Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Moderator: The Gunslinger

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby Amazonwarlord » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:50 pm

I get ya Ed. I think an arguement can be made from the rules but it is weak and the rules remain poorly written.

Actually I don't think there should be partials for ordinance since they are that powerful. They should work like flamer templates
"I have not failed, I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work." – Thomas Edison
User avatar
Amazonwarlord
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:40 pm

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby subversive » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:44 pm

Bolter/Lascanon: definitely. The rules do not say anywhere in any form that the lascanon replaces the bolter or that you trade your bolter, or that your bolter is slung over your back and you can't reach it, or that some sneaky git steals your bolter or anything like it. Sure, it might be a mistake, but it's not contradicted anywhere, fluff wise or rule wise.

Ordnance: This falls into the "duh" category. A mistake was obviously made. Barring any correction, you play with the way that provides the least benefit but still works: partials are 4+.

Tank shock: Half "duh," half "huh?" Obviously they thought about this. They FAQ'ed it in 3rd. They then proceded to write rules that are less than 100% clear either because they thought it was obvious, or because they simpy forgot.

Bio plasma/rending: this one is more hazy to me. The RAW (all close combat attacks are rending) directly contradicts the descriptions of Rending Claws and Bio Plasma. One is specifically described as "diamond hard claws." The other is "blinding green fire vomit" that occurs at a different I, and uses different hit rules and different S, clearly intended to be a different sort of attack that normal rules don't apply to. If they meant for Rending Claws that ALL h2h attacks (including energy based bio plasma attacks) were rending, they should have been broader in their description.

I'm not arguing that the RAW is unclear. I'm simply pointing out that EVERYTHING aside from the RAW points in the opposite direction and that it would certainly be within reason for someone to think that rending does not apply to bio plasma
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby Amazonwarlord » Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:35 am

Quote:
Ordnance: This falls into the "duh" category. A mistake was obviously made. Barring any correction, you play with the way that provides the least benefit but still works: partials are 4+.


No one is arguing that. Just would have been nice for them to include ordinance rules and the flamer template idea is just a thought on my part.
Not rule of law.

oh, what is RAW?
"I have not failed, I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work." – Thomas Edison
User avatar
Amazonwarlord
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:40 pm

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby subversive » Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:59 am

Rules As Written, or Read As Written. Basically, reading the rules with zero interpretation, for example: psycannons that ignore the invunerable save of turbo boosting bikes. Clearly not what was intended, but if you play the rules exactly as written, that's what you get
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby elrodogg » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:12 am

Quote:
oh, what is RAW??


Sex without a condom.:hat
Fast, like kittens with jetpacks.
User avatar
elrodogg
 
Posts: 5401
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby mauleed » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:37 am

Quote:
psycannons that ignore the invunerable save of turbo boosting bikes. Clearly not what was intended


Respectfully: how the hell do you know that? You have no idea what was "intended". You only know what suits your taste and what they actually wrote. Everything else is BS.

And on that issue, the unofficial FAQs that they kept on their message board specifically said that turbo boosting bikes get no save of any kind against psycannons. Was GW ignoring their own intent?

Tom, I would just have a really hard time with shooting your bike and you trying to claim you didn't have to yank it off the board because you had some sort of special insight into designer intent that the rest of us lacked. And just to be clear, if we were playing and it was my bike and you told me I got a save I'd insist I didn't and yank the model. The rules play the same either way. But they play like they read unless reading them that way means we can't play.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby subversive » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:52 am

re: psycannon, yes, I think they were ignoring their own intent, and if I recall correctly, they said as much in that unofficial FAQ. I think it read something like "yea, we realize this makes no sense and we goofed it, but in the name of not changing the rules, we're sticking by it," which I believe was one of the early appearances of GW's embrace of RAW and limiting errata, rules clarifications and revisions (aka justifying their own lack of product support). Sometimes you actually can guage intent from fluff and what makes sense. Yes, I realize that this is a slippery slope. Taken on a case by case basis, I think it can be applied sparingly to correct glaring errors and to make the game better, or at least more internally consistent.

And just to keep things in perspective, that's not so much a ding against using RAW as law as it is against GW as crappy rulesmiths and poor supporters of their own product. Personally, I support the idea of using RAW. However, I more fully support the idea of a game company officially answering rules questions about their game where RAW is either unintelligible, arguable, contradictory, or just plain dumb. If you're gonna make statements about using the written rule as gospel, you gotta put out a product that can actually work when read that way. Or you gotta be GW.

In the end, it's not an argument I can win with someone who wants to play 100% RAW, no exceptions, and given the tact that GW has recently taken, it is what it is. However, respectfully, I think that it's disingenuous to fall back on the "how can you know" argument in every case when there's clearly a circumstantial argument that gives a fairly clear indication of designer intent, such as the case of bio plasma and rending claws, even if the RAW differs. Yes, in a battle between RAW and fluff, RAW wins, but sometimes fluff puts up a better fight than others and should be acknowledged with a pat on the back and a "good effort, better luck next time," as it once again shuffles off into the loser's corner
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby -Dresnar » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:57 am

I apply the technique of "whatever my opponent does I do". If he's a RAW I go RAW. If he's more conceptual then I go conceptual.

Neither system works.

RAW is completely contradictory most of the time. For some reason RAWists always want to ignore certiain rules, like D6 for dispute resolution, that is clearly in the book. RAW interpration can be taken to such an extrem that the game is unplayable, clearly this was not the intent.

Conceptualists are usually more fun to play but the occasional monkey wrench can get thrown into your plan with an odd rule interpretation or two.

So when playing a die hard RAW'ist hold the rule line and know that your opponent will apreciate it. Like in the case of Ed dont allow him to take his Pods when playing a non standard mission. He'll thank you for it when the game is over im sure.

When playing a conceptualist be prepared to have you plan messed a bit from time to time due to a lost D6 roll off.

Just stay flexible and it will all work out, you might actually get a game in.
-Dresnar
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby WickerNipple » Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:00 am

Quote:
Like in the case of Ed dont allow him to take his Pods when playing a non standard mission. He'll thank you for it when the game is over im sure.


:lol
User avatar
WickerNipple
 
Posts: 8135
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:37 am

Re: Bioplasma attacks - apparently, they rend?

Postby Amazonwarlord » Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:19 am

OK, couipla things:

Ordnance covered on page 29. Overlooked section of the book but there are rules in there .. LOL

Zack and anyone else - what are you talking about??? I looked up both Bio plasma and rending and they are soooo completely different I can't fathom what you mean.

Bio: may make 1 single extra attack in close combat at 2x the int. of the model. hits on a 4+ and Str = the str of creature +1 (up to 10). Uneffected by benefits of the monstrous creature spec rule (so it does NOT negate saves). Casualties do count to Combat resolution.

Rend: In cc roll of 6 to hit is an automatic wound with no armor saves possible. Then vs vehicle AP roll of 6 allows an addition d6 with the result added to the total score.

So please RAW or no RAW how are these the same??
"I have not failed, I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work." – Thomas Edison
User avatar
Amazonwarlord
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Warhammer 40,000

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron