blood angel vindicator rule change

[Majorcrash]

Has anyone else notice that the rules for the blood angel vindicator show it to be a ordanace weapon, but makes no mention of it being blast. This would significantly change the value of the vindincator demolisher cannon. And before you say that all ordinace wpn have blast reread the rules as not all due; example the IG hell strike is the same way. the only real difference here is all other publication show it to be a blast wpn. could this be just a misprint ?

[Duskstorm]

I would play it as a normal Demolisher Cannon unless an FAQ comes out and changes it, since it doesn't say anywhere else in the codex that it's different from a regular Demo Cannon. I'm pretty sure if they were going to change something that drastic, it would be explained in the codex why (because of the OCE for example), but there is no explanation so I'll be playing it as a misprint.

[BuFFo]

Has anyone else notice that the rules for the blood angel vindicator show it to be a ordanace weapon, but makes no mention of it being blast. This would significantly change the value of the vindincator demolisher cannon. And before you say that all ordinace wpn have blast reread the rules as not all due; example the IG hell strike is the same way. the only real difference here is all other publication show it to be a blast wpn. could this be just a misprint ?

Until there is an Errata, it has no blast.

I would discuss this with your opponent before hand. This seems like an obvious typo, but, no one knows for sure if it is a change or not.

If you played me, I would allow you to house rule it and give it a blast.

[Nabterayl]

Until there is an Errata, it has no blast.

I would discuss this with your opponent before hand. This seems like an obvious typo, but, no one knows for sure if it is a change or not.

If you played me, I would allow you to house rule it and give it a blast.

Ditto.

[lobster-overlord]

I can see it as being the drawback for having it now mounted in a fast vehicle. As it is written without blast in both places (final page listing and the weapon entry) that it is not a misprint, but a direct change to offset the new abilities of the BA tanks.

John M.

[Nabterayl]

To be fair, assuming it isn't a misprint, it's not so much a downgrade as a sidegrade. It's still S10 AP2 ordnance, and now it hits on a 3+ instead of hitting on a 5+ plus whatever the odds are of having a meaningless scatter. Which would make it worse for engaging infantry, but better (because it's more accurate) for engaging single targets.

[hisdudeness]

Um, the demolisher is missing barrage not blast. And all ordnance weapons use the large blast unless told otherwise. The BA vindi loses the ability to fire indirect by not being having barrage.

Makes sense, BA are a fast moving chapter with no time to warn the enemy with preparatory artillery fire.

[lobster-overlord]

Yeah, I finally got the time to sit with my books. BRB p 58 rule listing states "Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnanace blast weapons use the large blast marker." That is the rule for "Ordnance Weapons" The next entry is "Ordnance Barrage" so the BA Vindicator falls under the regular "Ordnance Weapon" entry.

It was nagging at me, so I went to check now that I'm down for the night.

[mathhammer]

no,

The rule on BRB pg 58 is for the older codexs that said

Ordnance blast

And it made sure that those use the 5" template.

The BA weapon is an Ordnance weapon just like the missiles (Valkyrie:Hellstrike) in the IG army. No template, just a straight shot with the toys.

[hisdudeness]

no,

The rule on BRB pg 58 is for the older codexs that said

Ordnance blast

And it made sure that those use the 5" template.

The BA weapon is an Ordnance weapon just like the missiles (Valkyrie:Hellstrike) in the IG army. No template, just a straight shot with the toys.

HUH? I am pretty sure that the page (and quoted rule) lobster-overlord posted are the rules for ordnance weapons. It does say ‘all’ unless stated otherwise. I just checked the BA codex and I do not see anything changing the ordnance weapons for them.

I do not understand where you get the idea that it is only a clause for old codices. If a specific codex has something different that army must follow those rules.

<EDIT> Just looked at the Space wolves codex and they do not have barrage on the Demolisher either. Same with IG. It would seem the 'misprint' is in the C:SM not other codices.

<EDIT 2> Seems barage is only in the back summary list, but not the vehicle entry page for C:SM.

[lobster-overlord]

I just checked the IG FAQ, and it has the question about Valk templates, and they are listed as "non-blast" ordnance, so GW has specified that there is a third class, although the BRB does not differentiate very well,

Thus there are
-Ordnance (Shots-- for lack of a better term) only IG and BA thus far.
-Ordnance Blast
-Ordnance Barrage

As the FAQ for IG does address non-blast weapons, I guess we can see that issue is addressed and taken care of. BA lose the Blast and/or barrage for their vindicators in the new codex. It makes them less killy for infantry, but still quite effective against other tanks.

John M.

[hisdudeness]

I don't see where BA would lose the template.

<EDIT> I'm lost now. Why state that all Ordnance weapons are large blast and list large blast in entry and if it is a non-blast weapon remove 'large blast'? As in why list the normal state and remove it for the exception? Instead of just add non-blast if it is a non-blast Ord weapon?

[lobster-overlord]

I do now, based on the IG FAQ. The hellstrike is listed like the BA demolisher, as no reference to "blast" or "barrage" is made, and IG has ruled in the FAQ that for the hellstrike, there is no template for this particular ordnance shot. So their default does now specificlally indicate that it will need to state "blast" in the stat line and the default is "Large blast" unless it states otherwise--for those that say blast or barrage only.

The IG book sets new precedent that I wasn't aware of until checking it about an hour ago, that states there are non-blast ordnance if the stat line doesn't specify "blast" in it.

It's just something new we're going to have to deal with. I don't like it either, but seeing how it is now written, I see that it doesn't get the template.

JohN M.

[hisdudeness]

I agree, <<I believe only the Wolves and Dark Angels get a large blast.>> corrected below

How is it handled when the summery says one thing and the unit page says another? I assume that the unit page trumps everything else.

[Culven]

I agree, I believe only the Wolves get a large blast.
Why? Most other Demolisher Cannons are listed as Ordnance Blast, are they not?

How is it handled when the summery says one thing and the unit page says another? I assume that the unit page trumps everything else.
The Unit entry is considered to be the rules, the summary is just a summary. If there is a discrepancy, then the Unit entry takes precedence. However, I can't think of any remaining discrepancies on the Demolisher Cannon. The space Marine codex has been errata'd to be an Ordnance Blast weapon.

[hisdudeness]

How did I miss the last errata in the list? This does make BA different.

But I still learned about the way Ord weapons are listed, which just seems counter intuitive to me.

[lobster-overlord]

Knowing that the C:SM has been errata'd (i like that spellling btw) to show Ord Blast, why then wouldn't they have corrected that prior to the publication of the C:BA?

unless the BA book has been sitting in a warehouse for the better part of a year already printed, thus requiring the Errata too.

JohN m.

[Duke]

Is it just me or does this seem oddly familiar to the arjac thunderhammer?

[Nabterayl]

<EDIT> I'm lost now. Why state that all Ordnance weapons are large blast
They don't. Re-check your rulebook: it states that all ordnance blast weapons are large blast. In other words, unless specifically stated, there are no ordnance small blast weapons.

[UltramarineFan]

We talked about this just yesterday and we came to the conclusion that someone hasn't checked what they've been copying and pasting. The unit entry for SM has the demo cannon as ord 1, whereas in the back it says ord 1, barrage. We think they've copyed and pasted from the first one for the BA codex and hadnt realised that it was the incorrect version. I'm guessing for SW they just re-wrote it, which is why it's ord1, large blast. In short we decided its a mistake.

[Crevab]

Relax guys, it's just another GW typo. Looks like it got copypasta'd from C:SM. You'd think they would get tired of making erratas for the same mistakes. How many times do they have to change Strength X to Strength 1 and "against vehicles with a WS" before someone notices pre-printing?

[Majorcrash]

so the consensuss is no template for the BA demolisher? If feel that reduces its usefullness considering the cost. And probably wont make it into any army I field. For the same reason I stripped off all the hellstrikes from my valkyries and put on rocket pods.

[ashnaile]

I very much doubt youll play at tourney anywhere that has it running as nonblast.

In a purely hypothetical rules debate thats fine yes.

But if anyone ever tryed actually pulling that on you in a game they need a brick to the face ... Theyre retarded.

[Majorcrash]

Perhaps, but the faq on the hellstrike was shown to me at a tourney and that makes the weapon use extremely different.

[hisdudeness]

How is a non-blast codex specific Vindi any different than other rules differences between the marine codices? If the BA Vindi and SM Vindi where exactly the same except for the missing blast I would agree, but the 2 are not the same. They don't even have the same points cost, so in game terms they might as well be 2 completely different units.

The BA version would seem to be a better anti-vehicle/monstrous creature death machine.

[ashnaile]

Because if they wanted to give a new tank with direct str 10 fire to the blood angels they would call it something new, or say it has the deus excelsior pattern omgwtf antitank cannon. Nott The same wep as every other vindi.

A vindicator has a str10 ap2 large blast template, typos wont change this, and the errata will eventually come.

[hisdudeness]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

[UltramarineFan]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

That's fine, if you want to do that then go for it. In the meantime I'll keep my friends and let it pass as a typo.

[BuFFo]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

Agreed.

[Tynskel]

This is really funny to me. This has happened to many of the 5th edition codex that has a demolisher cannon/ ordnance weapon.

We ALL know what the demolisher cannon does. We all know that an ordnance weapon is large blast---- there is only ONE weapon in the game that is ordnance and is NOT large blast, because the FAQ explicitly states so, the hellstrike missile.

