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.

Okay...so the Wave Shield on the Wave Serpent says "no shooting attack ever gets better than 1d6 armor penetration against the front/side..."

So how does this interact with Tank Hunters. Does the above phrase nullify the +1 to armor pen? Or does the +1 somehow circumvent the Wave Shield rule?

The Wave Shield rule simply means you don't get more than 1D6 (i.e. no 2D6 for Ordnance or Melta weapons).

The tank hunters bonus isn't related to rolling extra dice so it works fine against the Wave Shield.

I would like to act as devil's advocate on this. Is the rule as described the rule, verbatim? If so, then it appears clear that a wave serpent is, by the rules, invulnerable from the front/side.

Why? Two reasons - by RAW, and by intent, as indicated by the old Epic rules.

If you cannot get better than 1d6 armor penetration, then the maximum armor penetration you can get is six. Note that the rule does not indicate that you may add only 1d6 - that is the maximum armor pen. Thus, there is no provision for adding the strength of the weapon itself, or the user's strength - you roll 1d6 and that's it.

By extension, this precludes tank hunter, because 1d6 + 1 is greater than 1d6, and therefore not allowed.

Now, by intent - in old epic, a wave serpent could not be damaged from the front - the wave stopped everything.

so, by the rule as quoted above, and by intent, a wave serpent could not be damaged from the front or side.

(I do not have an eldar book handy at work, which is why I cannot check the rules quote myself)

Ha! 

Are you serious?

This is really funny stuff.

Yeah, I don't know about that, but I may be off too. I've always thought that ordnance was unaffected by that rule since it only rolls 2D6 and picks the highest as opposed to meltas that roll 2D6 and add them both. In other words, ordnance only ever gets 1D6 for armor pen. It just gets to pick from two.

Isn't this not the incorrect way to not play it? ...not?

To Glaive:

The waveserpent rule specifies that ordinance weapons only roll one die for penetration.  True, the situation is different from, say, melta weapons rolling two dice, but since the only way ordinance weapons ever roll two dice is when they pick one, the rule is pretty clear on limiting the ordinance AP roll to one die.

To Antonin:

The rule states that weapons "never roll more than +1D6 for their armor penetration."  I'd say the key elements here are the "roll" and the "+."     The phrasing does not preclude the standard procedure for AP rolls (strength +1D6), it simply limits the number of rolls.  If it said "Armor Penetration against the wave shield is never more than 1D6," you might have something...

To follow-up to what Yak said, the same logic applies to the original issue... you only "roll" 1D6, which doesn't affect Tank Hunters.  If the rule said that you only "get +1D6" or some such, it would be a different story.

I don't have the codex on hand currently, but I *think* the rule says (almost verbatim)

"...ranged attacks never get better than 1d6 armor pen... for example melta and ordinance only roll 1d6..."

By mathematical definition 1d6+1 (verbatim from the Tank Hunters rule) is greater than 1d6. Since ordnance and melta are cited as examples, it can be assumed that there are other circumstances in which this would apply. The strange way in which this affects ordnance (I agree-it *seems* to get "only 1d6" but the extra d6 roll implies extra penetrating power, which is essentially what Tank Hunters implies and grants...) seems to imply that it should affect *anything* that modifies an Armor Pen roll, similar in effect to Living Armor (minus the lance rule thing; oh and only against shooting).

EDIT: if someone else has the book handy, please correct me or I'll check when I get home...

EDIT2: @Swizel (and all): The exact phrasing of "+1d6" is taken verbatim from the armor penetration rules of "Strength +1d6." Since the Wave Shield modifies Strength in some cases, they chose to only include the "+1d6" fragment. +1d6 is the same as 1d6, if you ask me. Melta weapons at half range get +2d6, but Ordnance get 2d6 take the highest, so the "+" seems irrelevant. The cited examples are not the only situations that apply (that's the implication of "for example" anyways) nor are they limiting factors. They are only examples. Thus they should be ignored when interpreting the rule (allthough I don't know how you could reliably arrive at their answer to ordnance armor pen...this really is a strange one when you look at it...)

It says "never roll more than +1D6" just as swize1 posted.

"Never roll more than +1D6". Not "never cause more than 1D6 total". You never roll for the basic strength anyway, so this changes nothing in that regard. You only roll for the additional armour penetration. This rule simply prevents you from rolling more than 1D6.

