McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 11:33:28 GMT -5
A situation came up in this past sunday's games that Ron and I had that brought up a question. Not that it came up during the game. I thought about it after. I don't think it would have made much of a diffrence in the game anyway, but it got me thinkin'. Let say that you fire a las cannon pred. at a rhino. You score two pens and a glance. Acceptedly if this were three diffrent results all of them would take affect. (stunned, weapon destroyed, and imobilized.) Now if they were Stunned, Imobilized and imobilized, both would count and also make weapon destroyed.
Heres' the question? Lets say there were all three 6's for destroyed results. With the two pen. results, would you roll 2d6 and take the higher of the explosion radius'?
|
|
Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Jan 24, 2006 12:12:56 GMT -5
I think rolling two sets of dice for the two Pen 6's is a bit much. You blew it up, roll once and move on...
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 24, 2006 12:18:21 GMT -5
Agreed, two dice falls into the category of overkill. It's destroyed, be happy with that. One dice is fair.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 12:24:46 GMT -5
Recently there has been much debate over RAW and interpratation? Which are you doing here? I'm looking for a rules clarification? It would seem that you would roll the two d6's since we don't just ignore results? Now the rules may say that you roll glances and pen results one at a time and just stop once you get a destroyed result, but that has other ramifications.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 24, 2006 12:28:56 GMT -5
Put it like this...
If you dropped that in a tourney (and you might be correct according to RAW), I can see your opponent getting pissed and marking you down in sportsmanship. You may win the battle but you would lose the war. Personally, I would not do it.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 12:52:15 GMT -5
So what your suggesting is that it's ok for your opponet to mark you down on your sportsmanship, because you are using the rules of the game?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 24, 2006 13:06:56 GMT -5
I am not suggesting that but I have seen it done.
Example1- At Millenium, "Spinner" marked me down for using faith points cause he didn't like them. (Walking a wolf priest in terminator armor in rapid fire range of two squads with divine guidance pissed him off and made for one severely dead wolf priest.) I was playing my rules.
Example2- At Boldo's, Hess Jr. scored Brian zeros cause he didn't like playing Necrons and thinks they are a cheater army. (Yes he told Brian this word for word.) Brian may not be the best player, none of us are but he didnt deserve zeros. Brian was playing his army by the rules but it didn't matter.
One of the problems with subjective scores in tourneys. All I am saying is it doesn't take alot to get some people pissed and that my friend would do it for some of the thin skinned antisocial dweebs we have seen at some of the tourneys. Kevin if you want to do it, go ahead, all I am saying is some people would not like it.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 13:41:46 GMT -5
If I would do it or not, isn't really in question yet? What i'm looking for is if there is a order of opperations that clarify how this rule works, since I don't have my book infront of me.
Major... I've also seen this type of scoring, I've heard its' called chipmunking?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 24, 2006 13:52:53 GMT -5
Like it or not, we both agree that type of scoring exists.
What I am saying is that while you may be playing by the letter of the law, it would not be in the spirit of the rules. Why would you do this anyway, so you might get an extra inch or two on our blast and maybe get one more model? It doesn't seem like a risk I would take if it pissed somene off. There are so many other ways of pissing people off you should use something more obvious, if that is where you are going... ;D
|
|
Sanguinary
Sergeant
WOW, his son looks strangely like Shaun,
Posts: 341
|
Post by Sanguinary on Jan 24, 2006 13:58:12 GMT -5
This is like the rule that forces you to roll for difficult terrain when you assault because one guy has to go through it. Even though we all play like that it is nowhere in the rules.
Insanity and twisting the rules. Why not take it a step further. If you blow up a vehicle that moved over 6" do you get to re-roll the 4+ to wound as many times as you blew i t up?
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 14:19:37 GMT -5
Your right, that could be an interpritation. One of the things that leads me to belive that some of these things are in question is that I have seen people use when your in HTH with their vehicle: "Ok, yes you glancing destroyied my vehicle, but you still need to roll for all your pen results to see if it blows up on you!" This has be used on me and I have used it on others at the store.
To add to the confusion, if you pen 6 blow up a vechicle twice and roll a 3 and a 6 for explosion radius. Do all the models within 3 inches get hit twice?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Jan 24, 2006 15:15:08 GMT -5
Why is this even in question? Roll to Hit the vehicle with your pred. Roll to see if its a pen/glance. Then one at a time roll to see results. (why?) Heres why: Results compound on each other. there for you must first find out the first result, then find out the second result...determine the result of the 1st and 2nd. Then find the result of the third and see if it affects the 1st and 2nd. If Result 1 is a pen 6 your done rolling because you cannot affect something that is already destroyed. What would be the point of applying an Immobilized and a weapon destroyed to a Vehilce that is already destroyed on the first roll. What your implying is that you indeed to apply those results. Another point. You cannot blow a vehicle up twice...its not possible. Once you destroy it the first time theres nothing left to destroy the second time, you already blew it up. The explosion comes from something flammable exploding, once it explodes theres nothing left to ignite... Would I be allowed to shoot at wrecks (blown up vehicles) to try and get a Pen 6 so I can blow up and kill nearby troops? (no!) That makes no sense. I would not let this fly if some one pulled it on me and its rather lame way of playing the game to boot.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 15:41:39 GMT -5
So your saying that on your first roll of a glancing 6 (destroyed vehicle).... you would not continue rolling to check if the vehicle would be pen. 6ed, becuase by your logic the vehicle is already destroyed?
As long as we are being interpretive this is absolutely wrong. You could most likely blow up a vehicle several times. Example: Two marines on either end of a pred. in HTH with powerfists both getting pen. 6s. One blows up the ammo in it's compartment and the other destorys the fuel tank. There is lots of explosive stuff in tanks that doesn't all have to detonate at one.
Becuse it could make a diffrence in some games and because I'm curious on people opinions?
On what point are you not letting this fly? No one seems to have a rule book at the moment so we haven't clairified anything?
|
|
Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Jan 24, 2006 16:26:17 GMT -5
MC - Now you are just contradicting yourself..
You originally stated that you want to know what the rue book says about this, but in your last post you say you are curious about people's opinion... well, which is man? You want opinion's or a rules clarification.
As far as the whole blowing it up twice argument you present in HTH with gas tanks and ammo compartment - Are you even hearing this before you type it out? Now you are just being silly and realy stretching the boundaries of the argument - I know this becuase I can hear you laughing..
Roll each result one at a time, when it blows up you're done. End of story. Do not pass go - go directly to the Adeptus Mechanicus and get a new one.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Jan 24, 2006 16:37:35 GMT -5
I'm asking about what the rules say? ... A clarification? clarifications can be subjective.
I havn't claimed anything yet, since I don't have my rulebook with me and am only going by memory. Just suggesting possible questions and theories. I had thought that someone may be home and have acces to they're rule book to shed light on the subject. Thus far people have claimed alot of subjective rulings, but no actual rules. While this does make for a good debate, doesn't really get us anywhere.
Unless someone has a rule book and can point at/quote us something, When I get home I'll check my own book for actually wording and shed some light on this subject which I'm sure will also be subjective.
PS: Also looking to increase my post count! ;D
|
|