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.

I apologise if this is an obvious question but,

Which effect do I count? The AP1 effect of meltaguns (which means that the hit is penetrating as long as it is equal or higher than AV) or the Fast Vehicle effect of skimmers (which means that as long as the vehicle has moved 6" or more then all hits are counted as glancing)?

I'm not sure if I am right on that 6" movement.

Both.  The meltagun inflicts a penetrating hit if it rolls equal to or greater than the AV of the fast moving skimmer; then the skimmer rules downgrade the penetrating hit to a glancing hit.

Kev

Kevin is correct.

Note also that "Skimmers moving fast" only comes into play when the Skimmer moves MORE than 6", not equal to or more. And moving more than 6" may impact how many weapons the Skimmer can fire.

please see the eldar FAQ on the GW main site

all weapon hits on a skimmer type vehicle that has moved over 6" are always glancing results reguardless of the weapons type or special abilities.

as for weapons fire

from 0-12" a skimmer may fire all it's weapons (tau with multitracker upgrade) from 12+-24" it may not fire any weapons.

Mughi3

Actually, it isn't "Skimmer" that determines how many weapons that can be fired, but "fast" that determines it.

A non-"fast" skimmer fires weapons as per normal vehicles.

Sal.

Thats a good point Saldiven.

A non-fast that moves more than 6" can only be glanced, but it cannot shoot that turn either.

Remember, "Skimmers moving fast" is MORE THAN 6".
Non-fast Vehicles shooting is 6" OR LESS.

The two never overlap.

Posted By mughi3 on 04/04/2006 7:40 PM

please see the eldar FAQ on the GW main site

Just remember that the Eldar Codex FAQ only pertains to Eldar skimmers.

Just remember that the Eldar Codex FAQ only pertains to Eldar skimmers.

Nope. Not the way it is worded. It makes a general statement about skimmers, not particular to "Eldar" skimmers.

Just because a FAQ answer is located in a particular FAQ doesn't mean the answer cannot have ramifications beyond that particular codex.

Posted By yakface on 04/05/2006 8:07 AM


Just because a FAQ answer is located in a particular FAQ doesn't mean the answer cannot have ramifications beyond that particular codex.

Yes it does. The first entry in the FAQ stipulates the contents pertain to Eldar. Thus, the discussion on skimmers relates to Eldar skimmers, not skimmers in general.

Honestly, where the FAQ appears in this case is immaterial. The rules (in this case) are actually quite clear and non-contradictory.

The AP 1 rule in question does NOT say that glancing hits become penetrating. It says that armor penetration rolls that equal a vehicles armor value with an AP 1 weapon are treated as penetrating hits.

The SMF rule states that all penetrating hits scored against a SMF are reduced to glancing hits, regardless of source.

These two rules do not contradict each other.

You roll to penetrate with your melta gun against a fast moving Raider and roll a 2 for a penetration roll total of 10, equalling the armor value. The AP 1 rule states that this is now treated as a penetrating hit. However, the skimmer moved fast, so the penetrating hit is treated as a glancing hit.

I repeat, nothing in the AP 1 rule states that glancing hits are treated as penetrating hits. It states that armor penetration rolls that equal the armor value are treated as penetrating hits rather than glancing hits. It then goes on to state that this can be reduced back a glancing hit, and gives two examples of situations where this can occur.

I seriously do not understand what the confusion is.

Sal.

Yes it does. The first entry in the FAQ stipulates the contents pertain to Eldar. Thus, the discussion on skimmers relates to Eldar skimmers, not skimmers in general.

. . .and? Again, the FAQ question does pertain to Eldar (it discusses the effects of Haywire grenades and Wraithcannon hits), but the clarification itself is completely generic.

"Skimmers
*If a skimmer moving over 6" is hit, regardless of the source, all penetrating hits become glancing hits -- including Wraithcannon and Haywire Grenades."


There is nothing to suggest this clarification applies only to the Eldar just because it is located in the Eldar FAQ.