Likewise, the Tank Hunters bonus is not part of the roll itself and should not be affected. You are still rolling only 1D6 per the rule, there simply happens to be a modifier attached afterwards. You are still only rolling 1D6.

Also, the "+" is not redundant. Sniper weapons cause 2D6 damage, not +2D6 damage, to armour. There is a difference.

Thank you, Blue Loki, for saving me the trouble...

...a wave serpent is, by the rules, invulnerable from the front/side...as indicated by the old Epic rules.

WOW, someone who remembers the OLD EPIC RULES, that takes me back, I was 16 when I was playing those, are you talking about the little paper wave templates, and the fin shaped wave serpent?

EDIT:  For those of you who never played Adeptus Titanicus:Space Marine: EPIC in the 90s, the original model for the waveserpent was completely different looking, and it was completely impervious from the front 270^o, and it could release its wave shield, it's only weapon, in a devastating arc, sort of like a big vibro cannon, that stunned and potentially crushed everything directly in front of the vehicle.  They operated in pairs and carried the equivalent of an entire 20 harlequins (or whatever aspect you wanted to put in them).  But in those days all exarchs carreid bright lances, power weapons and had swooping hawk wings, and in Epic, there were whole squadrons of them!

Those were the days! In like 1990...

Oh yea, and OT, thats not how it works anymore, the waveshield is wimpy now, D6+S, it doesn't even shoot the wave off anymore.

Wow, if it was impervious though that would be an Eldar players dream... I'm with you in spirit Antonin.  As a general question, isn't the Old Jess Goodwin Design so much nicer then the current Falcon with bits glued on?

Credit goes to coolminiornot.com and the artist Eldanesh, who posted these images, where they can originally be seen:

www.coolminiornot.com/2047

 

I still can't look at the new wave serpent as a serious model. It's just not the right model. It's as if the land raider all of a sudden got a new model without lascannons and using a rhino chassis

Posted By blue loki on 02/08/2007 8:05 AM

It says "never roll more than +1D6" just as swize1 posted.

"Never roll more than +1D6". Not "never cause more than 1D6 total". You never roll for the basic strength anyway, so this changes nothing in that regard. You only roll for the additional armour penetration. This rule simply prevents you from rolling more than 1D6.

Likewise, the Tank Hunters bonus is not part of the roll itself and should not be affected. You are still rolling only 1D6 per the rule, there simply happens to be a modifier attached afterwards. You are still only rolling 1D6.

Also, the "+" is not redundant. Sniper weapons cause 2D6 damage, not +2D6 damage, to armour. There is a difference.

So ordnance would be unaffected, as it does not add two dice, but only rolls two and chooses the higher one?

I'd say it's affected as it limits the number of dice that you can roll, not what you do with the result.

You can't roll 2D6 and pick the highest if you're limited to rolling only 1D6.

The exact phrasing is:

"...all ranged attacks from the front or side never roll more than +1d6 for their armor penetration."

So isn't +1d6+1 more than +1d6?

Posted By Antonin on 02/08/2007 9:02 AM
I still can't look at the new wave serpent as a serious model. It's just not the right model. It's as if the land raider all of a sudden got a new model without lascannons and using a rhino chassis

You mean like the old Land Raider model?  ...although I guess it did have lascannons still.

 

As to the subject at hand:  If the dex specifically calls out ordnance then that's that.  I retract my previous statement.  I don't own the dex and I have had limited experience against eldar.  I'll have to make sure we play it correctly next time I'm in this situation.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 02/08/2007 10:10 AM
The exact phrasing is:

"...all ranged attacks from the front or side never roll more than +1d6 for their armor penetration."

So isn't +1d6+1 more than +1d6?

Yes, +1D6+1 is more than +1D6. But the rule doesn't say that your total cannot be more than +1D6. It says never ROLL more than +1D6.

You are not rolling the extra +1, you are only rolling the +1D6.

 

Likewise, isn't there an Ork weapon that causes +(1D6)*2 damage instead of +2D6? In this case the weapon would still cause +(1D6)*2 because, while the result of the roll is doubled, the roll itself is only made with a single D6.

 

In summary, the rule says nothing about restricting the results of the roll, but rather only says that you are restricted to rolling a single D6. Once that single D6 is rolled, any modifiers applied after-the-fact remain unchanged.

