Sniper rule + Plasmagun shooting armor

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Reading the rules it says models are wounded on a 4+ by a sniper and against vehicles they are treated as S4. Does this mean that the plasmagun cannot glance or pen say AV11 ?

[IronDrake28]

As far as I can tell, the FAQ only calls out being able To Wound on better than a 4+ with higher strength weapons, and using lower APs, but nothing is mentioned about the strength used against vehicles.

 

So I suppose, RAW at the moment plasmas with sniper will be S4 versus vehicles. Though I think RAI they would be S7.

[Jolemai]

Pretty sure you use the weapon strength as it's better.

[Halandaar]

Pretty sure you use the weapon strength as it's better.

 

You do against things with T values because FW explicitly says you can:

 

 

The wording of the Sniper special rule changed in 7th edition, and should be used as it is now shown in the 7th edition Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. However, if a model is making a shooting attack, if they would normally need less than a 4+ to wound thanks to their weapon’s Strength, the better To Wound roll is still used in games played with the Horus Heresy army lists, and if the weapon they are using has a superior AP value, that AP value is still used. In this example, a meltagun fired by a Tactical Veteran with the Sniper special rule still only needs a 2+ to wound against a target with Toughness 4, and uses its AP 1 regardless.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

But as IronDrake28 points out, there's no mention of vehicles in this and so, according to the text, you have to follow the Sniper rule as per the rulebook when firing at vehicles.

 

I think that's almost certainly an oversight though.

[Charlo]

It's one of those rules where, because no where else in the game does Sniper become a blanket rule for a unit, it has a weird interaction.

 

Just treat it as S7 AP2 against AV - yes the rules don't explicitly state it, but I bet you no one will even question you I bet.

 

It's an oversight, your plasma gun doesn't suddenly become weaker because the marine firing it is a better shot!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Wouldn't you just fire it at S7 AP2 and then due to Sniper you Rend as well? Figured that was how its normally resolved. 

[Charlo]

Sniper doesn't grant the rending rule at all I'm afraid. So no bonus armour pen etc.

 

From the BRB:

 

 

In addition, any To Wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP2

[Quixus]

It's one of those rules where, because no where else in the game does Sniper become a blanket rule for a unit, it has a weird interaction.

 

Just treat it as S7 AP2 against AV - yes the rules don't explicitly state it, but I bet you no one will even question you I bet.

 

It's an oversight, your plasma gun doesn't suddenly become weaker because the marine firing it is a better shot!

This does make sense and it is how I would play it, but unfortunately the sniper rule was worded with S X in mind and not as a rule that can be applied to a unit with high strength weapons. As written the S4 overwrites any strength value the weapon might have.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I concur with Charlo .

[Balthamal]

 

It's one of those rules where, because no where else in the game does Sniper become a blanket rule for a unit, it has a weird interaction.

 

Just treat it as S7 AP2 against AV - yes the rules don't explicitly state it, but I bet you no one will even question you I bet.

 

It's an oversight, your plasma gun doesn't suddenly become weaker because the marine firing it is a better shot!

This does make sense and it is how I would play it, but unfortunately the sniper rule was worded with S X in mind and not as a rule that can be applied to a unit with high strength weapons. As written the S4 overwrites any strength value the weapon might have.

 

 

It was explicitly FAQ'd to state that if the to wound roll would be better anyway then that would take priority whereas if the wound roll would be worse it would revert to the flat 4+

[Quixus]

It was explicitly FAQ'd to state that if the to wound roll would be better anyway then that would take priority whereas if the wound roll would be worse it would revert to the flat 4+

Please show me that answer. I cannot find it in the most recent FAQ document.

[IronDrake28]

 

 

It was explicitly FAQ'd to state that if the to wound roll would be better anyway then that would take priority whereas if the wound roll would be worse it would revert to the flat 4+

Please show me that answer. I cannot find it in the most recent FAQ document.

You wanna be looking at the HH 7th Ed FAQ.

 

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Downloads#horusheresy

[Quixus]

First of all, I don't know how much authority an HH FAQ has over 40K rules. Secondly what the HH FAQ addresses is not the issue we are talking about and the rule in the 7th Ed. rulebook already states what the FAQ "clarifies". Always wounding on 4+ does not mean never wounding on a 3+ or 2+. If you wound on a 2 you also wound on a 4.