The rulebook implies that all ordnance weapons have a large blast. The codex has to explicitly state otherwise-- which, for the case of the Hellstrike Missile, the codex has stated otherwise through a FAQ.

[Sir Biscuit]

Actually, the Vindi losing blast actually makes it worse in ALL situations.

Remember, you don't have to roll a hit to not scatter off of vehicles. In fact, as long as you scatter 2 inches or less, you will tend to hit dead on (hole is still over the tank) when shooting vehicles. Which means that a BS4 blast weapon hits very close to 75% of the time.

Also, check the BRB, page 58:

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordinance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

We don't need an errata. The tank has a large blast, as intended. I'm surprised I'm the first one in this thread to read the relevant rules. =P

EDIT: Ninja'd by Tynskel. Well done. Well. Done.

[hisdudeness]

Do you know that it is a typo? Or is GW changing a weapon system? Or that they tweaked the BA Vindi because of the addition of fast? Or any number of other reasons. I guess we can just make deamonhunters assault cannons heavy 4 reading while we are at it. If everything else was the same but for the blast between C:SM and C:BA I would see no issue for saying it is a 100% typo.

I agree; the BA Vindi will most likely be errata'd, but until then it is a non-blast Vindi. Them's the rules of the game.

I'm stuck on the 'ordinance blast' that was pointed out eariler. I can go both ways on this, is there a Ordnance weapon and a Ordnance blast weapon? Or are all ordnance weapons also Ordnance blast weapons?

[Sir Biscuit]

Look at my above post, and Tynskel's. Yes, in the main rulebook it states that all ordinance weapons use the large blast template unless it specifically states otherwise in that weapons description.

The rules for the game ARE that it gets the large blast template.

I can see how confusion arises because IG have the Hellstrike missile which is ordinance without any blast. However, the only reason that it doesn't is because in the FAQ it SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT DOESN'T.

Unless GW FAQ's the vindi to not have a blast it has one. (Unlikely.) Until then, it's a vindicator, just like all the others, and it makes the tings asplode.

[EnglishInquisition]

A typo in 2 places really doesn't make sense to me. One yes. Two? No.

I now see the vindicator as a dedicated "bastion buster". No blast means no scatter, which means it can fire directly at a building/bastion/tank with the marines BS, with no fear of scattering onto its own men. Two dice for penetration means you have a preeeeetttttyyyy good chance of wrecking it and exposing the juicy soft bits inside for ALL of the other anti-personnel goodness the Blood Angels have got.

It's a fast spearhead breach maker. Nothing else in the codex fulfils this role AND keeps up with the Assault Marines.

Makes sense to me.

"Look at my above post, and Tynskel's. Yes, in the main rulebook it states that all ordinance weapons use the large blast template unless it specifically states otherwise in that weapons description."
By this, aren't you agreeing that it DOESN'T have a blast effect, seeing as it is listed twice as ordanance 1 (just like a Hellstrike missile, which is a dedicated tankbusta).

[Sir Biscuit]

No. How many times it fires is irrelevant. It's relation and how it's listed compared to the Hellstrike missile is irrelivent.

Demolisher Cannon
Main rule book: Ordinance is a large blast unless specified otherwise.
BA Demolisher cannon: Ordinance 1.
Thus the BA Demo cannon uses the large blast, as it was not specified in the weapon description that it does not.

Hellstrike missile
Main rule book: Ordinance is a large blast unless specified otherwise.
Hellstrike: Ordinance 1.
IG FAQ: The Hellstrike does NOT have a blast.
Thus the Hellstrike does not use the large blast, as it is specified that it does not.

Make sense?

[Paul]

Look at my above post, and Tynskel's. Yes, in the main rulebook it states that all ordinance weapons use the large blast template unless it specifically states otherwise in that weapons description.

The rules for the game ARE that it gets the large blast template.

I can see how confusion arises because IG have the Hellstrike missile which is ordinance without any blast. However, the only reason that it doesn't is because in the FAQ it SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT DOESN'T.

Unless GW FAQ's the vindi to not have a blast it has one. (Unlikely.) Until then, it's a vindicator, just like all the others, and it makes the tings asplode.

Except that isn't what the Rulebook says. The Rulebook (pg. 58) says:

"Ordnance BLAST weapons use the large blast marker." (My emphasis).

The BA Vindicator doesn't say Ordnance 1, Blast or Ordnance, Blast or Ordnance 1, Large Blast or Ordnance, Barrage. It says Ordnance 1.

[EnglishInquisition]

No. How many times it fires is irrelevant. It's relation and how it's listed compared to the Hellstrike missile is irrelivent.

Demolisher Cannon
Main rule book: Ordinance is a large blast unless specified otherwise.
BA Demolisher cannon: Ordinance 1.
Thus the BA Demo cannon uses the large blast, as it was not specified in the weapon description that it does not.

Hellstrike missile
Main rule book: Ordinance is a large blast unless specified otherwise.
Hellstrike: Ordinance 1.
IG FAQ: The Hellstrike does NOT have a blast.
Thus the Hellstrike does not use the large blast, as it is specified that it does not.

Make sense?

No. Doesn't make sense.
Because it WAS NOT specified to have blast effect, you can't say one thing and then contradict it with the very next statement.

Ordinance 1 means that it gets - 1 shot, 2 dice (pick the highest for AP), cannot fire other weapons when firing this weapon.

[Sir Biscuit]

Interesting. You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

At the same time though, I think we have one of the strongest RAI arguments for it having a blast in 40k history. And lets be honest here, you will NEVER find a store that doesn't play it with a blast. Some things are obvious. I'm sure we'll be seeing some FAQ for it too.

Thanks for the correction, Paul. EDIT: and EnglishInquisition.

[EnglishInquisition]

Probably, I'm all for rules as intended.
BUT- I do kinda like my idea that it was intentional, and they've deliberately created a new variant of vindicator.
Let's face it, with that kind of weapon, all it would be to change it would be a different type of shell. Easy to fluff up!
And it becomes very specialised role for the tank, VERY Blood Angels.

[Paul]

Probably, I'm all for rules as intended.
BUT- I do kinda like my idea that it was intentional, and they've deliberately created a new variant of vindicator.
Let's face it, with that kind of weapon, all it would be to change it would be a different type of shell. Easy to fluff up!
And it becomes very specialised role for the tank, VERY Blood Angels.

Yesh, it should have a blast. Sadly, it doesn't. BA FAQ PLZ HURRY. lol

[EnglishInquisition]

Nah, c'mon, get some BA players to play some Planetstrike, or games with buildings, see how it plays.
I'm torn on the deliberate/mistake side of this, but if its intended I really can see the niche into which the BA vindicator fits.
I'm not saying it should be in EVERY game, but certain scenarios? It's gonna knock some bricks down for sure!

[Tynskel]

This is silly, I already said it before....

All Ordnance weapons have large blast--- every single one in the game.

The only time one doesn't, is in the Imperial Guard FAQ. Where it explicitly states the Hellstrike does NOT have a blast.

[Paul]

This is silly, I already said it before....

All Ordnance weapons have large blast--- every single one in the game.

The only time one doesn't, is in the Imperial Guard FAQ. Where it explicitly states the Hellstrike does NOT have a blast.

Why do all ordnance weapons have a large blast? Where does it say that?

[Tynskel]

Why do all ordnance weapons have a large blast? Where does it say that?

first, it is implied by the rule on p. 58.

Second: The EXACT same entry was copied from the 5th Edition Space Marine Codex, as in WORD FOR WORD. People got so stupid over that one that GW had to release an errata.

Everyone knows this.

3rd) read all ordnance weapons... I dare you to look them up--- you'll find that every single ordnance weapon in the game is large blast. EXCEPT for the one that EXPLICITLY states it doesn't--- the Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.

[Paul]

1) Implication != explication

2) I dunno anything about that, I just read the words on the page.

3) Again, every single one I can find, except the hellstrike missile, says Ordnance Blast, Ordnance 1, Blast, Ordnance 1 Large Blast, or Ordnance Barrage. The Blood Angles Vindicator lacks any mention of blast at all, period. Just like the Hellstrike's.

[AdamHarry]

As Tynskel pointed out it the same entry in the space marine codex. pg 80.


Here is the Marine FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2250129_FAQ_SpaceMarines_Nov2009) where they Errata'd it already...

And since it was a poor copy+paste job, i'm siding with Tynskel on this.

Only a matter of time till they Errata this too.

[Dingareth]

3rd) read all ordnance weapons... I dare you to look them up--- you'll find that every single ordnance weapon in the game is large blast. EXCEPT for the one that EXPLICITLY states it doesn't--- the Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.

No, that's not true. All Ordnance Blast Weapons use the large blast marker. However, the Hellstrike Missile and the Blood Angel's Vindicator's Demolisher Cannon are both listed as Ordnance 1, not Ordnance 1, Large Blast like a Battle Cannon would be. There is a difference, and yes it will be FAQ'd, but that doesn't make you any more right.

So yes, it's an oversight, and yes you should use the large blast marker with it, but simply saying that it currently uses the large blast marker is incorrect.

[hisdudeness]

This brings up a question I asked earlier that was never answered, but central to the issue. Is there Ordnance, Ordnance blast, and Ordnance barrage? Or are the first 2 the same making only 2 types of Ordnance?

