++ Grey Area Rules.... ++

[Isiah]

What's this for?

There are many many rules discussion in the OR section – and thankfully many of them are successfully concluded without too much collatoral damage in the form of lost tempers or worse.

 

But where a rules problem cannot throw up an answer agreed upon after a logical debate using RAW and suitable Rulebooks and Codexes where appropriate, then that rule problem goes into this Grey area topic. In a real life game situation it would probably require a dice-off to settle or the adjudication of a tournament official or staff member.

 

It is hoped that by putting all such issues in one place we then have a ready list of rules (and supporting discussions) that can be seen as an FAQ 'hit list' requiring urgent attention – we just need to hope a passing GW mandarin sees it and does something about it... lets just hope they aren't in 'basement gamer mode'.

 

How will it work?

The OR mods will add the rules problems to this topic. But what to add can be suggested by anyone in the course of a rules discussion if it seems to be going around in pointless circles – and lets face it it should be fairly obvious in most cases. It will then take the form of a one rule problem per post basis, where in each post the initial query is shown, together with a summary of all the arguments presented and a link to the original discussion topic. This topic will itself be not be a rules discussion – merely a vehicle to hold problems and links – and as such will remain closed.

 

So what can I do?

Keep your eyes peeled for likely candidates for this topic. I can think of three so far:

 

• Using GOI to get out of assault

• Using GOI to get out of a vehicle

• Melta bombs getting bonuses v Monoliths.

 

these are merely examples – there are maybe a few more lurking around.

 

OK that's it for now.

 

Cheers

I

[Isiah]

The issue

Can the Libby and any unit he is with, use GOI to get out of close combat?

 

Summary

The issue of using GOI to get out of cc has two main points of view with arguments thus:

 

Arguments for being able to do it

• That GOI is a non-shooting psychic power that has no written rule specifically stating it cannot be used during cc.

(Only shooting psychic powers have a rule specifically stating they can't be used in cc. p50 BRB)

 

• That GOI removing models from play doesn't actually constitute movement so doesn't fall foul of the non-movement when locked in cc ruling on p11 BRB.

 

(There is no definition of what constitutes 'movement'.)

• That GOI in using deep strike as a means of operation doesn't actually constitute movement so doesn't fall foul of the non-movement when locked in cc ruling on p11 BRB.

(There is no definition of whether deep strike constitutes 'movement'.)

 

Arguments against being able to do it

• That GOI is a non-shooting psychic power that has no written rule specifically stating it can be used during cc.

(The only rules specifically allowing movement in cc are Pile-in moves, the Hit and Run USR and when casualties are removed.)

 

• That GOI removes models from play when in cc therefore falls foul of the non-movement when locked in cc ruling on p11 BRB.

(The only rules specifically allowing movement in cc are Pile-in moves, the Hit and Run USR and when casualties are removed.)

 

• That GOI in using deep strike as a means of operation constitutes movement and so falls foul of the non-movement when locked in cc ruling.

(There is no definition of whether deep strike constitutes 'movement'.)

 

Original discussion topic here.

[nighthawks]

The issue

Does the use of Calgar's God of War rule to pass a morale test incur NO RETREAT?

 

Summary

The issue of using GoW has two main points of view with arguments thus:

 

Argument for NO RETREAT!

• As the test may be passed without "rolling" a morale check, and thus the decision to pass the test will always be succesful (i.e. "NEVER fall back" per BRB P. 44, NO RETREAT!) the choice to pass DOES incur NO RETREAT! and relevant saves

 

Arguments against NO RETREAT!

• GoW allows a test to be passed or failed as desired, but is not the same as "always passing" as the option, thus possibility, to fail is always available and therefore the unit using GoW is not included in the rule's "will never fall back" language.

 

Original discussion topic here.

 

 

 

NOTE: this has now been resolved in the latest C:SM Official Update V1.2:

 

Q. If Marneus Calgar chooses to pass a Morale Check

using his God of War special rule does he, and any unit

he has joined, take Wounds from the No Retreat!

special rule? (p84).