 

The issue we are talking about is using high Strength weapons on models with the sniper rule against vehicles. There the 7th Ed. rule unambiguously state to treat the weapon as having S4. There is no way around it.

[Charlo]

First of all, I don't know how much authority an HH FAQ has over 40K rules. Secondly what the HH FAQ addresses is not the issue we are talking about and the rule in the 7th Ed. rulebook already states what the FAQ "clarifies". Always wounding on 4+ does not mean never wounding on a 3+ or 2+. If you wound on a 2 you also wound on a 4.

 

The issue we are talking about is using high Strength weapons on models with the sniper rule against vehicles. There the 7th Ed. rule unambiguously state to treat the weapon as having S4. There is no way around it.

 

Yes - but we are talking about how the HH  FAQ clarified it for shooting at non-vehicles to basically never need worse than a 4+ to wound, you can sue a better roll of the S7 wound grant you that (vs T4 for example you wound on a 2+, even with sniper).

 

So, we can extrapolate from that, that they probably mean that you hurt vehicles as normal too and are not treated as S4 - because that is just idiocy. Vets are the only unit in the game with access to a sniper weapon that isn't the norm.

 

And the HH FAQ has authority in the game, as you are playing Horus Heresy...

[Halandaar]

Yes, common sense dictates that in making an FAQ specifically to ensure high strength weapons remain more effective than 4+ to wound, they probably intended that to apply to vehicles as well. But they did not write that down; the FAQ does not mention vehicles at all, and because it specifically tells you to follow the Sniper rule as written in the 7th Edition Rulebook apart from with the specific exception of rolling to wound, you're stuck with lame special weapons against vehicles.

 

Granted, most people wouldn't challenge you on it because it's really obvious what is intended, but you have to be prepared to concede the point if you come up against "that guy".

[Quixus]

So, we can extrapolate from that, that they probably mean that you hurt vehicles as normal too and are not treated as S4 - because that is just idiocy. Vets are the only unit in the game with access to a sniper weapon that isn't the norm.

Of course you can extrapolate that, and I already wrote that this is what I would do in an actual game, but it does not change the fact that the rules do not give you permission to do that, in fact they state the exact opposite. They tell you to set the strength to 4 against, without condition that you only do that if  the normal S is X.

 

And the HH FAQ has authority in the game, as you are playing Horus Heresy...

But only as far as any FAQ has authority on rules. FAQ can only clarify what is already written in the rules. They cannot change them. That is what amendments and errata are for. Not setting the Strength of a weapon against vehicles to 4 is a rules change.

[IronDrake28]

Saying that 'FAQs only clarify' always felt funny to me. They're telling you how the rules should work, so do that.

 

If someone really wanted to circumvent the FAQ that badly I wouldn't play with them.

[Quixus]

Saying that 'FAQs only clarify' always felt funny to me. They're telling you how the rules should work, so do that.

 

If someone really wanted to circumvent the FAQ that badly I wouldn't play with them.

The FAQ are telling you how the rules should work based on what they actually say. If what the FAQ say contradicts the rules, the FAQ cannot change them and thus not force you to act according to the FAQ. Quite the contrary, if you acted according to the erroneous FAQ you would be breaking the actual rule.

 

Fortunately there are very few FAQs that permit something that should be forbidden according to the rules, it is mostly the other way around. But still the FAQ should not prevent you from exercising the rights you have been given by the actual rules (cf. ICs from different detachments)

A "real world" example.

The university rules for an exam say you may not use an electronic calculator.

Someone, even a member of the faculty staff, says or writes down that you may not use any tool to help you calculate besides a pen and paper.

But unless the rules are actually changed you are still permitted to use an abacus.

 

Another one:

In Germany you may not turn right on a red light, unless there is a certain sign at the intersection. Traffic laws regulate this.

Now Mr. Dobrindt (Federal transport minister) goes ahead and publishes a paper saying that everyone should be allowed to turn right on a red light.

You will still commit a traffic violation for turning right on a red light, unless the laws are actually changed,

[Jarkaira]

Another real world example: I wouldn't play against an opponent with that kind of attitude towards FAQ and Erratas.

[Memento Of Prospero]

As always, discuss it prior and always apply the golden rule of common sense.

[Quixus]

Another real world example: I wouldn't play against an opponent with that kind of attitude towards FAQ and Erratas.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody said, they wanted to play that way, I even said the exact opposite. Which houserules you want to use in an actual game has nothing to do with what the rules say and that.