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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's exactly the same for the Hammer of Sunderance and it does work.

It's already been shown that the Hammer of Sunderance is a different situation and has no bearing on the question at hand.

It really hasn't. You claimed a FAQ magically change the wording of rules, which is wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's exactly the same for the Hammer of Sunderance and it does work. The FAQ for the burst cannon ignored the prototype weapon and multiple armies have rules explicitly handling replacing certain types of weapons with relics.

There is not a single instance in the game where a relic version of a weapon is explicitly called out to not be affected by rules that would work for the standard version.

While it's not explicitly spelled out, there is overwhelming evidence that relics are to be treated the same as the weapon they replace and no evidence of the contrary.

Doesn't a Dark Eldar Kabal Relic explicitly not work with its subfaction rules?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's exactly the same for the Hammer of Sunderance and it does work.

It's already been shown that the Hammer of Sunderance is a different situation and has no bearing on the question at hand.

It really hasn't. You claimed a FAQ magically change the wording of rules, which is wrong.

From Codex Orlks:

Periscope: If this model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic) it can shoot twice in the following Shooting phase with its kannon, killkannon or zzap gun

And yet you're trying to magically change da boomer into a kannon, killkannon or a zzap gun...

FAQs ignore the rules all the time, that's the problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
FAQs ignore the rules all the time, that's the problem.

And the FAQ he's trying to use as a precedent really isn't a precedent. The Hammer of Sunderance FAQ changed the definition of what a 'turret weapon' is for the Grinding Advance rule. In order for it to be relevant in this situation the FAQ would need to make the Hammer of Sunderance one of the weapon's already listed (e.g., a battle cannon, etc.). It doesn't. The aforementioned Greater Good FAQ however does set a precedent in that when the rules say a 'burst cannon' that is all that it applies to and not another weapon that has 'burst cannon' in it's name or as a keyword, etc.

Not sure how relevant to the argument this is, but doesn’t the space marine codex say something about what counts as a bolter weapon for the purposes of being affected by strategems and special rules like the imperial fists doctrines?

IIRC the codex explicitly lists what is categorised as a bolter weapon and which relics also count as such even if the font have “bolter” in their name.

This would suggest to me that in this case the “Da Boomer” would need to be specifically named in order to benefit from this rule.

Aash wrote:

This would suggest to me that in this case the “Da Boomer” would need to be specifically named in order to benefit from this rule.

Yup. This should really have been the end of the thread a full page ago...

Aash wrote:
Not sure how relevant to the argument this is, but doesn’t the space marine codex say something about what counts as a bolter weapon...

Yes, 'Bolt Weapons' on page 166:

A bolt weapon is any weapon whose profile includes the word ‘bolt’ (boltgun, bolt rifle, storm bolter, combi-bolter, hurricane bolter, etc.), and any Relic that replaces a bolt weapon (e.g. Primarch’s Wrath). Rules that apply to bolt weapons also apply to the boltgun profile of combiweapons, and the bolter profile of Relics that replace combi-weapons.

Note that the following weapons found in codex supplements are bolt weapons: Blackout, Dorn’s Arrow, Gauntlets of Ultramar, Gorgon’s Wrath, Quietus.

There is also a listing for 'Flame Weapons' and 'Melta Weapons'.

 Ghaz wrote:
The Hammer of Sunderance FAQ changed the definition of what a 'turret weapon' is for the Grinding Advance rule.

It didn't, this is just a lie you keep repeating.

The aforementioned Greater Good FAQ however does set a precedent in that when the rules say a 'burst cannon' that is all that it applies to and not another weapon that has 'burst cannon' in it's name or as a keyword, etc.

There are three weapons named burst cannon, besides the regular one. The prototype burst cannon is not part of the FAQ, while the two others are. Guess why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Aash wrote:
Not sure how relevant to the argument this is, but doesn’t the space marine codex say something about what counts as a bolter weapon...