A. No.

[nighthawks]

The issue

how does wound allocation work in the case of single-use weapons, do the models equipped with them count as "unique in gaming terms" after the use of the weapon?

 

examples - demolitions charges in IG, combi-weapons in Space Marines Sternguard Veterans.

 

Summary

The issue of model uniqueness has three main points of view with arguments, using the example of a combi-weapon equipped sternguard veteran from C:SM, though these points can be extrapolated to other, simillar scenarios.

 

The model remains classified as equipped from the beginning of the game

• The model has wargear, stats, characteristics, and weapons that define it as unique or not unique within the unit. the use of a one-time weapon, such as a combi-melta, does not change this.

 

The state of the weapon effects the model's uniqueness, effectively "loosing" the unique characteristic

• A model with an expended combi-weapon or other one-time use weapon no longer posses the ability which made it unique. if the model is now functionally non-unique within the unit (equivalent to the standard, bolter-equipped sternguard, for example) after firing the combi-weapon, then the model is grouped as such for purposes of wound allocation.

 

The state of the weapon effects the model's uniqueness, and there are degrees of uniqueness

•much the same as the above, except that this view holds that a combi-weapon carying model is always non-identical in gaming terms to a standard bolter veteran. additionally, if there are two veterans so equipped, the state of their combi-melta (fired or not) can make them unique from one another for the purposes of wound allocation.

 

Original discussion topic here.

[Isiah]

The issue

Warptime Chaos psychic power: rerolling ALL hits and wounds or ones that you choose?

 

Summary

Warptime (Codex: Chaos Space Marines p88) has a basic issue with poorly written wording that results in needing to rely heavily on interpretation, and to a certain extent RAI (even this is guesswork).

 

"The power is used at the start of any player's turn. If successful, the psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn."

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The arguments that all rolls are re-rolled regardless of their original result

• RAW clearly states that all to wound and to hit rolls may be re-rolled.

• The 'may' in the rule says you have a choice of either to roll all or none of the rolls as you choose.

• There is no specific 'exception' modifier, nor wording to indicate that there is a choice of which can be re-rolled, meaning that they all have to.

 

The arguments that allow you to choose which rolls to re-roll

• RAW clearly states that all to wound and to hit rolls may be re-rolled. What it doesn't say is that all of those particular rolls must be re-rolled or none.

• The 'all' in the rule means more than one of all the to hit or to wound rolls – not the full total of all those rolls (or none). Or to put that another way: it means that for all the rolls that fill the criteria, you are allowed to re-roll any of them as you want.

• The 'may' in the wording indicates "may re-roll", as in, you do not have to re-roll anything you do not want to, indicating you have an option of which ones to re-roll.

 

Original discussion topic here.

[nighthawks]

The issue

Necron Pariah Soulless rule vs. Dark Angels Masters' Rights of Battle

 

Summary

Both rules modify the leadership of units. Soulless states that affected models "count as having Leadership 7" while Rights of Battle states that "Dark Angels units may use his leadership." the question is the order in which these rules are applied, or which rule takes precedence.

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The argument that Soulless takes precedence over Rights of Battle

• This argument is based on the belief that "counts as" makes the choice of Ld (units' own or that of the master) irrelevant, and as such models choosing to use the leadership of the Master are still treated as having Ld 7 for the purposes of their test.

 

The arguments that Rights of Battle takes precedence over Soulless

• Those who argue this way see Soulless as effecting the Ld. characteristic of the affected units' statlines but believes the Soulless-affected (Ld 7) unit may then choose to test using the leadership of their Chapter Master in accordance with RoB.

 

There's not much in the way of RAW debate here, mostly just a case of how various people read it. Certainly worth a quick pre-game chat if you play Dark Angels vs. Necrons with Pariahs.

 

Original discussion topic here.

