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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that same logic I could say my Ultramarines have a 1+ FNP. No "Reasonable" Person would say otherwise. If you're going to ignore one rule you get to ignore them all, IMHO.

There is no reading of the text that any reasonable person could interpret as giving your models 1+ FNP. Please do not make ridiculous arguments like this that have nothing to do with reality.

In your opinion. In my opinion there is no reading of the text that any reasonable person could interpret as giving Hammer of Sunderance access to Grinding Advance.

That is why I am a RaW purist, there is no "opinion" to muddy the waters.

 Stux wrote:
It is different though.

Assault weapons explicitly state that you get to shoot them when you advance. They didn't implement it in a way that technically works, but we know for a fact what the intention is.

This is not in any way the same. We can ASSUME (with a fair amount of certainty) what the intention was, but it is not an absolute certainty. And that is a big difference. You can claim hyperbolically that it is certain, it simply isn't. It's just very likely.

I'm not saying it is literally the same rules situation. But it's the same mentality that leads to people going "akshually.." and actually trying to get people to play it like that. And my main argument is simply that trying that is not admirable as was claimed earlier.

For friendly games I'd absolutely use it. For a serious competitive game, I'd expect to need clarification from the TO and would absolutely accept it if they sided with the strict RAW.

If the other player insistent on calling the TO - sure. That'd make me avoid that player in the future though. And if the TO went with his interpretation I'd probably avoid that TO in the future, too.
Its rules lawyering, plain and simple. Nothing to applaud under any circumstances.

The idea that "competitive" means you have to exploit every advantage given to you, even if it was never meant to be an advantage, is simply bs. Sportsmanship is still a thing.

Winning fair and square by being the better player is way more rewarding that winning on a technicality.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In your opinion.

Then cite some rules. What exact text suggests that space marines have a 1+ FNP? What argument would you make to convince someone with a basic knowledge of 40k that your position is correct? In the case of the relic battle cannon it's very obvious and most people will say "yeah, of course that's what GW meant" once the situation is explained. On the other hand I doubt you're going to convince anyone but yourself of the 1+ FNP claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That is why I am a RaW purist, there is no "opinion" to muddy the waters.

Would you have played a game of 5th edition by pure RAW, such that any model without eyes (including models with helmets, all vehicles, etc) can not shoot or charge? Can you honestly tell us that you'd be just fine with both armies standing around uselessly and say "yep, I'm definitely having fun"?

 Peregrine wrote:
Then cite some rules. What exact text suggests that space marines have a 1+ FNP? What argument would you make to convince someone with a basic knowledge of 40k that your position is correct? In the case of the relic battle cannon it's very obvious and most people will say "yeah, of course that's what GW meant" once the situation is explained. On the other hand I doubt you're going to convince anyone but yourself of the 1+ FNP claim.

Can you cite any rules that permit the Hammer of Sunderance to benefit from Grinding Advance? Not "yeah, of course that's what GW meant", but actual rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can you cite any rules that permit the Hammer of Sunderance to benefit from Grinding Advance? Not "yeah, of course that's what GW meant", but actual rules.

Please answer the question instead of ignoring it. I have provided rules that would convince a reasonable person that, even if the strictest possible reading of RAW doesn't work, the obvious intent is that it benefits. Are you able to provide rules that would be similarly persuasive in support of the idea that a 1+ FNP save is, if not RAW, GW's clear intent? Or will you concede that you're trying to derail the discussion with another of your absurd examples?

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can you cite any rules that permit the Hammer of Sunderance to benefit from Grinding Advance? Not "yeah, of course that's what GW meant", but actual rules.

Please answer the question instead of ignoring it. I have provided rules that would convince a reasonable person that, even if the strictest possible reading of RAW doesn't work, the obvious intent is that it benefits. Are you able to provide rules that would be similarly persuasive in support of the idea that a 1+ FNP save is, if not RAW, GW's clear intent? Or will you concede that you're trying to derail the discussion with another of your absurd examples?