Yes, the fast moving skimmer rule supercedes the AP1 pen rule. No debate there.

Yes, the general rule is reiterated within the Eldar FAQ. However, the Eldar FAQ pertains only to things Eldar. In fact, rule clarification in ANY FAQ is only relevent to the army the FAQ focuses on. That's the point I wanted to make.

Yes, the general rule is reiterated within the Eldar FAQ. However, the Eldar FAQ pertains only to things Eldar. In fact, rule clarification in ANY FAQ is only relevent to the army the FAQ focuses on. That's the point I wanted to make.

And yet you haven't provided anything to support that point.

saldiven...there is what 1 skimmer in all of 40K that cannot move fast-the necron monolith. granted you have to give tau tanks vehicle upgrades to allow tem to do this, but then again who wouldn't given the gameplay rules.

Posted By Saldiven on 04/05/2006 9:10 AM
Honestly, where the FAQ appears in this case is immaterial. The rules (in this case) are actually quite clear and non-contradictory....

The SMF rule states that all penetrating hits scored against a SMF are reduced to glancing hits, regardless of source....

Sal.

The rules actually say that weapons which roll an armour penetration roll which exceeds the target's AV are downgraded to glancing. Not that all penetrating hits are downgraded to glancing.

Consequently an AP1 weapon which rolls equal to a fast moving skimmer's AV causes a penetrating hit.

This is contradicted by the Eldar FAQ.

GW stated that they would not let FAQs overrule the main rules, but... When have GW ever been consistent in their rulings?

Some people say the Eldar FAQ applies to the Eldar, not other armies.

GW stated that they would not let FAQs overrule the main rules, but... When have GW ever been consistent in their rulings?

Some people say the Eldar FAQ applies to the Eldar, not other armies.

When did GW say that? What would be the point of a FAQ if it didn't overide the basic rules when appropriate?

And again, there is no support for that second assertion. The clarification on skimmers in the Eldar codex is a general clarification. There is no indication or support for the concept that it applies only to Eldar skimmers.

>>When did GW say that? What would be the point of a FAQ if it didn't overide the basic rules when appropriate?

They said it in the thread "Droning On" which dealt with the issue of Tau Shield drones. The Tau FAQ for 4th edition confirmed the uselessness of drones thanks to the majority armour rules. GW replied to players' complaints in the Droning On thread, saying they were aware of the problem but did not feel it appropriate to issue an FAQ which changed the basic rules, but that the drones would be fixed in a later publication (which turned out to be the new codex.)

I agree with you that the whole point of FAQs is to clarify and correct the main rules and codexes. I am merely reporting what GW's studio staff said on their website.


>>And again, there is no support for that second assertion. The clarification on skimmers in the Eldar codex is a general clarification. There is no indication or support for the concept that it applies only to Eldar skimmers.

The first paragraph of the Eldar FAQ says it deals with the Eldar army in the light of 4th edition rules (I paraphrase slightly.) I would understand that to mean that it does not deal with the Ork army, or whatever. Consequently, the reference to "all skimmers" should be taken to mean "all skimmers belonging to the Eldar army."

The point is arguable, though perhaps not definitive.

FWIW I decided to play that fast moving skimmers glance all hits. It seems to be the majority opinion. There are several problems in the core rules on the topic. Better to have a standard way of playing it than to D6 every time.

The first paragraph of the Eldar FAQ says it deals with the Eldar army in the light of 4th edition rules (I paraphrase slightly.) I would understand that to mean that it does not deal with the Ork army, or whatever. Consequently, the reference to "all skimmers" should be taken to mean "all skimmers belonging to the Eldar army."

The point is arguable, though perhaps not definitive.

There is nothing at all exclusionary about the wording at the top of the FAQ. If the FAQ said it deals only with the Eldar codex, you might have an argument. But it doesn't.

Does the skimmer ruling pertain to the Eldar codex? Yep. Does it also (by the general way it is worded) apply to all skimmers? Yep.


