rendingon1+ Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Question is: Are Sabotage!(Vigilator) and Sabotage(Saboteur) attacks: a) shooting attacks b ) melee attacks c) neither Automantic shielding (contemptor) gives 5+ inv against shooting and 6+ inv against cc. Yesterday I told my opponent that his contemptor can't roll vs Sabotage! (got 4 glances!) cause it's neither shooting nor melee. Was I right or wrong? (please tell me I was right... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Hooray for ambiguous rules! RAW it won't get one. RAI i'd say it's a 5+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massaen Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 When does the attack take place - which book are the rules in so I can go have a read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Vigilator Entry in La:Cal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 "After both sides have deployed, but before the first turn takes place..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastelAvenger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Neither as it isn't a shooting attack or a melee attack. It's an ability. That's how I would rule it. Imagine that it is a bomb that has been planted on the Dreadnought so it would be inside the shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well nothing is in base to base contact (combat) As charlo says, I'd treat it on a 5+ to be fair. Plus 'invulnerable saves may always be taken when the model suffers a wound, or in the case of a vehicle, glancing or penetrating hit' to quite the rule book there. The only difference to the 5+ or 6+ is whether something is in base to base contact. Which it isn't. Of course it's down to you to play how you want, but I think it's in the spirit of the game to let the guy have a crack at using his invulnerable save of 5+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 But sabotage is not classified as shooting. Automantic shielding gives you 6+ vs cc and 5+ vs shooting. Sabotage is neither, both in game (cc attacks are obviously not a thing and it's definitely not shooting ) and in fluff - it's more like bombs set in the right place earlier and detonated at the right moment. And who knows, mayby that sneaky vigilator sabotaged contemptor before the battle? And that's how we play it. (btw my opponent pulled the same trick on my contemptor in the next battle ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well, if you play it like that, that's your decision. You could say many things that happen 'in the fluff' like for instance one ultramarine gunning down 10 word bearers on the furious abyss. (Actually that could probably happen lol) Id say as a fair chance a 5+. It's sporting, and is in the spirit of the game. Up to you if you don't. You could say it's turned its shield on before the explosion went off or it plopped off. It's beardy alpha legion anyway so.. There's loads of unclear things like that throughout the book. If you've brought it up and he's happy with that BEFORE the game starts then fair enough. You can't just whack it on him and say 'that's dead' little unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Ok, what's your point now? I said "and that's how we play it" so you can deduct there is some kind of agreement between me and my oponent. And you compare "sabotage" attack to gunning down 10 WB by a single UM. Ok that happens in the fluff, but how does it affect "sabotage" attack that (as I said earlier) is not a cc attack and not shooting. And "spirit of the game" argument is not an argument at all - everyone has a different definition for "spirit of the game". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesh Kadesh Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Being sporting and rules discussion don't really come into it, sorry Theredknight. I underatand the point you are making, but like the painting section is not the place to comment on tactics, the rules is not the place to comment on gaming etiquette. There is a houserules section, or the ability to say 'I think that it should be classified as a Shooting attack' (mainly because I'm fairly sure i've seen similar attacks/rules classed as Shooting), but the rules section discusses rules. Actually, this is rather among the most clear, if nonsensical. Contemptors get a Save against Shooting or CC, with various bonuses dependent on it. If it suffers an attack which is not listed as such (Ie the Sabotage variants, or maybe dangerous terrain?), then no save is allowed. I do agree that it shoukd be defined as one or the other, or explicitly called out as neither for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slips Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Y'all will just have to agree to disagree on the methods you each individually apply in this specific circumstance. In this regard, talk it out with your opponent beforehand and if a consensus cannot be reached a Roll Off is the next step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theredknight Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Ok, what's your point now? I said "and that's how we play it" so you can deduct there is some kind of agreement between me and my oponent. And you compare "sabotage" attack to gunning down 10 WB by a single UM. Ok that happens in the fluff, but how does it affect "sabotage" attack that (as I said earlier) is not a cc attack and not shooting. And "spirit of the game" argument is not an argument at all - everyone has a different definition for "spirit of the game". Ok ok, don't get you panties in a twist, why post about it if you don't want to know others opinions. You've already decided to play that (and vehemently argue the point) so crack on. You play how you want to, I was just making a point how fluff doesn't affect rules :-) Yes hesh and slips, I appreciate that, it depends on the people you play with, you know I mean ;-) And I'm out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 In two weeks since my first post we managed to solve this problem (in my group). Thanks for feedback and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastelAvenger Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 In two weeks since my first post we managed to solve this problem (in my group). Thanks for feedback and all. So what did your group decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 That sabotage is neither shooting/cc attack and ignores automantic shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastelAvenger Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It's how I would play it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendingon1+ Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Besides if someone wants Sabotage to be classified as a shooting attack, I think it would be logical/obvious to apply it to any Sabotage target not just vs contemptor. And if it's a shooting attack let's not forget that Vigilator has Sniper. Which makes Sabotage much, much more powerfull - a side effect of playing in the "spirit of the game" I guess. That's why I see "treat it as a shooting attack" option flawed. Of course it depends on the people you play with, you know I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.