The rule on p58 says all Ordnance BLAST weapons use large blast. And the majority of Ordnace weapons have 'large blast' after them, which implies to me that Ordnance and Ordnance blast are 2 seperate types. Why state something in the stat line that we are told it should have it anyways? But then why not just use ordnance blast in the statline instead of just ordnance?

[Tynskel]

because they copy pasted...
is this that hard--- demolisher is the exact same wording as codex SM. --- GW copy paste,
you know, the thing that makes things 'easier' to do... This happens all the time in documents everywhere.

copy...

then

paste!

The editors didn't catch it, well, because they didn't need to. All ordnance in the game is large blast! Except for the explicitly faqed Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.

[Culven]

first, it is implied by the rule on p. 58.
This is a strange claim on your part. Are you actually claiming that the rules imply something that actually contradicts what the rule explicitly states? The (English) Rulebook states that all Ordnance Blast weapons use the Large Blast Marker. The Hellstrike Missile is listed as "Ordnance 1", as is the Blood Angels' Demolisher Cannon. By the (English) rules, neither uses a Large Blast Marker since neither states that the weapon is Blast or Barrage.

Second: The EXACT same entry was copied from the 5th Edition Space Marine Codex, as in WORD FOR WORD. People got so stupid over that one that GW had to release an errata.
Everyone knows this.
Which would be a good source to support the claim that GW incorrectly wrote the stats for the BA Demolisher Cannon. This doesn't change how the rules work in regard to non-Blast and non-Barrage Ordnance weapons.

3rd) read all ordnance weapons... I dare you to look them up--- you'll find that every single ordnance weapon in the game is large blast. EXCEPT for the one that EXPLICITLY states it doesn't--- the Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.
First, the fact that all other Ordnance Blast weapons use the Large Blast Marker doesn't mean that all Ordnance weapons use the Large Blast Marker. Nor does it imply that an Ordnance weapon needs to have a special "non-Blast" rule to prevent it using a Blast Marker. I think that you may be confusing the Ornance and Blast special rules. There is no rule that states any weapon with one must have the other. There is a rule that explains what happens when a weapon has both.

Second, tThe Hellstrike explicitly doesn't use a Blast Marker because there is nothing in its statline that would indicate it does. The FAQ didn't change this, it just clarified it for those under the mistaken impression that it should use a Large Blast Marker simply because it is an Ordnance weapon. At the moment, this also applies to the BA Demolisher Cannon and GW will either issue an FAQ verifying it or an errata changing it to an Ordnance 1, Blast weapon as all other Demolisher Cannons are.

[Bean]

The editors didn't catch it, well, because they didn't need to. All ordnance in the game is large blast! Except for the explicitly faqed Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.

If this were true, you'd be right. Since it is blatantly false, you are not right.

An interesting try, though. Perhaps making stuff up will convince someone else that you're right.

[Majorcrash]

thanks for the clarification, as clear as mud as they say. I do agree that this will probably get fixed with a faq, but when i said that last time they came out and said it was a nonblast. sorry to start such a heated debate.

[mathhammer]

hmm all my Gargantuan Creatures in Apoc have Ordnance rule and they don't use a blast template.

Until there is an FAQ it is a non blast cannon.

[DarkLink]

hmm all my Gargantuan Creatures in Apoc have Ordnance rule and they don't use a blast template.

Until there is an FAQ it is a non blast cannon.

If it doesn't say Ordinance BLAST, it does not use the large blast. All Ordinance BLAST weapons use large blast templates, but that is different from Ordinance weapons, which are not Ordinance BLAST.

Edit: Can you change font sizes on here? Some people might still miss the underlined, bolded, italicized, red text I emphasized.

Edit: Hopefully, I'm being sarcastic, and no one actually missed that. The internet can always surprise, though:p.

[mathhammer]

@darklink
I agree with you, maybe I should underline the word non in my reply :P

[Dingareth]

All ordnance in the game is large blast! Except for the explicitly faqed Imp Guard Hellstrike Missile.

You are still wrong. Just to reiterate what Culven said, all Ordnance Blast weapons use the large blast marker. The Blood Angel Demolisher Cannon and the Imperial Guard Hellstrike Missile both are listed as Ordnance 1, not Ordnance 1, Large Blast. The Guard FAQ didn't change anything, it simply clarified the issue so that people who fail at reading both the rules and other people's replies would stop arguing their point by blatantly ignoring parts of other people's posts.

Please tell us you understand this, it's not that hard. Actually read page 58, you'll see we're right.

Lastly, in the future, listen to Culven and your life will be that much easier. He's got an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules that impresses me in every thread I find.

[Tynskel]

hmm all my Gargantuan Creatures in Apoc have Ordnance rule and they don't use a blast template.

Until there is an FAQ it is a non blast cannon.

No, this is an incorrect application of the ordnance rule in relation to gargantuan creatures. The reference to ordnance is specifically in reference to vehicle damage--- not shooting. p.91 Apocalypse, p. 60 rulebook.



I have said this before-- page references would be helpful. Just 'remembering' something does no good.

[Tynskel]

You are still wrong. Just to reiterate what Culven said, all Ordnance Blast weapons use the large blast marker. The Blood Angel Demolisher Cannon and the Imperial Guard Hellstrike Missile both are listed as Ordnance 1, not Ordnance 1, Large Blast. The Guard FAQ didn't change anything, it simply clarified the issue so that people who fail at reading both the rules and other people's replies would stop arguing their point by blatantly ignoring parts of other people's posts.

Please tell us you understand this, it's not that hard. Actually read page 58, you'll see we're right.

Lastly, in the future, listen to Culven and your life will be that much easier. He's got an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules that impresses me in every thread I find.


Don't forget who wrote Space Marines, Matt Ward, who wrote Blood Angels, Matt Ward.

You are forgetting that the Demolisher Cannon entry in the Blood Angels Codex DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, copies the Space Marine Codex. This entry was errata in the FAQ for Space Marines, but the original was, obviously, not changed- probably on Matt Ward's computer! p. 60 C:BA, p. 80, C:SM.


Yeah, so what---- I own every single codex but Dark Eldar. What's your point? I am actually including all this knowledge in this argument.

[Tynskel]

If this were true, you'd be right. Since it is blatantly false, you are not right.

An interesting try, though. Perhaps making stuff up will convince someone else that you're right.

I am not making stuff up.

Don't forget who wrote Space Marines, Matt Ward, who wrote Blood Angels, Matt Ward.

You are forgetting that the Demolisher Cannon entry in the Blood Angels Codex DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, copies the Space Marine Codex. This entry was errata in the FAQ for Space Marines, but the original was, obviously, not changed- probably on Matt Ward's computer! p. 60 C:BA, p. 80, C:SM.

[karandras]

I have really enjoyed reading these blogs, but I often find them troubling.

There is really no need to dispute this in my opinion, other than for the pure joy of discourse! A SM vindicator has an established stat-line. There is no reason to argue that it has been changed based on a typo. The Hell-strike Missile presented a new type of killy-weapon and GW wanted to sell Valkyrie kits, but quickly clarified that they are not blast in order to balance the model. There is no reason they would do this on the BA vindicator. It already is balanced. It appears that some people who enjoy so much to argue these points do so only to discredit and pick apart GW's rather shoddy editing. I enjoy the debates, but I enjoy playing 40k more. Enjoy the rules and enjoy the game.

I think there are enough new units and rules that actually contain ample ambiguity, or are just written stupidly unclear, for us to debate without arguing over established precedence. No reason in my mind that BA vindicator would lose it's template - even if RAW!!!

[Dingareth]

You are forgetting that the Demolisher Cannon entry in the Blood Angels Codex DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, copies the Space Marine Codex. This entry was errata in the FAQ for Space Marines, but the original was, obviously, not changed- probably on Matt Ward's computer! p. 60 C:BA, p. 80, C:SM.

Okay, that's great. The stat line changed after the FAQ did it not? So until the Blood Angels FAQ comes out, you go by the stat line in the book- which means rolling to hit rather than scattering a Large Blast marker. It doesn't matter that the Space Marine one was changed, and that the Blood Angels one will be changed, we're talking about page 58 in the BRB. You say that all Ordnance weapons use a large blast. This is not true. All Ordnance Blast weapons- including FAQ'd Demolisher cannons- use the Large Blast marker, where as Ordnance weapons roll to hit.


The Hell-strike Missile presented a new type of killy-weapon and GW wanted to sell Valkyrie kits, but quickly clarified that they are not blast in order to balance the model.

There was no need to balance. It was made to be a one shot, template-less, Ordnance weapon from the start, it's just that half the people that play this game don't bother to read half the rules. The FAQ was only needed to support the ruling in the BRB, not to establish a precedent. The Space Marine one however, did, as Tynskel has pointed out numerous times throughout this thread.

So, yes I've been playing my Blood Angel's Vindicators with a large blast; however, from a theoretical point of view, it is important to understand the difference between a Ordnance weapon and an Ordnance Blast weapon, something that Tynskel has repeatedly failed at doing.

[Tynskel]

hahahahah

The Hellstrike is the first ordnance weapon in the game to not have a blast. It was unprecedented (3rd through 5th, and there has been not one!), and is one of the FEW rules in the game that actually deserves a FAQ.

I am NOT counting Blood Angels, because it is sooooo unbelievably obvious that Matt Ward copy pasted a rule that has been errata in a different codex.

