Can DE Ravagers ignore the Hard to Hit rule?

[thade]

So, I don't have the DE codex and - at work - I don't have my rulebook...but this discussion is writhing on another forum and the dust settled at "We're not sure, but let's be cool and NOT allow them to fire at full BS". (At least I *think* that's where it settled.)

 

I bet one or more of you has the DE book. :yes:

 

The gist is that the Ravager has some ability that allows it to fire at it's full BS regardless of how far it moved, or some such. The extrapolation: a Ravager can thus fire at a Flyer at full BS, based on whatever rule it has that allows it to fire at full BS.

 

Halp!

[Morollan]

The gist is that the Ravager has some ability that allows it to fire at it's full BS regardless of how far it moved, or some such. The extrapolation: a Ravager can thus fire at a Flyer at full BS, based on whatever rule it has that allows it to fire at full BS.

 

The DE FAQ says "a Ravager that moved at Crusing Speed may fire all of its weapons using its crew's full Ballistic Skill"

 

Needless to say, people are now attempting to make this overwrite the snap fire rules.

 

:)

[Seahawk]

Well, FAQ > Codex > Advanced > Basic, and heck, if Signums and other abilities work against Snap Shot rules...

[Morollan]

To be perfectly honest, the lengths that some people are going to to exploit loopholes in a ruleset that was never, ever, intended to be scrutinised this vigorously is actually putting me off the game. It seems like every few minutes a new exploit is revealed.

[bystrom]

Does that mean that only if the Ravager moves at Cruising Speed, it can utilize that rule and hence ignore snap shots against flyers? Sounds awfully fishy to me.

[Morollan]

Does that mean that only if the Ravager moves at Cruising Speed, it can utilize that rule and hence ignore snap shots against flyers? Sounds awfully fishy to me.

 

Of course it's fishy! There are rules that tell us how many weapons can be fired at a given movement speed. The Aerial Assault rule modifies that rule. It is not intended to be a blanket statement that they may always fire all weapons at full BS come what may!

[thade]

Does that mean that only if the Ravager moves at Cruising Speed, it can utilize that rule and hence ignore snap shots against flyers? Sounds awfully fishy to me.

 

Of course it's fishy! There are rules that tell us how many weapons can be fired at a given movement speed. The Aerial Assault rule modifies that rule. It is not intended to be a blanket statement that they may always fire all weapons at full BS come what may!

Right, this is more or less the argument against it. The argument for it is based entirely upon the glaring hole in the rules.

[Sparhawk]

Without seeing the rule my counter to the Codex>BRB stuff for this is that the ravager rule only appears to affect BS with regards to its own movement speed. If anyone can post the rules quote that would be very helpful.

[Seahawk]

If we don't find the holes then GW won't make an effort to close them, because emperor knows they won't find them on their own! All we can do is hope that somebody with sway will read these topics and then make a ruling on the newer FAQ's. It's 50-50 at best, but I'm willing to try, rather than lie down a take it.

[ShinyRhino]

To be perfectly honest, the lengths that some people are going to to exploit loopholes in a ruleset that was never, ever, intended to be scrutinised this vigorously is actually putting me off the game. It seems like every few minutes a new exploit is revealed.

 

Same here, and I feel it's a result of the fact that 6th Edition is blatantly a RAI rules set, and we as gamers tend to lean toward RAW by default. I pointed that fact out to folks on my FLGS's forum, and was told that RAW is best, regardless of loopholes, because it allows for common readings of rules with a hrd baseline of "that's what it says!" instead of arguments over in-game fluff and realities.

 

A lot of these rules loopholes will close when the BRB is FAQ'd, but as always a little common sense helps a ton when deciphering new rules.

[thade]

If we don't find the holes then GW won't make an effort to close them, because emperor knows they won't find them on their own! All we can do is hope that somebody with sway will read these topics and then make a ruling on the newer FAQ's. It's 50-50 at best, but I'm willing to try, rather than lie down a take it.

I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. I remember, what, two years ago when we asked a dozen questions on here that hit walls and they virtually all appeared in an FAQ a month later. I do hope we see more of that.

 

It doesn't mean I won't be a touch frustrated in the interim. <3

[thade]

To be perfectly honest, the lengths that some people are going to to exploit loopholes in a ruleset that was never, ever, intended to be scrutinised this vigorously is actually putting me off the game. It seems like every few minutes a new exploit is revealed.

I totally understand this, but don't give up. <3 I am personally becoming more and more picky who I game with based on this very issue; nothing poisons the air more for me than hearing somebody assert, mid-game, that an obvious loophole which benefits them is being enacted on their behalf. In the end I usually just roll with it so the game continues smoothly; depending on how the rule is resolved later on with that player is the deciding factor as to whether or not I'll game them again. Fortunately I'm in Boston and the Warhammer scene is really swinging and there are a great many cool-headed but hard players out here. There's a WAAC contingent (there always is) but there are also players who are good at the game and not jerks about things like this.

 

If you mean to play in tournies though, you really need to develop some thick skin, as you can't help that one game with That Guy who will quickly yell at you if he thinks you won't let his obvious loophole avail him.

[pyroknight]

I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. I remember, what, two years ago when we asked a dozen questions on here that hit walls and they virtually all appeared in an FAQ a month later. I do hope we see more of that.

 

It doesn't mean I won't be a touch frustrated in the interim. <3

So we know that GW is slow to close their loopholes, and we know we have one of the best communities on the web....why can't we just compile an anthology of things we want FAQed and drop it on GW's doorstep / inbox. Surely they have humans answering such things, and would sense the raw power of the tome and deliver it to the powers that be. Or is the company really that out of touch?