Yes, 'Bolt Weapons' on page 166:

A bolt weapon is any weapon whose profile includes the word ‘bolt’ (boltgun, bolt rifle, storm bolter, combi-bolter, hurricane bolter, etc.), and any Relic that replaces a bolt weapon (e.g. Primarch’s Wrath). Rules that apply to bolt weapons also apply to the boltgun profile of combiweapons, and the bolter profile of Relics that replace combi-weapons.

Note that the following weapons found in codex supplements are bolt weapons: Blackout, Dorn’s Arrow, Gauntlets of Ultramar, Gorgon’s Wrath, Quietus.

There is also a listing for 'Flame Weapons' and 'Melta Weapons'.

Relevant part highlighted. The list in this rule is incomplete, there are multiple relics which are bolt weapons, but not on this list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:
Not sure how relevant to the argument this is, but doesn’t the space marine codex say something about what counts as a bolter weapon for the purposes of being affected by strategems and special rules like the imperial fists doctrines?

IIRC the codex explicitly lists what is categorised as a bolter weapon and which relics also count as such even if the font have “bolter” in their name.

The codex only lists relics that are wargear of named characters. Any relics that replace bolter, flamer or melta weapons automatically get categorized as such, without being on the list.

You seem to be making my point for me: codex SM specifically says that the special rules applying to bolter weapons also apply to relics replacing those weapons. The Ork codex does not say something similar.

Without a statement to this effect then I simply cannnot see how you the periscope rule applies to Da Boomer. In fact I’d go further and say that if your interpretation was correct, then this statement in codex SM wouldn’t be there at all.

The FAQ for Vigilus Defiant clarified that grinding advance works for the relic without extending the list.
Which is literally the same constellation - grinding advance is the same as the periscope rule, a killkannon is to da boomer as a battlecannon is to the Hammer of Sunderance.

Check all these examples from earlier in this thread:

Hammer of Sunderance is the same as a Battlecannon.
Vengeance of Ultramar is the same as a Storm Bolter.
Matyr's Vengeance is the same as an Inferno Pistol
Gauntlet of Ascension is the same as Thunderstrike Gauntlet
Gatling Burst Cannon is the same as a Burst Cannon
Viper's Bite is the same as a Combi-Bolter

There is zero evidence of GW intending for relics work differently from their basic versions. If Da Boomer would work differently from all those, it would be a lone outlier.

In fact, the Drukhari codex cements this even further (thanks for the reference!):

Splinter Racks wrote:If this model has splinter racks, then each time a model that is embarked upon it shoots a splinter pistol or splinter rifle and you roll a 6+ to hit with that weapon, it scores 2 hits instead of 1. This does not apply to Artefacts of Cruelty.

There is no relic that is called "splinter pistol" or "splinter rifle", but two that replace splinter pistols: Parasite’s Kiss and Soul-seeker. There would be no need for the highlighted part of the rule if GW didn't think they were splinter pistols.

Also note that I agree that it does need to be clarified, but that the intention is quite clear. I'd also like that everyone that takes part in this discussion to send this question to 40kfaq@gwplc.com so they become aware of this problem and hopefully provide an official answer.

It doesnt need clarifying. It's clear it doesnt work as written.

They may choose to change it by FAQ.

But please, just stop with the poor counter examples that dont apply. They are not helping your argument at all.

Please remind me what arguments you have brought forth and which ones you have debunked so far?

There is clear evidence for my interpretation being just as valid as the pure RAW one, and as of now there has been not been a single argument clearly proving me wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:
Please remind me what arguments you have brought forth and which ones you have debunked so far?

There is clear evidence for my interpretation being just as valid as the pure RAW one, and as of now there has been not been a single argument clearly proving me wrong.