[chromedog]

The SM vindicator was FAQ'd to REMOVE the "Barrage" from its entry in the summary (as it is direct-fire ordnance, not barrage). It was NOT FAQ'd to give it the large blast. Ordnance barrage are all large blast, ordnance BLAST are all large blast. Ordnance (like the hellstrike) is NOT automagically LARGE BLAST. BA vindi, until FAQ'd=NO LARGE BLAST. Single S10 shot, best of 2d6 v armour.

Then again, BA players were whining when they got a pdf codex to tide them over. Not satisfied with anything. What do they want, a non-spikey CSM 3.5 codex?

[Gir]

I'm glad I don't have to play aginst anyone who thinks BA Vindicators don't get a blast... If it's a rule despute, you have to actually think about it. Look at every single same-named weapon across every 5th ed army. They're all the same.

Common Sense > Argueing a clear typo in a rule system that is self-admittantly flawed.

[Bean]

I am not making stuff up.

Don't forget who wrote Space Marines, Matt Ward, who wrote Blood Angels, Matt Ward.

You are forgetting that the Demolisher Cannon entry in the Blood Angels Codex DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, copies the Space Marine Codex. This entry was errata in the FAQ for Space Marines, but the original was, obviously, not changed- probably on Matt Ward's computer! p. 60 C:BA, p. 80, C:SM.


You are making stuff up, and I didn't forget anything. You said, and I (again) quote:


All ordnance in the game is large blast!

This is not true. This is something you just made up. There's no way you can possibly weasel out of it.

[karandras]

If the Baal Predator weapon entry had showed the AC to be "Assault 4, Twin-Linked" would we seriously be arguing that it had for some reason lost the rending ability??? Or would we just assume it was a typo and play it the same as all other assault cannons???

[EnglishInquisition]

Is it me, or are people unaware that GW are really starting to play around with the ordanance/blast/barrage weapons?

Just check out the IG codex, Ordanance weapons summary (p104), read down it all, check out all the different combo's!
The Storm Eagle Rocket-- Odanance, Barrage D3, Large blast! Come on!!
Deathstrike Missile, check them out. There is a real shift in what is accepted as the ordanance "norm".

I'm pretty sure it will get FAQ'd to be standard vindicator, but lets not poo-poo it so quickly.

[Culven]

I'm glad I don't have to play aginst anyone who thinks BA Vindicators don't get a blast... If it's a rule despute, you have to actually think about it.
I don't think anyone arguing the Rules as Written (RaW) would actually try to force their opponent to play the BA Demolisher Cannon as a non-Blast weapon. However, some may play their own as such since that is what the rules actually tell us. I would just because there is no discrepancy within the codex, and I would rather prevent the arguement with an opponent.

Look at every single same-named weapon across every 5th ed army. They're all the same.
One word: Shotguns. We are told to use the rules in oour army's codex. In regard to the Demolisher Cannon, there is nothing wrong within the context of the BA codex. It is consistant in the unit entry and the summary. Whether this change was intentional, I do not know. Until there is an errata, playing by the rules means that the BA Demolisher Cannon doesn't use a Blast Marker. If one wants to use a house rule to play the BA Demolisher Cannon like the SM, CSM, IG, et al Demolisher Cannons, then they need to discuss it with their opponent. In return, they may need to allow their IG opponent to use S4 Shotguns, or allow their DH opponent to use Heavy 4, Rending Assault Cannons.

[Shavnir]

I am NOT counting Blood Angels, because it is sooooo unbelievably obvious that Matt Ward copy pasted a rule that has been errata in a different codex.

And accordingly, just like the Space Marine codex it won't have a blast until they errata it to.

[TSINI]

the Whirlwind also has no blast in its weapon stats

BUT

as these are not stated by the codex as a specific change (you can't just change the stats of a weapon used by other armies too without a specific rule that highlights the changes)

I'm going for typo/codex writer error - if the background does not mention the lack of blast, and there is no special rule/name change of the weapon, it is assumed it works EXACTLY the same as every other army's version of that gun.

If you ever meet anyone who denies you the logical blast template then walk away from them. they are not playing the game, they are playing a dictionary puzzle game.

[Shavnir]

(you can't just change the stats of a weapon used by other armies too without a specific rule that highlights the changes)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there two different "types" of smoke launchers, psychic hoods and assault cannons, to name a few?

[Culven]

the Whirlwind also has no blast in its weapon stats
You are correct; however, it does have Barrage. Per the Barrage rules, all such weapons use a Blast Marker unless noted otherwise. So, a Whirlwind uses a Blast Marker because it is a Barrage weapon, and it will use a Large Blast Marker because it is an Ordnance weapon which uses a Blast.

(you can't just change the stats of a weapon used by other armies too without a specific rule that highlights the changes)
Of course GW can. Just look at the IG and Space Marine Shotguns, Daemonhunter and Space Marine Assault Cannon, or the Daemonhunter and everyone else's Force Weapon. They have the same name, different stats, and no special rule to highlight the change.

if the background does not mention the lack of blast, and there is no special rule/name change of the weapon, it is assumed it works EXACTLY the same as every other army's version of that gun.
Actually, the assumption is that one will play per the rules in their codex regardless of what may be included in a different codex. Only when using a house rule would this be changed.

[Bean]

(you can't just change the stats of a weapon used by other armies too without a specific rule that highlights the changes)

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but this is nonsense. If this were true, all assault cannons would still be S:6 AP:4 Heavy:3 (and no Rending).

When this new assault cannon profile was released in the previous Marine codex, it was accompanied by no "specific rule that highlights the changes," and the weapon was still used by the Grey Knights with its previous statline. Yet there was no hesitation among the community when it came to accepting the assault cannon's new stats. In fact, a great many people thought that the Grey Knight's assault cannon should use the new statline.

No, your assertion, here is false, obviously absurd, and completely without basis in fact. Try again.

[DarkLink]

@darklink
I agree with you, maybe I should underline the word non in my reply :P

Heh, I just was surprised at how many people kept popping up who had missed the blast part, even though that point had been reiterated multiple times. Couldn't help myself from joking about it.

[QUOTE=TSINI;71196]
as these are not stated by the codex as a specific change (you can't just change the stats of a weapon used by other armies too without a specific rule that highlights the changes)
[QUOTE]

So my Grey Knights get 3+ Storm Shields! Awesome! It's a 10pt upgrade for a GKGM. That makes up for losing the "kills outright" nemesis force weapon, which would also be upgraded to the new Force Weapon rules.

(Yes, I'm joking:p. Though I would love to have 3+ storm shields on my GKGM. You use the rules in your codex. Not the rules in other codices. Even if you are BA, or DA, or BT, or SW, or GK, or anything other Marine, you use only your own codex, not any others. Unless, of course, your opponent lets you.)


Edit: I just realized that in a new GK codex, my GKGM will probably have access to storm shields. That is awesome. I can't frickin wait.

[Old_Paladin]

After reading through this thread (and having a good laugh too), I wonder if many Blood Angel players actually want an errata on this.

I know Grey Knight players got the short end of the stick with the changes to storm shield and assault cannons and wanted an even update (and were told you keep what was printed); but i'd think a strength 10, hits on a 3+ weapon on a fast vehicle is actually better then a blast that is mostly strength 5 vs. armour (due to scatter). I mean, it's not like the Blood Angels lack in the template/anti hoard department.

[Dingareth]

I wouldn't mind it. Considering with the ever present cover saves in 5th, my Vindies usually shoot at tanks, and sometimes the odd horde, hitting on a 3+ would be better against everything that isn't a Land Radier.

[Nabterayl]

After reading through this thread (and having a good laugh too), I wonder if many Blood Angel players actually want an errata on this.

I know Grey Knight players got the short end of the stick with the changes to storm shield and assault cannons and wanted an even update (and were told you keep what was printed); but i'd think a strength 10, hits on a 3+ weapon on a fast vehicle is actually better then a blast that is mostly strength 5 vs. armour (due to scatter). I mean, it's not like the Blood Angels lack in the template/anti hoard department.
Yeah, exactly. Personally, until an erratum comes out, I'm going to give my Blood Angels opponents the choice of taking it as written, or taking a house rule that changes all of their Demolisher cannons to have a large blast. Each has its advantages, after all.

[Bean]

I hate to break it to you guys, but a BS:4 blast weapon is more accurate against most vehicles than a BS:4 non-blast weapon. It will fail to scatter or scatter to a position where it still gets full strength against the vehicle more than 2/3 of the time (against pretty much any vehicle of Rhino size or larger, basically).

[Duke]

Maybe so, but at least I don't have to worry about a non-blast weapon causing collateral damage!

[Nabterayl]

I hate to break it to you guys, but a BS:4 blast weapon is more accurate against most vehicles than a BS:4 non-blast weapon. It will fail to scatter or scatter to a position where it still gets full strength against the vehicle more than 2/3 of the time (against pretty much any vehicle of Rhino size or larger, basically).
EDIT: You sure about that? Check my math here:

A Land Raider measures 7"x4", right? That means that if we can target the center of the Land Raider, we are safe if we scatter no more than 6" on the x-axis and no more than 7" on the y-axis (because each will be reduced to 2" and 3" respectively). Now, the odds of rolling 6" or less on 2d6 are 15/36, and the odds of rolling 7" or less on 2d6 are 21/36. Since a Land Raider's targetable area (seen from above) is a near-perfect rectangle, we can take 1/2 of 15/36 and 1/2 of 21/36 and end up with the odds that any given scatter will, starting from the exact center of the Land Raider, end up on the targetable area, right?