[Grey Mage]

Its specificly 'if it moves at cruising speed'. Thus it overcomes the restrictions for moving at cruising speed- wich have nothing to do with the restrictions of shooting at flyers.

[Toasterfree]

Its specificly 'if it moves at cruising speed'. Thus it overcomes the restrictions for moving at cruising speed- wich have nothing to do with the restrictions of shooting at flyers.

said better than i was thinking about saying it. gives DE the BEST moving anti armor vehicle in the game.

 

SHOOT DOWN THOSE RAVAGERS BOYS!

[Morticon]

Its specificly 'if it moves at cruising speed'. Thus it overcomes the restrictions for moving at cruising speed- wich have nothing to do with the restrictions of shooting at flyers.

said better than i was thinking about saying it. gives DE the BEST moving anti armor vehicle in the game.

 

SHOOT DOWN THOSE RAVAGERS BOYS!

 

Could be wrong, but i think he was arguing against what you're arguing.

[Grey Mage]

Its specificly 'if it moves at cruising speed'. Thus it overcomes the restrictions for moving at cruising speed- wich have nothing to do with the restrictions of shooting at flyers.

said better than i was thinking about saying it. gives DE the BEST moving anti armor vehicle in the game.

 

SHOOT DOWN THOSE RAVAGERS BOYS!

 

Could be wrong, but i think he was arguing against what you're arguing.

Indeed I was.

 

If you move at cruising speed you get 2 weapon, and other snapfires.

 

The DE Ravager ignores this restriction, and thus fires normally.

 

A unit firing normally at a Flyer hits on 6's because of the Hard to Hit rule forcing them to snapfire.

 

Thus they hit on 6's anyways.

[DarkGuard]

Isn't a DA Ravager a fast vehicle though, and so will therefore get to fire two weapons normally at cruising speed, with the last snap firing? Of course it doesn't matter, but for completeness sake... :)

[Grey Mage]

You are correct- but it has 3 guns. Ill edit the above.

[Morticon]

im pretty sure the FAQ/Codex allows it to fire all (3)of its guns if it moved at cruising. Thats the point.

[MalachiOfRuss]

This kind of argument is really indicative of what Neil from the 11th Company was saying on his last podcast. Either we, as the 40k community, "respect" the flyer rules as they are intended - so everything that doesn't have Skyfire needs 6's to hit, or we just ignore the Hard to Hit rule entirely and let everything hit them on their normal BS. Because what we have right now is a whole host of people desperately scouring their Codex and FAQ trying to find any and all arguments they can to not have to hit Flyers on 6's (e.g. this rule, Mawloc Terror from the Deep, Blood Lance, Eldar Vibro Cannon, Ork Battlewagon Grabba Claws, Devastator Signum, BA Magna-grapple, etc etc).

 

I'm inclined to agree with him: if you are agreeing with any of these arguments, then just skip the searching/arguing part and assume that anyone can shoot a flyer at their normal BS whenever the heck they feel like it. Skip the arguing time and save it for game time. Or you could establish a "gentleman's agreement" in your gaming group not to bring flyers (or many just more than 1 or 2) until the game "balances itself out" - or any other kind of house rule really (give all ML Flakk, make every Objective give Skyfire to units within 3", etc.)

 

TLDR - this kind of FAQ/Codex rules lawyering is pointless. Either respect the Hard to Hit rule, or ignore it.

[thade]

TLDR - this kind of FAQ/Codex rules lawyering is pointless. Either respect the Hard to Hit rule, or ignore it.

The Emperor himself speaks through this brave marine.

[Seahawk]

Terror from the deep is obvious that it can't hit the flyer at all; it's a blast weapon, and they can't Snap Shot (or even hit flyers, period). The Vibro-cannon doesn't roll to hit, and thus it can't Snap Shot, so it can't shoot the flyer. How are these even being argued otherwise?

 

I'd respect it if I could respect GW's rules writing ability, but since they inanely drop the ball on that so often, we're left to pick up the pieces and make some sense of them. They're getting better, but it's like saying a rock is becoming more animate.

[MalachiOfRuss]

Terror from the deep is obvious that it can't hit the flyer at all; it's a blast weapon, and they can't Snap Shot (or even hit flyers, period).

Ah but it isn't. It simply says "Place the large blast marker ... every unit under the marker suffers... Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour." Is the flyer under the Large Blast marker? Yup, so it's hit!

 

The Vibro-cannon doesn't roll to hit, and thus it can't Snap Shot, so it can't shoot the flyer. How are these even being argued otherwise?

Because you don't shoot at the flyer, you shoot at something in front of the flyer and "everything under the line is hit." So that means the flyer right? Yup!

 

Note: I am not agreeing with these arguments, simply repeating them as an illustration. To me the above are equally as ridiculous as the Signum argument, and the Ravager moving at Cruising Speed argument.

 

I'd respect it if I could respect GW's rules writing ability, but since they inanely drop the ball on that so often, we're left to pick up the pieces and make some sense of them. They're getting better, but it's like saying a rock is becoming more animate.

Sure, which is why in my post I said "the 40k community needs to decide..." My point is: if you admit that GW rules writing ability is poor, why build these sometimes/often ridiculous wording ambiguity combined with Page 7 "Codex trumps base!" arguments as if every specific nuance and turn of phrase is exactly how GW intended it? Accept that the rules are vague, skip the rules lawyering, and decide with your group/community how you want it to work.

[Toasterfree]

and teh nid FAQ now states that for TFD you place a marker, not a template