Actually, your interpretation is not as valid as the pure RAW one by the fact that the other "interpretation" is pure RAW and yours isn't. The RAW side has facts, no "interpretation" needed while yours has extrapolations from what you see as precedents and, as you say "interpretation", in this case an educated guess at what their intention was. It may turn out to be correct, it might not be. The RAW view, however, will be correct 100% of the time until a FAQ changes things while your interpretation can't be proven to be 100% correct. You can make an argument that your interpretation may be what they intended, but it will never be "just as valid" without an expressed statement from GW that they intended for it to work the way you are interpreting.

Given that, the best thing to do is to assume that you're going to have to play without periscope applying to Da Boomer, talk with your opponents before a game to see if they'd be willing to let it apply (note: something you don't have to do with RAW), and accept their decision on whether to let you do it or not. Or, just wait for a couple of weeks after the physical book comes out for the FAQ to be put up and see if the rule gets changed there. If we hadn't had the lockdown, you probably would have already had your answer from GW.

 Jidmah wrote:
There is clear evidence for my interpretation being just as valid as the pure RAW one, and as of now there has been not been a single argument clearly proving me wrong.

All you've done so far is present the argument "GW could make it work that way by producing a FAQ." That doesn't prove anything at all.

Ex post facto arguments are only convincing (or even useful) if you can perform time travel.

RAW it doesnt work. And i seriously doubt GW will FAQ it to work. The killkannon is heavy1 S8 AP-2 Dd6, da boomer is heavy2D6 S8 AP-2 D2. That would be 4D6 shots instead of 2.

While I dont think RAW is the be all and end all, I really dont think there's a strong argument from RAI to be made in this case either. The relic is a different weapon, and so it is entirely possible that they intended it to not work.

Therefore using the RAW is the best option in this case.

 p5freak wrote:
RAW it doesnt work. And i seriously doubt GW will FAQ it to work. The killkannon is heavy1 S8 AP-2 Dd6, da boomer is heavy2D6 S8 AP-2 D2. That would be 4D6 shots instead of 2.

The Killkannon is Heavy D6 AP-2 D2, Da Boomer is just a Killkannon with Heavy 2D6 instead.

 solkan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is clear evidence for my interpretation being just as valid as the pure RAW one, and as of now there has been not been a single argument clearly proving me wrong.

All you've done so far is present the argument "GW could make it work that way by producing a FAQ." That doesn't prove anything at all.

Ex post facto arguments are only convincing (or even useful) if you can perform time travel.

My argument shows multiple instances where relics are implicitly or explicitly treated the same as the weapons they are replacing. Across all the huge number of books we have, there is not a single instance of a rule even implying, let alone clearly saying otherwise.

All I see is people ignoring that, and their only argument "it's not on the list" isn't exactly a counter-argument to my "relics don't need to be listed".

All I see is people ignoring that, and their only argument "it's not on the list" isn't exactly a counter-argument to my "relics don't need to be listed".

Maybe so, but demonstrating that there are examples (eg space marine bolt guns as mentioned previously) where specific relic weapons are named on a list is a valid counter-argument as it clearly shows that GW does in fact name which weapons able to take advantage of special rules, strategems etc.
So, “relics don’t need to be listed” is demonstrably false.

 Jidmah wrote:

 solkan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is clear evidence for my interpretation being just as valid as the pure RAW one, and as of now there has been not been a single argument clearly proving me wrong.

All you've done so far is present the argument "GW could make it work that way by producing a FAQ." That doesn't prove anything at all.

Ex post facto arguments are only convincing (or even useful) if you can perform time travel.

My argument shows multiple instances where relics are implicitly or explicitly treated the same as the weapons they are replacing. Across all the huge number of books we have, there is not a single instance of a rule even implying, let alone clearly saying otherwise.

All I see is people ignoring that, and their only argument "it's not on the list" isn't exactly a counter-argument to my "relics don't need to be listed".

The fact that you're citing rules or FAQs that list the relics or state relics replacing specific weapons being treated the same is actually the opposite, it indicates that rules allowing them to be the same have to be incorporated through listing or a general rule stating relics replacing weapons may be treated the same as the weapon it replace. We do not have a general rule like that.