think any player loses stormtrooper doctrine at this point because they had the audacity to take a commissar and valkyrie in the same detachment. This also means that things like ogryn, pyskers, ratlings, master of the fleet, etc. Can be taken as well.

U02dah4 wrote:

1) anything in italics is fluff text it does not effect the rules so irrelevant

Page number?

Can we remember that this is the tactics thread, where we discuss how to win real games, not YMDC where masturbating over how clever we are for finding broken rules is acceptable? Obviously in real games the storm trooper + Valkyrie formation is possible to use, so can we get back to discussing how best to use it and just ignore BCB's absurd tangents?