If we perform the above operation, we get exactly 1/2. And of course that is only relevant 2/3 of the time. The other 1/3 of the time we get a direct hit. Doesn't all this mean that the odds of a shot, targeted at the exact center of a Land Raider, ending up on that Land Raider are:


(1/3) + (2/3*1/2)

Which is to say, a BS4 blast weapon is as a BS4 non-blast weapon so long as the target is no smaller than a Land Raider.

And then there is the risk of collateral damage, as Duke said, as well as the minimum range, and the fact that the scatter-to-regular-BS equivalency assumes that you can target the center of the vehicle, which is extra distance your weapon has to reach. All in all, it seems only sporting to me to offer BA opponents their choice.

[Vaktathi]

I'm glad I don't have to play aginst anyone who thinks BA Vindicators don't get a blast... If it's a rule despute, you have to actually think about it. Look at every single same-named weapon across every 5th ed army. They're all the same.

Except here ;)

Throughout the various SM books, for what are supposedly identical STC pattern items, we have different assault cannons, different hurricane bolter rules, 3 different stormshield rules, different Land Speeder Tornado weapons rules, different Cyclone Missile Launcher rules, different Land Raider transport capacities (even amongst 5E books), different PotMS rules, different drop pod deployment rules, different Digital Weapons rules, different Force Weapon rules, different Psychic Hood rules, and varying rules for Terminator armor.

Why can't there be different rules for Demolisher cannons?

It's probably a typo, but this particular author *does* has a history of radical, unexplained changes to weapons and wargear, and is consistent in all 3 locations this appears in the book. With the SM codex, there were different errors in different places, and codex's are self contained, meant to be utilized without reference to any other book.

If two brand new players, a BA player and a Tyranid player for instance, both were just starting out now, neither would have any indication that Demolisher cannons are Large Blast weapons in other books, and thus would be playing it simply as a single S10 shot in their games. From the wording of the codex, that's how it appears. If brand new players were to pick up the book, they'd have no idea it was ever anything else.

[Tynskel]

You are right, there can be different rules for different weapons.

This is an issue of context:
The author, Matt Ward, who wrote C: BA, also wrote C: SM. The entry for the Demolisher Cannon is the exact same entry that is in the space marine codex--- I am not just talking about rules, I am talking about the whole thing, word for word.

This was errata for the Space Marine Codex.

If Matt Ward intended a different rule, he would have written something else--- the Imp Guard codex has a completely different entry!

He copy pasted!

With this context-- it is obvious that the Demolisher is supposed to be large blast.

[TSINI]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there two different "types" of smoke launchers, psychic hoods and assault cannons, to name a few?

Yeah, but these are only due to the change to 5th edition, and then the introduction of a new space marine codex.



Yeah there are 2 shotguns and 2 grenade lanchers, again, a new codex. i'm not thrilled about the "same names" of these weapons, similarly i hate the Hellhammer cannon in the baneblade box set which stole its name from the main gun of the stormsword which pre-dates it and has none of the same stats.


all i was saying was to deny a blood angels player the blast of his demolisher cannon is just so petty.

this thread should be filled with "oh man what a stupid typo" or "they really need to point Mat Ward to the Ordnance rules section of the rulebook"

instead we have people (Yet again on this usually friendly forum i may add) shoving rules quotations and studious reading of the rules down each others throats in an attempt to show that indeed, the blood angels decided whilst they were installing the faster engines into their vindicators, they also thought - "hey, those shells in there, do they explode?... they do?.... swap em out for some solid steel balls, much safer with the same armour penetrating ability, cheers"


No, your assertion, here is false, obviously absurd, and completely without basis in fact. Try again. ]

rules wise yes, common sense no.

so what, I leant my rulebook to a friend, so i can't quote EXACT wordings. what i do know is that the endless quoting of rules and stats makes you a very unpopular person in real life and the game at the end of the day is played in real life, against like minded friends.

If i met someone going on and on about how an obvious typo MUST be played as written, i would avoid them like the plague.

in other typo news: Page 23 "descent of angels"
....Due to the precision of their descent, it scatter D6" less...

sounds like a 4 year old talking.

[Culven]

This is an issue of context:
The author, Matt Ward, who wrote C: BA, also wrote C: SM. The entry for the Demolisher Cannon is the exact same entry that is in the space marine codex--- I am not just talking about rules, I am talking about the whole thing, word for word.
This was errata for the Space Marine Codex.
If Matt Ward intended a different rule, he would have written something else--- the Imp Guard codex has a completely different entry!
He copy pasted!
With this context-- it is obvious that the Demolisher is supposed to be large blast.
One may infer that it should be, and they are free to discuss using a house rule to change the rule. However, by the rules as written, it is not.

[Vaktathi]

You are right, there can be different rules for different weapons.

This is an issue of context:
The author, Matt Ward, who wrote C: BA, also wrote C: SM. The entry for the Demolisher Cannon is the exact same entry that is in the space marine codex--- I am not just talking about rules, I am talking about the whole thing, word for word.

This was errata for the Space Marine Codex.

If Matt Ward intended a different rule, he would have written something else--- the Imp Guard codex has a completely different entry!

He copy pasted!

With this context-- it is obvious that the Demolisher is supposed to be large blast.
In the Space Marine codex he had it as Ordnance 1 in one place, Ordance Barrage in another. None of the entries were consistent.

In the BA book he has it as Ordnance 1 in all three places it appears. Given Matt Ward's history of randomly changing weapons and wargear without any sort of explanation (Ultramarines have 12 capacity drop pods and Land Raiders, but Blood Angels do not, etc) trying to determine if this is an error or intended is difficult.

Were it another author and had we not had so much in the way of unexplained radical changes to otherwise identical SM stuff, it wouldn't be up for debate.



all i was saying was to deny a blood angels player the blast of his demolisher cannon is just so petty. That depends entirely on the viewpoint. From the opposite viewpoint it's just as acceptable to see it as cheating or trying to get an unfair advantage out of something your book is very clear about in all 3 entries, especially considering Codex's are self contained and have no relation to anything in any other book.

[Sir Biscuit]

Three things:
1.) It's obvious that the demolisher should have a blast. The Vindicator has been the same for what, three editions now? More? Even beyond that, it makes little sense for it to be coasted like it is if it doesn't have the blast. It's more expensive than two land speeders with MM/HF, and would be far worse at tank busting. Even beyond the vindicator itself, all demolisher cannons across all armies are the same.

I understand that weapons change over time, but usually it's a little more obvious than this and happens between editions. It makes zero sense from both an in-universe and rules design point of view to change it to a no-blast weapon.

2.) If you are convinced that it doesn't have a blast, and you feel you must play it that way, you are hurting your game. I am certain no tourney judge will take the side of it having no blast. We all know it's going to be FAQ'd to have a blast. If you insist on playing it without one, you're only going to hurt your experience fighting BA.

3.) Yes, by denying that it has a blast you ARE being petty. We have impolite words for people who rules lawyer like this. In fact, this reminds me a lot of the "Shrike can't actually infiltrate NYAA" arguments I've gotten far too often. It is OBVIOUS how it is supposed to work, so stop letting a typo get in the way!

It doesn't matter how good you think your reasons are, or that your rules-lawyering (and this is the exact definition of the term) is backed up by the letter of the rules. You are being a dick. Play the game, be good to each other, and don't try to screw your opponent out of their (already mediocre) tank.

It doesn't matter if the letter of the rules support you. As far as I'm concerned, BA Vindi's have a blast, Shrike can infiltrate with a unit, and a shaken/stunned/smoked Leman Russ can't fire it's turret weapon. There is ample evidence for how these things are supposed to work. These are the ways that real people play the game, so get used to it if you ever want to play competitively. Or even just make friends.

Like it or not, there's a spirit of the law to go along with the letter of the law. In this case, it's pretty obvious how a vindicator works. It makes a ka-boom. I know the rules forum hates looking at fluff descriptions of stuff, but take a look at the Demolisher Cannon's description: "The terrific blast unleashed by the detonation of the huge demolisher shells..." Seems pretty clear to me how the author thinks this weapon works. Add that to the incredibly stable stat-line of the Demolisher cannon across codices and editions and the lack of mention anywhere else about what would be a very significant change and it seems to me to be something of a mountain of evidence to support it having a blast.

I guess the important thing to take away from this is: if you try to rules-lawyer away the blast in a tourney, don't be surprised when a judge overrules you and you look like a dick in front of everyone. :)

That's all, really. Looking forward to the FAQ and being vindicated. ;)

[Vaktathi]

(disclaimer before I get railroaded: playing devils advocate and trying to point out argumentation holes)


Three things:
1.) It's obvious that the demolisher should have a blast. The Vindicator has been the same for what, three editions now? Land Raider transport capacities were too.


Even beyond the vindicator itself, all demolisher cannons across all armies are the same. They should be, but so should Cyclone missile launchers, hurricane bolters, assault cannons, stormshields, etc.



I understand that weapons change over time, but usually it's a little more obvious than this and happens between editions. It makes zero sense from both an in-universe and rules design point of view to change it to a no-blast weapon.It doesn't need to make sense, nobody has ever accused GW of doing that. :p They have on multiple occaisions gone off and changed weapons and wargear significantly without explanation.