[nighthawks]

The issue

Vulkan He'stan's "Gauntlet of the Forge" (GotF)

 

Summary

The rules for the gauntlet have various interpretations, leading to very different effects on the weapon in game. the rules for the GotF in C:SM on P.93 state "can be fired as a heavy flamer". The question seems to be to what extent this relationship between the GotF and a heavy flamer extends, most notably with regard to He'stan's Chapter Tactics rule.

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The argument that the GotF behaves in all ways like a heavy flamer:

• to fire as a heavy flamer is to fire in all ways as one - including the positives and negatives. thus those in this camp believe that the GotF would be twin linked when using He'stan's Chapter Tactics for the army, as would any normal heavy flamer. additionally, it has been raised that special rules such as the Eldar Avatar's which grant immunity to flame weapons would extend to the GotF as well.

 

The argument that the GotF is not a heavy flamer:

• This argument focuses on the lack of a statement equating the GotF and a heavy flamer for all purposes. The supporters argue that the rules for firing a heavy flamer, such as its S and AP values, are well understood, and that the GotF rules simply reference the heavy flamer rules as a quick way to explain the way it fires. As it is not stated that the GotF "is" or "counts as" a heavy flamer, then the rules affecting heavy flamers specifically, outside of the firing mechanic and basic weapon profile, do not affect the GotF. thus the weapon is not twin linked from Vulkan's own Chapter Tactics.

 

Note that teh Avatar arguments came on Page 5 of the discussion, and the supporters of the "not twin linked" side have not presented full counter arguments at the time of this entry.

 

Original discussion topic here.

[Isiah]

The issue

Is it possible to use the psychic power Gate of Infinity in conjunction with Locater Beacons to stop the Librarian/attached unit scattering when re-entering play?

 

Summary

The rules for the operation of the Locater Beacon [p67 C:SM] state simply:

 

"If a unit wishes to arrive on the battlefield via deep strike and chooses to do so within 6" of a model carrying a locater beacon, then it won't scatter". [bold bits mine].

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The argument that Locater Beacons can be used with GoI:

• The rules for the use of GoI [p57 C:SM] clearly states that units subject to GoI enter play using the deep strike rules. Thus as a deep striking unit they can latch onto the Beacon and will not scatter (if deployed with 6" of it of course).

 

The argument that Locater Beacons can't be used with GoI:

• We are not told that a unit using GoI is put into reserve before re-entering play. Thus is in itself not proper deep striking as is defined by a unit that must begin the game in reserve and enter play using the rolling for reserves rule [p95 BRB]. GoI is just a psychic power that utilises the physical mechanic of model placement using the deep strike rules.

 

 

The issue isn't so much RAW with regards either beacon or GoI but a bit of a heads on is GoI proper deep striking? If GoI is, then yes it's legal to use the beacon. If it isn't, then no you can't.

 

Original discussion topic here and in other places too.

[nighthawks]

The issue

Vehicle weapons granting cover saves to target units due to the weapons' fire arcs.

 

Summary

The rules for Vehicles Shooting, found on P.58 of the 5th ed. rulebook (BRB), tells us to work out cover saves "exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit." P.59 details the "arc of sight" of various weapon mounts.

 

can the arcs of sight be exploited by clever target unit placement to force a cover save from the vehicle's shooting by denying line of sight to a majority of target models in a unit from the majority of weapon mounts, even though there is no terrain or other traditional cover between the vehicle and the target unit?

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The argument that the vehicle's arc of sight grants a cover save:

• This argument is based mostly on the "Units partially in cover" rules on BRB P.22. The example used in-thread is of a predator with turret and side sponsor weapons targeting a gunline of 10 models where each sponson mounted weapon can draw LOS to the 4 models on either side of the gunline, and the turret to all 10. As 2/3 (a majority) of the weapons cannot draw LOS to 6/10 models, there exists a situation explained by the rule "If the majority of the firers [weapons] have a clear shot to the majority of the models in the target unit, the unit receives no save. Otherwise, it does."