My point is that both ignore the rules. Why is one more valid than the other?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My point is that both ignore the rules. Why is one more valid than the other?

Because one is a reasonable interpretation of GW's intent, fixing an obviously broken rule, and the other is you making up random stuff to derail the discussion. A reasonable person can look at the relic situation and say "yep, that's meant to count as a battle cannon". A reasonable person is never going to look at your 1+ FNP argument and say "yep, BCB has a point there, that was what GW intended".

And you are the one who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? Can you show me in the rulebook where it says that?

I've said my piece and I'll leave it at that before the double standards kick in. RaW is clear.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And you are the one who gets to decide what is "reasonable"? Can you show me in the rulebook where it says that?

How about "can convince at least 10% of players surveyed that GW intended for it to be that way". I am very sure that at least 10% will agree that the relic battle cannon is in fact a battle cannon and gets to shoot twice. I seriously doubt that you can get 10% of them to even listen to your absurd 1+ FNP claim long enough for you to finish explaining it.

PS: I notice that you ignored my question about 5th edition. Did you shoot with your tanks in 5th? How about Tau drones? Or did you play strict RAW and ignore the weapon rules those units were equipped with and assume that they were purely decorative?

The RaW is not a democracy. If 90% of people think that Hammer of Sunderance benefits from Grinding Advance, doesn't make it so.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rules are not a democracy. If 90% of people think that a Space Marine can move 199", doesn't make it so.

Actually they are a democracy, which is the thing that you consistently fail to get. You assume that if you can find some obscure interpretation of the text that prevents a rule from functioning anyone is going to care, meanwhile everyone else ignores your RAW arguments in favor of obvious RAI and says "never play a game against BCB". Which is the reason for my original comment about masturbating over RAW. It has nothing to do with the games that are actually being played, and only provides an excuse for you to show off how clever you think you are.

Yeah, I made a mistake with using the term "the rules" when I meant "the RaW". You're so clever being able to mash refresh.

Also, I've never had a problem finding or playing a game, so make of that what you will. My main problem with 8th is Knights ruining listbuilding.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


In summary, the RaW is clear and unambiguous

This is where all your arguments fall apart

You want GW to write rules like this, but they don't care to do so.

They write rules which require a fair amount of "I reckon they must mean... " "yeah that sounds right mate"

They even write in their rules stuff like "if the rules don't make sense just d6 it off or agree with your opponent come on lads forge the narrative FFS"

They can not, do not and never will write rules that stand up to pure RAW analysis.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah, I made a mistake with using the term "the rules" when I meant "the RaW". You're so clever being able to mash refresh.

And "the RAW" as you use it is an irrelevant thing because nobody is playing games that way. Could you please stop derailing threads with it?

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


In summary, the RaW is clear and unambiguous

This is where all your arguments fall apart

You want GW to write rules like this, but they don't care to do so.

They write rules which require a fair amount of "I reckon they must mean... " "yeah that sounds right mate"

They even write in their rules stuff like "if the rules don't make sense just d6 it off or agree with your opponent come on lads forge the narrative FFS"

They can not, do not and never will write rules that stand up to pure RAW analysis.

If this is true then why Errata the Intercessor Sergeant issue? Why Errata the Wyvern vs WYVERN issue? Why errata the "Must fire single use weapons" issue?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, I've never had a problem finding or playing a game, so make of that what you will.

I can only assume that your offline persona is far less irritating and nonsensical than your dakka posts, since I can't imagine anyone wanting to play against you once you try to pull the "your Tau drones/crisis suits/etc can't shoot because they don't have eyes" argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If this is true then why Errata the Intercessor Sergeant issue? Why Errata the Wyvern vs WYVERN issue? Why errata the "Must fire single use weapons" issue?

Because GW does try to fix their rules even when RAI is already pretty obvious. I would give it pretty good odds of GW fixing this one too, eventually.

I think we're about done here.

Moving on.