2.) If you are convinced that it doesn't have a blast, and you feel you must play it that way, you are hurting your game. I am certain no tourney judge will take the side of it having no blast. We all know it's going to be FAQ'd to have a blast. If you insist on playing it without one, you're only going to hurt your experience fighting BA. Nobody is convinced yet it is or isn't.

However, we have *three* consistent entries, unlike the previous codex with two differing entries, and a writer with a history of significant, unexplained weapon and wargear changes.

Without an FAQ, there's no way to know what the intent was.

And there have already been tourney judges who have ruled it no blast at several events I've heard of.


3.) Yes, by denying that it has a blast you ARE being petty. We have impolite words for people who rules lawyer like this. In fact, this reminds me a lot of the "Shrike can't actually infiltrate NYAA" arguments I've gotten far too often. It is OBVIOUS how it is supposed to work, so stop letting a typo get in the way! Yes it is, it's Ordnance 1 in every single entry :p It's not being petty if you're asking them to play their codex as its written.



It doesn't matter how good you think your reasons are, or that your rules-lawyering (and this is the exact definition of the term) is backed up by the letter of the rules. You are being a dick. Play the game, be good to each other, and don't try to screw your opponent out of their (already mediocre) tank. So, asking them to play it as it is consistently stated in their codex is rules lawyering and being a dick? There's no way it's playing by the rules?



It doesn't matter if the letter of the rules support you. Having three clearly written entries in a distinct, separate army book doesn't matter at all?




Like it or not, there's a spirit of the law to go along with the letter of the law. In this case, it's pretty obvious how a vindicator works. It makes a ka-boom. I know the rules forum hates looking at fluff descriptions of stuff, but take a look at the Demolisher Cannon's description: "The terrific blast unleashed by the detonation of the huge demolisher shells..." Seems pretty clear to me how the author thinks this weapon works. Going by that you can't fire anything but Lasguns from a chimera.


Add that to the incredibly stable stat-line of the Demolisher cannon across codices and editions and the lack of mention anywhere else about what would be a very significant change and it seems to me to be something of a mountain of evidence to support it having a blast. One could say the same of Land Raider transport capacities & deployment abilities, Leman Russ armor & weapon options, etc.

[Gir]

Except here ;)
Throughout the various SM books, for what are supposedly identical STC pattern items, we have different assault cannons, different hurricane bolter rules, 3 different stormshield rules, different Land Speeder Tornado weapons rules, different Cyclone Missile Launcher rules, different Land Raider transport capacities (even amongst 5E books), different PotMS rules, different drop pod deployment rules, different Digital Weapons rules, different Force Weapon rules, different Psychic Hood rules, and varying rules for Terminator armor.


This is why I said across 5th ed codices. Of course a 3 edition old codex (Daemonhunters) will have some differences, but I'm pretty sure they line up with the space marine codices of the time.

The only real problem is Transport capacities across SM, BA and SW. My general assumption for this is that Ward was trying something, it didn't work, so it got changed back for the later codices. I would not be surprised if it gets erretaed to line up with SW and BA at some point down the line.

[DarkLink]

Three things:
1.) It's obvious that the demolisher should have a blast. The Vindicator has been the same for what, three editions now? More? Even beyond that, it makes little sense for it to be coasted like it is if it doesn't have the blast. It's more expensive than two land speeders with MM/HF, and would be far worse at tank busting. Even beyond the vindicator itself, all demolisher cannons across all armies are the same.

I understand that weapons change over time, but usually it's a little more obvious than this and happens between editions. It makes zero sense from both an in-universe and rules design point of view to change it to a no-blast weapon.

2.) If you are convinced that it doesn't have a blast, and you feel you must play it that way, you are hurting your game. I am certain no tourney judge will take the side of it having no blast. We all know it's going to be FAQ'd to have a blast. If you insist on playing it without one, you're only going to hurt your experience fighting BA.

3.) Yes, by denying that it has a blast you ARE being petty. We have impolite words for people who rules lawyer like this. In fact, this reminds me a lot of the "Shrike can't actually infiltrate NYAA" arguments I've gotten far too often. It is OBVIOUS how it is supposed to work, so stop letting a typo get in the way!

It doesn't matter how good you think your reasons are, or that your rules-lawyering (and this is the exact definition of the term) is backed up by the letter of the rules. You are being a dick. Play the game, be good to each other, and don't try to screw your opponent out of their (already mediocre) tank.

It doesn't matter if the letter of the rules support you. As far as I'm concerned, BA Vindi's have a blast, Shrike can infiltrate with a unit, and a shaken/stunned/smoked Leman Russ can't fire it's turret weapon. There is ample evidence for how these things are supposed to work. These are the ways that real people play the game, so get used to it if you ever want to play competitively. Or even just make friends.

Like it or not, there's a spirit of the law to go along with the letter of the law. In this case, it's pretty obvious how a vindicator works. It makes a ka-boom. I know the rules forum hates looking at fluff descriptions of stuff, but take a look at the Demolisher Cannon's description: "The terrific blast unleashed by the detonation of the huge demolisher shells..." Seems pretty clear to me how the author thinks this weapon works. Add that to the incredibly stable stat-line of the Demolisher cannon across codices and editions and the lack of mention anywhere else about what would be a very significant change and it seems to me to be something of a mountain of evidence to support it having a blast.

I guess the important thing to take away from this is: if you try to rules-lawyer away the blast in a tourney, don't be surprised when a judge overrules you and you look like a dick in front of everyone. :)

That's all, really. Looking forward to the FAQ and being vindicated. ;)

If we're talking about whether or not, by the rules, BA vindicators use blasts, then it is exceedingly simple. They don't. It doesn't matter what other codices say. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks they "should have it". The actual, written rules are quite clear.

In the end, houserule it if you want. It's a pretty reasonable request to make of your opponent. Few people should have a problem with it. I certainly wouldn't.

Then wait for the FAQ. I'm sure they will errata it.

But until then, by RAW, BA vindicators do not use blasts.

[Sir Biscuit]

(disclaimer before I get railroaded: playing devils advocate and trying to point out argumentation holes)

If you want to play Devil's Advocate, it'd be nice to know what you actually think. But I suppose you don't have to.

Nice of you to split my post up and respond to specific sentences instead of overall points. I'll do my best not to extend to you the same disservice, and reply to each of your points in it's full context.


Land Raider transport capacities were too.
No argument here. I do find it strange that the transport capacities changed, and I assume it's a balance issue to compensate for a more assault-oriented army. However, I find it MUCH less likely that a change of transport capacity is a typo/author didn't know the exact rules interaction, and it seems quite likely to me that this is the case with the Vindicator.


They should be, but so should Cyclone missile launchers, hurricane bolters, assault cannons, stormshields, etc.
These were all things that were broke and needed fixin'. They are slowly being fixed and we can see a trend with them in the new codices where they are all the same. This represents a dedicated effort to make sure that everything in the codex is useful IE better game design. The vindicator wasn't broken, and if anything, needed a slight BOOST. Damn strange it got such a massive debuff instead.


It doesn't need to make sense, nobody has ever accused GW of doing that. :p They have on multiple occaisions gone off and changed weapons and wargear significantly without explanation.
True, though that seems to be happening less and less. This edition we seem to be getting the same weapons over and over, with codices being updated to be in line with their contemporaries in both wargear and special abilities.


Nobody is convinced yet it is or isn't.

However, we have *three* consistent entries, unlike the previous codex with two differing entries, and a writer with a history of significant, unexplained weapon and wargear changes.

Without an FAQ, there's no way to know what the intent was.

And there have already been tourney judges who have ruled it no blast at several events I've heard of.

I'm interested where this third entry for the Demolisher cannons statline is. By my count there are only two: in the vehicle armory section, and in the summary. I don't think it's unlikely that one is copy-pasted from the other, and I don't think multiple iterations makes it any more likely that it was intentional.

I find it strange that a tourney judge would rule that way, but I suppose it is what it is. What a silly way to play.

And I disagree about the FAQ. There are tons of rules that we don't play "as written" because their intent is so obvious that we don't even think about how thy are wrong. See next point for some good examples.

Game designers are not inscrutable gods sending down rules from on-high, whose motives cannot be known. They're people, they're designing their game in the same way many games are designed, and we can figure out the mistakes they made. Usually quite easily.


Yes it is, it's Ordnance 1 in every single entry :p It's not being petty if you're asking them to play their codex as its written.

So, asking them to play it as it is consistently stated in their codex is rules lawyering and being a dick? There's no way it's playing by the rules?
Oh, really?

Wolf Priest:
"(blah blah pick a thing)... He and any squad he joins have the Preferred Enemy rule against that unit type."

I suppose that means that I can take a couple wolf priests, have them join every squad in my army in turns 1-2 of the game, and they will all have Preferred Enemy! After all, it's any squad he joins, and it doesn't say he has to stay with them. Hell, even if he dies they still get the bonus! Move over, BT, SPACE WOLVES DO IT BETTER.

Space marine chaplains are the same way, though a little less powerful because they do have to assault to give everyone the bonus.

Oh, and Leman Russes can shoot their turret weapon if they are stunned, shaken or have popped smoke!

And Maugen Ra can use both Fast Shot and Crack Shot in the same turn, because he is not, technically, an exarch and thus avoids the one-at-a-time restriction.