 

The fact that there is no traditional feature is of no consequence, 2/3 guns can see less than 1/2 of the models. it is further not relevant that these are not the same target models who are obscured or seen, as the rules do not require that such a condition be met. This is a very clean application of the RAW with regard to TLOS. The requirements for establishing cover as stated on P.21 'When are models in cover?" P22 "Units partially in cover" are met using the definitions from P.58-59 "Vehicle weapons & line of sight"

 

The argument that the vehicle never grants a cover save against its own weapons:

• The counter argument is based on single rule and many attempts to expand upon it with relation to alternate rules.

The "Own Unit" exception to cover, P. 22. as the tank is of the same unit as the weaponry, it does not grant cover from its own firing weapons.

 

The resultant condition where a target unit is in plain sight to the vehicle, its main weapon, etc... but majority obscured by the perspective of more than half of the vehicle's firing weaponry is seen as an unaccounted for situation that ultimately is subject to the rule above. further, the key rule is that on P. 58 ""to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles' weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if..."

. The initiating condition must be to establish a blockage of line of sight by "terrain or models." The "own unit" exceptions noted above prevent "models" from being the tank itself. so despite there being a limited arc, the UNIT can be seen by each weapon, and each thus gets to fire normally and does not provide cover.

 

Also note:

In instances where this situation arises AND there is a weapon that CANNOT draw LOS to the target, that weapon is disallowed from firing at all as stated on P. 58. There have been no advocates yet of ignoring the "arc of sight" restrictions of weapons with regard to which can or cannot fire. All of tha bove examples presuppose that all 3 weapons can draw LOS models as described and that all 3 and only those 3 are intended to be fired.

 

The general rule, from P.22, for a disagreement on cover is to reduce the save by one (5+). If this comes up and you and your opponent have not discussed it pre-game, I would suggest following the 5+ rule rather than spoiling a good game with a no-win argument.

 

Original discussion topic here.

 

Full disclosure - I was involved in arguing AGAINST cover saves, and if anyone feels the above to be unfairly biased, please let me know and I will attempt to remove that bias.

[Isiah]

The issue

Vindicare Turbo-Penetrator ammo: The turbo-penetrator ammo has 4D6 [Codex GK] armour penetration. Do the standard sniper weapon rules apply as well when used against vehicles?

 

Specifically, whether the ammo gives a straight 4D6 armour penetration, or Str3+4D6 armour penetration when used against vehicles.

 

Summary

Codex GK page 53:

“A turbo-penetrator shot has an Armour Penetration of 4D6.”

 

BRB page 31:

“Against vehicles, sniper weapons count as Strength 3, [...]”.

 

BRB page 61:

”Armour Penetration [when shooting at vehicles]

[…] roll a D6 and add the weapon's strength to it, [...]"

 

The arguments for each point of view are basically these:

 

The arguments that the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator round does not follow standard sniper weapon rules:

• By RAW in the GK Codex it is stated as getting an 'Armour Penetration 4D6'.

• There is no specific mention of a sniper rifle's Strength 3 being added to those 4D6.

• As Codex overrides the BRB, 4D6 is what you get and nothing more.

• There are examples in 5th Edition of other weapons that have a fixed stated armour penetration value to be used, e.g. from the BRB p63:

 

”Against vehicles, grenades have the following armour penetration:

Defensive and assault grenades 4+D6

Krak grenades 6+D6

Melta bombs 8+2D6"

 

The turbo-penetrator's 4D6 is a similar specific definitive statement of the total AP value to be used.

 

The arguments that the Vindicare's turbo-penetrator round does follow standard sniper weapon rules:

• By RAW in the BRB it clearly states Sniper weapons are Str3. Normal shooting rules adds the weapon's Str to a D6 for an armour penetration result. In this instance, the turbo-penetrator's special 4D6 simply replaces the 'normal' D6 roll when determining the armour penetration value.

 

Original discussion topic here.

 

I think I've summed it up – if there's an error please let me know.