Again, there is absolutely no reason a codex FAQ answer cannot apply to situations outside of the codex if the wording used is general.

The same is true of the Force Weapon ruling in the Daemonhunter FAQ.

yak:
There is a disclaimer at the top of each codex FAQ stating the FAQ "explains how to use [an army] in conjunction with these [changes]". Each FAQ narrows the scope of changes to the codex (codices) of interest.

There is no "ruling" on force weapons in the Daemonhunter FAQ. The discussions about force weapons or psychic powers are relative to Deamonhunters only. I'm not sure how you can state otherwise.

Because the wording of the FAQ entry talks about the rules in general.

If they just meant the clarification on skimmers to apply to use AGAINST Eldar skimmers, why would they cite Haywire Grenades and Wrathcannon as examples? Are Eldar vs Eldar games the majority in your neighborhood?

And what on earth would be the point of making Eldar skimmers work differently than anyone elses?

The clear conclusion is that this is a general clarification of how skimmers work.  It just happens to be in the Eldar FAQ because Eldar happen to field more skimmers and it's more likely to come up in games involving them.

Nope. The BGB states how skimmers work and this is _reitereated_ in the Eldar FAQ. This doesn't limit the ruling to just the Eldar since the general still applies.

Show me where in the Codex: Eldar FAQ it states the rules outlined affect ALL races. It doesn't. It DOES state the rules outline affect Eldar, though.

If GW wanted to make a general clarification it would have made a BGB FAQ or at least stated within the given FAQ the outlined rule affects all armies. Since niether has happened the clear conclusion the FAQs relate to the realtive codices only.

There is a disclaimer at the top of each codex FAQ stating the FAQ "explains how to use [an army] in conjunction with these [changes]". Each FAQ narrows the scope of changes to the codex (codices) of interest.

Invalid conclusion. Just because the disclaimer explains how to do A does not mean that it is limited to showing how to do A; A is merely one of the things that the document explains.

Show me where in the Codex: Eldar FAQ it states the rules outlined affect ALL races. It doesn't. It DOES state the rules outline affect Eldar, though.

The part that says: "If a skimmer moving over 6[inches] is hit. . ."


After that point we're talking about all Skimmers instead of just Eldar Skimmers.

and the FAQ does not say the FAQ "affects" Eldar. It says: "This document explains how to use the Eldar in conjunction with these changes."

There is a difference.

Does this ruling help explain how to use Eldar in 4th edition? yes. Does it also happen to explain how to play with any skimmer in 40k? Yes it does.

yak:"Does this ruling help explain how to use Eldar in 4th edition? yes. Does it also happen to explain how to play with any skimmer in 40k? Yes it does.
"

It doesn't explain how to play with any other skimmers beyond how to use Eldar skimmers. What part of "explains how to use ELDAR in conjunction with..." means the FAQ relates to ALL armies?

Why specificly state the FAQ explains how to use one type of army if the rules explain how to use any army. Next you're going to tell me the Daemonhunters' FAQ addresses ALL psykers not just Daemonhunters.

It doesn't explain how to play with any other skimmers beyond how to use Eldar skimmers. What part of "explains how to use ELDAR in conjunction with..." means the FAQ relates to ALL armies?

For the thousandth time, the statement at the top of the FAQ is not exclusionary. It does not state that the FAQ applies ONLY to the Eldar codex. And the claification itself is worded in a way that it applies to all skimmers.

Here is is in a premise/conclusion form:


p1. The online Eldar FAQ (v4.0) does not state that it's rulings apply only to the Eldar codex.
p2. The glancing hits vs. skimmers ruling refers to "skimmers" in general rather than "Eldar skimmers" in specific.

Conclusion: The clarification in the Eldar FAQ regarding glancing hits vs. skimmers applies to all skimmers in the game.

Why specificly state the FAQ explains how to use one type of army if the rules explain how to use any army. Next you're going to tell me the Daemonhunters' FAQ addresses ALL psykers not just Daemonhunters.

Ummm. . .because that is what the document is for. To clarify the Eldar codex. One single clarification in the group also happens to clarify not only the Eldar codex, but all skimmers in general.

And yes, there is one (and only one) clarification in the Daemonhunter FAQ that is worded in a way that it applies to all armies:

"Models may only use one Major Psychic power in each game turn, rather than player turn (you may not use a Force Weapon's ability in both yours and your opponent's Assault phase)."


Avatar. Look through the FAQs carefully. Most questions are specific and refer only to a particular unit or special rule. However there are a handful of generic clarifications that do apply beyond the particular codex because of the way they are worded.

Let's try a thought experiment.

If you took the following phrase; "This document explains how to use the Eldar... etc." and showed it to a wide variety of players, and asked this question:

Does this phrase mean?

1) The document applies to the Eldar.
2) The document applies to the Tau.
3) The document applies to the Space Marines.
4) The document applies to all the above.

What do you think most people would answer?

You've created a question that doesn't apply to the situation.

I have never denied that the document doesn't explain how to use the Eldar codex in 4th edition. That particular clarification (and just that one clarification) also affects the game in general.


It also doesn't matter what most people would think. If you want to go down that road then I can safely make the claim that the vast majority of players already use the ruling presented in that clarification (that the skimmers moving fast rule trumps all others) perhaps without even knowing about it.

I have never, ever run into a situation where someone tried to claim that an AP1 weapon can cause penetrating hits on a skimmer that has moved over 6". So let's not get into "what would most people think", because unless I've vastly miscalculated my experiences, the common way this situation is played is exactly what I've been purporting.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 04/06/2006 3:25 PM
Let's try a thought experiment.

If you took the following phrase; "This document explains how to use the Eldar... etc." and showed it to a wide variety of players, and asked this question:

Does this phrase mean?

1) The document applies to the Eldar.
2) The document applies to the Tau.
3) The document applies to the Space Marines.
4) The document applies to all the above.

What do you think most people would answer?

 

Does the document explain how to use the Eldar?  Yes it does.  If the document explains how to use the Eldar, Space Marine Skimmers, and Tau skimmers, does it still explain how to use the Eldar?  Yes it does.  It doesn't say it explains *exclusively* how to use the Eldar though.

As a secondary note, GW doesn't have a general 40k FAQ in that section, they only have a FAQ dedicated to each of the Codex books.  Obviously they could avoid a lot of confusion if they just added that rule to a general 40k rules FAQ (or didn't, and simply stated that rule only applied to Eldar skimmers).  Perhaps that would be a good suggestion for improvement of the FAQ section.

yak:
Addressing p1: No, the Eldar FAQ doesn't say it affect ONLY Eldar but it definitely doesn't say it is a general FAQ either. The FAQ states its scope is narrowed to describing how to use the Eldar with the new rules.

P2: This is just an assumption expressed without any supporting evidence.

skyfyre:
"...GW doesn't have a general 40k FAQ in that section, they only have a FAQ dedicated to each of the Codex books."

Exactly! Each FAQ addresses each Codex. Each Codex is related to one and only one army (or chapter/type). Rules defined in a codex do not affect rules in another codex unless directly stated as such.

I think it's very clear. The FAQ states the rules have changed, and this FAQ is just how to play Eldar in relation to those changes. The part of the FAQ that addresses skimmers states that weapons such as Wraithcannons and Haywire grenades are reduced to glancing against a skimmer that moves over 6". It does not state an ELDAR skimmer, it says A skimmer.

P1: The beginning of the FAQ states the universal rules have changed in 4th Edition and the FAQ is designed to show how to play Eldar in relation to those changes.
P2: The glancing versus penetrating statement is in reference to examples of Eldar weapons versus skimmers.

C1: The glancing versus penetrating paragraph is in reference to a univeral rule in 4th Edition that has changed and how Eldar weapons relate to it.