And sorry, you can't shoot your flamers at me. You can't fire a template weapon if it hits any friendly models, and by the rules the template must touch the model firing. Sucks to be you.

I don't think I need to go on.

The point is, the codices are not written perfectly. However, it is easy to see how things should work, how they were meant to work, and that is the way we play the game. Sneer and call it "houseruleing" if you want, but the fact is that near everyone plays the game this way and it is the way it is intended to be played.

So, you can play that way or be petty and insist it must be played exactly as written. Choices.


Having three clearly written entries in a distinct, separate army book doesn't matter at all?

Two and probably not. Copy paste seems a likely culprit that can't be easily dismissed. In addition, it would have been totally reasonable on the authors part to think that ordinance=large blast, especially since no weapons, to my knowledge, are actually listed as "ordinance blast".


Going by that you can't fire anything but Lasguns from a chimera.

Different context is key (same as changing LR capacities...). It's clear the the chimera has five fire points. It couldn't possibly be a typo or mistake on the authors part/not knowing the exact wording for fire points.

The fluff is not meant to be an exact representation of the rules but it DOES undoubtedly give insight into how the author was thinking. It's not meant to be hard evidence, it just gives creedance to the RAI argument.


One could say the same of Land Raider transport capacities & deployment abilities, Leman Russ armor & weapon options, etc.

I don't have anything more to say to this that hasn't been said above.


If we're talking about whether or not, by the rules, BA vindicators use blasts, then it is exceedingly simple. They don't. It doesn't matter what other codices say. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone else for that matter, thinks they "should have it". The actual, written rules are quite clear.

Cut this down because the rest is just reiteration of this point.

I'm going to keep firing flamers, thank you very much, despite what RAW says. RAW is not the be-all-end all, we adjust the game accordingly when it doesn't work, or when how it is supposed to work is obvious.

This is so aggravating because so many people seem to be saying, "Oh, it obviously is supposed to have a blast, but it's not RAW so I guess it's totally wrong to play it that way."

If it's obvious how it's supposed to work; PLAY IT THAT WAY.

[DarkLink]

If it's obvious how it's supposed to work; PLAY IT THAT WAY.

Apparently you missed the entire middle of my post:rolleyes:

[Sir Biscuit]

I didn't. Sorry, I meant that as a general gripe and I wasn't referring to you specifically.

I'll play you anytime, DarkLink. You cool in my book.

[Rapture]

It gets a blast. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid. There are other, different codexes that have it as a large blast, so why would a new, different codex be any different? Playing by RAW is not important if the rule changes something.

I play my storm shields with 2+ save. Only 3+ wouldn't be as good so it is obviously a typo. Matt Ward must have spilled coke on his keyboard.

Seriously.

[Paul]

It gets a blast. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid. There are other, different codexes that have it as a large blast, so why would a new, different codex be any different? Playing by RAW is not important if the rule changes something.

I play my storm shields with 2+ save. Only 3+ wouldn't be as good so it is obviously a typo. Matt Ward must have spilled coke on his keyboard.

Seriously.

IG Vanquishers get to fire blasts. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid. There are other, different books (PDFs, Forge World IA) that have it firing either a blast or a AP shell, so why would a new, different codex be any different? Playing by RAW is not important if the rule changes something.

I play my Veterans with AP1 lasguns. Only AP - wouldn't be as good, so it's OBVIOUSLY a typo. Robin Cruddace must've spilled coke on his keyboard.

Seriously.

[Sir Biscuit]

Wow, I totally didn't think of it that way! You guys, your sarcasm has totally made me change my mind. I'm being an enormous douchebag for trying to figure out how the rules are supposed to work and what the actual intent behind them might have been, and if a mistake may have been made.

What I really love about this forum is that there is a mutual respect and that we can debate each other without snarky comments that border on personal attacks.

Seriously.

[Rapture]

Sorry Pot, I won't let any snarky comments bordering on personal attack crop up again.


Nice of you to split my post up and respond to specific sentences instead of overall points. I'll do my best not to extend to you the same disservice, and reply to each of your points in it's full context.
I know that no one else makes those kind of comments.

If you want to know how the rule works read the codex. It might be a typo, we won't until after it is clarified.

On that same note, maybe everywhere that a vehicle has 'fast' in its profile is a typo. I know that in the SW and SM and CSM and BT codexes none of the vehicles are fast. Since we are using them to decide how to play a demolisher cannon then we should use them to decide how to play everything.

I understand where you are coming from, but the book says what it says. It might change. It might not.

[Sir Biscuit]

I think there's a big difference with expressing frustration at someone before carefully debating against their points and coming out of nowhere to strawman a person without giving a real argument. But I dunno, maybe that's just me. If I've offended Vaktathi than I do apologize. He is a worthy adversary and I don't really mean anything negative about him by my comments. It's been a poor week for me and I should use language that is not so harsh. I will watch myself more closely in the future.

Copy+ Paste from one page ago:
----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Priest:
"(blah blah pick a thing)... He and any squad he joins have the Preferred Enemy rule against that unit type."

I suppose that means that I can take a couple wolf priests, have them join every squad in my army in turns 1-2 of the game, and they will all have Preferred Enemy! After all, it's any squad he joins, and it doesn't say he has to stay with them. Hell, even if he dies they still get the bonus! Move over, BT, SPACE WOLVES DO IT BETTER.

Space marine chaplains are the same way, though a little less powerful because they do have to assault to give everyone the bonus.

Oh, and Leman Russes can shoot their turret weapon if they are stunned, shaken or have popped smoke!

And Maugen Ra can use both Fast Shot and Crack Shot in the same turn, because he is not, technically, an exarch and thus avoids the one-at-a-time restriction.

And sorry, you can't shoot your flamers at me. You can't fire a template weapon if it hits any friendly models, and by the rules the template must touch the model firing. Sucks to be you.
----------------------------------------------------

So, to be clear, you are saying that all the above is true because that is what RAW says? There is absolutely no room for interpretation of the rules? Because if that's true, no one could play this game. It breaks down when you start applying strict RAW without considering RAI.

And in this case, I think the RAI is pretty obvious. Demolisher cannons have always worked with a blast. While that is not a great point in and of itself, it does give us a trend that is fairly indicative. In addition, in the fluff description, it describes the Demolisher as having a mighty blast. Again, not a conclusive point, but it gives some insight into what the author was thinking.

Really, the biggest indicator that it should have a blast is the damned cost of the thing. Anyone who plays 40k knows that the Vindicator is a mediocre tank, but reasonably priced. Now, why would a game designer take that tank, make it slightly faster, hugely nerf the main weapon, and then make it 20% more expensive? While I agree that the game designers working at GW could be better, I'd like to think even the most amateur game designer would be able to avoid building something like this. Then again, if it were like a regular Vindicator but simply fast, the points cost would seem to be justified. Then, ask yourself the question of which is more likely: that the designer intentionally made a vehicle much worse, or that it's a simple typo and if the tank works with a blast it's balanced for its points?

I can't speak for everyone, but that is one hell of a RAI argument to me. To each their own, I suppose, but playing it with a blast hardly breaks the game and makes a lot of sense.

[Paul]

Really, the biggest indicator that it should have a blast is the damned cost of the thing. Anyone who plays 40k knows that the Vindicator is a mediocre tank, but reasonably priced. Now, why would a game designer take that tank, make it slightly faster, hugely nerf the main weapon, and then make it 20% more expensive?


Without blast, it's a better tank and building destroyer (unless every tank it shoots is a Land Raider, then it's equally effective).

And "slightly" faster? Try doubling it's effective speed...



Then, ask yourself the question of which is more likely: that the designer intentionally made a vehicle much worse, or that it's a simple typo and if the tank works with a blast it's balanced for its points?


Then, ask yourself which is more applicable: what designer intended is irrelevant until it is addressed in the FAQ, or we should always try to read into the RAI and ignore the RAW because we all know what the designer intended.

[Rapture]

Making the game playable (ex. being able to fire a flamer) and adding a blast template to a vehicle's profile are slightly different.

But, to show that I do see merit in your argument and your evidence, my marines bolters will now be firing large blast templates.

[Vaktathi]

If you want to play Devil's Advocate, it'd be nice to know what you actually think. But I suppose you don't have to. I stated it earlier in the thread. 90% Probably a typo, but given the history of the author, the consistency of the entry, and the wild variations in supposedly identical SM equipment, there's a chance it may not be.



Nice of you to split my post up and respond to specific sentences instead of overall points. I'll do my best not to extend to you the same disservice, and reply to each of your points in it's full context. :confused: sorry...I thought I hit pretty much everything, I'll make sure to leave nothing out here.



No argument here. I do find it strange that the transport capacities changed, and I assume it's a balance issue to compensate for a more assault-oriented army. However, I find it MUCH less likely that a change of transport capacity is a typo/author didn't know the exact rules interaction, and it seems quite likely to me that this is the case with the Vindicator. According to the GDUK info from last year on the reversion to capacity 10 for SW land raiders, he thought it was cool so you could fit 5 termi's+character or 10 marines+character in a pod, but he wasn't supposed to and got yelled at for doing it and it got bumped back down for SW's and BA (and no explanation of course for either why it was increased in the first place or reduced again outside of a GD interview). While it shows some creativity on the part of the writers and some measure of control on GW's part, it also shows that stuff slips through and they can do a lot of stuff without much reason.