Loki has it.

Are we going to have get out the Obvious Club and beat someone? never mind to late...

Jesus christ.

No wonder GW wants to dumb the rules down when they see arguments like this happening.



The facts:

• You roll no more than one D6 for shooting attacks within the front and side arcs.
  
• Weapons with a strength higher than 8 count as being str 8.
• Close combat attacks are unaffected by this rule.

Now, where does it say that that roll may not be modified?

If you can prove that, then you prove that things such as tank hunter may not work.

If you cannot prove it with any thing more than "designers Intent arguments" then go home. Stop wasting bandwidth.

Hellfury, you're no fun. I thought my "intent" argument was a unique one, and how often do you get to see the good wave serpent model?

Or are you just grumpy that you never got to play under those epic rules? :-)

Anyway, thanks for the rules quote in full; that certainly answers the ordnance question clearly, and the question of weapon strength (also of tank hunter being fine).

stupid screwy eldar rules - I mean, seriously. Strength of no more than 8, and only rolls one die - what next? It can only be shot at by left-handed marines, and only on a sunday?

(that last paragraph is just me grumping - no need to respond)

Posted By Antonin on 02/08/2007 12:28 PM
Hellfury, you're no fun. I thought my "intent" argument was a unique one, and how often do you get to see the good wave serpent model?

Or are you just grumpy that you never got to play under those epic rules? :-)

Anyway, thanks for the rules quote in full; that certainly answers the ordnance question clearly, and the question of weapon strength (also of tank hunter being fine).

stupid screwy eldar rules - I mean, seriously. Strength of no more than 8, and only rolls one die - what next? It can only be shot at by left-handed marines, and only on a sunday?

(that last paragraph is just me grumping - no need to respond)

Nah, I love the old epic rules, but really seriously hated those models.

...seriously hated those models...

BLASPHEMY, surely none could hate those beautiful models in the pic I posted? They're superb!

Yep, I sure can hate them. They look like bricks with an ostrich plume.

To be based off of the falcon chassis was a good idea. Though I still think the FW version is better than the GW plastic version. But this is all a subjective argument anyways.

Besides, you like ninjas so that makes you wrong by default, Augustus.

PISTOLS AT DAWN!

(Ninja assassination the night before)

A guy I played 40k with in 2nd edition actually used a Wave Serpent then

I?ve handled the old Epicast Wave Serpent pictured above. They are silly as hell at 40k scale, though they looked better in Epic scale. I have three Forgeworld Serpents and they are easily the best of the four different versions (current plastic, old Epicast resin, Forgeworld conversion kit, and the 3rd ed studio conversion for which they gave instructions in WD). The gems on the wings and the field projector between are very nice, the extended cab is the same as the plastic, and the various different turret designs (all slightly different for the different weapon systems) are easily the most attractive.

The wave serpent by intent and by raw, should only ever have an attack roll a total of strength 8=> +1d6.

(P.S.: Tank hunter I believe should always have been considered a strength bonus versus vehicles, that makes it a hell of alot easier to deal with these problems)

Since I formerly lived in Medford, Ill be more polite than usual.

First of all, whats makes you (or anyone that isnt a game dev for GW) qualified to to ascertain what intent is?

Second, by RaW, the energy field rule does allow tankhunters to work against it.

Here is the Tank Hunters rule:


It doesnt add strength, it also doesnt  allow more than 1D6 to be rolled, it merely adds +1 to the armor penetration roll.

Strength of weapon (modified to be no more than 8, if greater than 8) + 1D6 +1

But since we are going to go down the "intent" road, what makes you think that tankhunters wasnt specifically made to to help against rules such as energy field?

Hey, necrons will take that 'only get 1d6 for penetration' deal and run with it. Still glance on a six, elf chumps! Or has that been errata'd in the marine codex yet?

I am not quite sure why this got so outta hand about the +1... heck it says right in the dex in the middle of the rule(for example melta weapons at half range or ordinance weapons)  And if you wanna go on intent then think of it like this, the +1 has nothing to do with the power of the weapon which the shield is made to absorb, but the ability of the weapons firer to pinpoint the weakest spots.... so maybe he just happens to know where to shoot into the shield to find a weaker spot
Aztralwolf