These were all things that were broke and needed fixin'. Perhaps they thought a Fast ordnance platform was too? That's all really subjective and they haven't given us much of an explanation for the radically different stats, and of course don't bother changing them for older armies.


They are slowly being fixed and we can see a trend with them in the new codices where they are all the same. Of the past 3 yes, but 2 have also been by the same author and the other only used such rules for some of the stuff.


This represents a dedicated effort to make sure that everything in the codex is useful IE better game design. The vindicator wasn't broken, and if anything, needed a slight BOOST. Damn strange it got such a massive debuff instead. GW is quite often inconsistent. They last few marine codex's have been better, but not perfect, and a large part of that is two of them being written by the same guy. That said, we also have crap like "blood fists" which are just normal DCCW's, but named differently just for the sake of being different, and as such any future changes in 6E may not apply to Blood Fists if that occurs.

And hell, within the IG codex we have three different types of Autocannon.



True, though that seems to be happening less and less. This edition we seem to be getting the same weapons over and over, with codices being updated to be in line with their contemporaries in both wargear and special abilities. Of the three marine books we've had, two are, essentially, "Codex" books, so they should be reasonably similar. That said, they still have discrepencies in Captain loadouts, transport capacities, unit options, and apparently, Vindicators.




I'm interested where this third entry for the Demolisher cannons statline is. By my count there are only two: in the vehicle armory section, and in the summary. Isn't it there under the unit entry too? I don't have it here so I can't check, I thought it was, if not, I'm mistaken, apologies, however, even with two consistent entries, it's still a different situation than with what occurred with the SM book, where it was two *different* (and, come the FAQ, both incorrect) entries, where here we have identical entries.


I don't think it's unlikely that one is copy-pasted from the other, and I don't think multiple iterations makes it any more likely that it was intentional.It may or may not. With the SM codex both entries were different and ultimately wrong, and I can't think of another error like this (typically in the Summary) where all entries in a book were identical and ultimately all wrong, although there may be one out there.



I find it strange that a tourney judge would rule that way, but I suppose it is what it is. What a silly way to play. It's what the codex says and it's not ambiguous if you take the BA codex by itself, which is generally how GW intends their books to be written.



And I disagree about the FAQ. There are tons of rules that we don't play "as written" because their intent is so obvious that we don't even think about how thy are wrong. See next point for some good examples. Yes, but they generally can be read different ways, it's hard to read a weapon statline different ways.



Game designers are not inscrutable gods sending down rules from on-high, whose motives cannot be known. They're people, they're designing their game in the same way many games are designed, and we can figure out the mistakes they made. Usually quite easily. But not always, particularly with this writer and Marine gear, which is what in large part fuels this debate.





Wolf Priest:
"(blah blah pick a thing)... He and any squad he joins have the Preferred Enemy rule against that unit type."

I suppose that means that I can take a couple wolf priests, have them join every squad in my army in turns 1-2 of the game, and they will all have Preferred Enemy! After all, it's any squad he joins, and it doesn't say he has to stay with them. Hell, even if he dies they still get the bonus! Move over, BT, SPACE WOLVES DO IT BETTER.
That is a far more liberal interpretation than one would normally be given to reading from that. You have to read that in a very specific way to get that.

Blood Angels are very plainly simply, Ordnance 1.



Oh, and Leman Russes can shoot their turret weapon if they are stunned, shaken or have popped smoke! That too requires a specific reading that wouldn't instantly be obvious. The line "in addition to anything other weaons it would normally be allowed to fire" implies that it must be allowed to fire.

Again, not as clear as simply, Ordnance 1.



And Maugen Ra can use both Fast Shot and Crack Shot in the same turn, because he is not, technically, an exarch and thus avoids the one-at-a-time restriction.I don't have that book here right now so I can't take a look at it.



And sorry, you can't shoot your flamers at me. You can't fire a template weapon if it hits any friendly models, and by the rules the template must touch the model firing. Sucks to be you. By using the phrase "friendly" instead of "your own", it typically implies "other" (at least that's how I read it), but that's also far more pedantic than the argument about Ordnance 1.



So, we've got awkward wording that can be interpreted multiple ways that obviously causes problems, but is there any reason not to stick to a clearly iterated statline?



The point is, the codices are not written perfectly. Agreed, no argument there.


However, it is easy to see how things should work, how they were meant to work, and that is the way we play the game. Sneer and call it "houseruleing" if you want, but the fact is that near everyone plays the game this way and it is the way it is intended to be played. That's all a matter of perspective. A player new to the game just picking up the Blood Angels codex with no experience with other SM armies would have no idea that's "not how it should work".

Codex's are written to be self contained, as dumb as it is, the fact that Ultramarines Land Raiders can transport 12 guys and have a machine spirit with BS4 has no bearing on the fact that a Grey Knights one can only carry 10 and has a machine spirit of BS2 and different effect smoke launchers. That's simply the way that GW wrote the rules and intends them to be played.

There are times when rules can read differently, as above to different people. There are others when there's only one way to interpret it.


So, you can play that way or be petty and insist it must be played exactly as written. Choices. Again, aside from awkward reading of rules as opposed to a plainly stated statline, what makes playing the rules as written petty in this case?




Two and probably not. Copy paste seems a likely culprit that can't be easily dismissed. In addition, it would have been totally reasonable on the authors part to think that ordinance=large blast, especially since no weapons, to my knowledge, are actually listed as "ordinance blast". I'm pretty sure they all the IG ones are, with the exception of the Hellstrike missile which is, intentionally, Ordnance 1. I don't remember the others off the top of my head, but I can find out later. Barrage automatically entails large blast, but Ordnance by itself does not.




Different context is key (same as changing LR capacities...). It's clear the the chimera has five fire points. It couldn't possibly be a typo or mistake on the authors part/not knowing the exact wording for fire points. Right, but by the same token, if using the fluff description for RAI, you should only ever fire lasguns from it.



The fluff is not meant to be an exact representation of the rules but it DOES undoubtedly give insight into how the author was thinking. It's not meant to be hard evidence, it just gives creedance to the RAI argument. It can, but again, it can go just about any way you want it to.

[Sir Biscuit]

Without blast, it's a better tank and building destroyer (unless every tank it shoots is a Land Raider, then it's equally effective).

And "slightly" faster? Try doubling it's effective speed...

Actually, it's better with the blast against all tanks+buildings.
If it is centered over a rhino, then as long as it scatters two inches or less it will still have the hole over the rhino.
1/3 chance it doesn't scatter.
15/36 chance it scatters 2 inches or less. (Basically, rolling a 6 or lower on the scatter dice.)
1/3+15/36=27/36... or 75%. Chances go up if your shooting at something larger, like most buildings.
To compare, a straight BS4 shot is 66.6% accurate.

In addition, the removal of blast makes it infinitely worse against infantry, which can't be ignored.
Let's say on average with the blast you catch five infantry in 4+ cover.
5/6 wound.
1/2 pass cover save.
~2 Die.
Single shot:
2/3 chance of hit.
5/6 wound.
1/2 pass cover save.
~.277 die.

And that's not taking into consideration that you can hit more than five, or get multiple hits on units that aren't in cover.

Even if the speed is effectively doubled, I find it hard to believe that that would justify the points cost when the main gun is so badly nerfed.


Then, ask yourself which is more applicable: what designer intended is irrelevant until it is addressed in the FAQ, or we should always try to read into the RAI and ignore the RAW because we all know what the designer intended.

We don't know, but I don't think it's unreasonable that we can make an educated guess. And if I am right, and it is FAQ'd to have a blast... well, I did know the RAI then, didn't I? It happens a lot, because we are intelligent thinking individuals who can figure out how this game is supposed to function.

After all, I don't see why this game should be so strictly held to RAW when we don't do that with actual real-life laws, where the spirit of the law is taken into consideration along with the letter, and is just as important. I'm not saying that we should consider RAI and RAW equally, but I think it's damn silly to completely ignore one and discard it out of hand.


Making the game playable (ex. being able to fire a flamer) and adding a blast template to a vehicle's profile are slightly different.

But, to show that I do see merit in your argument and your evidence, my marines bolters will now be firing large blast templates.

I find it absurd that you are OK with RAI when it comes to the main rules of the game, but absolutely will not budge when it comes to a weapon profile that may have been a typo. Perhaps you could explain why it is okay to ignore RAW in some cases while applying it absolutely in others?

[DarkLink]

I didn't. Sorry, I meant that as a general gripe and I wasn't referring to you specifically.

I'll play you anytime, DarkLink. You cool in my book.

Heh, no problem. Couldn't think of a nice funny comment to put there.

Yeah, I'm surprised about how big of a response to this there is. It's pretty simple. Technically, it's pretty clearly not a blast. But then again, technically Shrike can't infiltrate with a squad, even though his rule clearly specifically attempts to allow it. Solution? Who cares, play the game and don't sweat the details:cool:.

[Bean]

EDIT: You sure about that? Check my math here:

A Land Raider measures 7"x4", right? That means that if we can target the center of the Land Raider, we are safe if we scatter no more than 6" on the x-axis and no more than 7" on the y-axis (because each will be reduced to 2" and 3" respectively). Now, the odds of rolling 6" or less on 2d6 are 15/36, and the odds of rolling 7" or less on 2d6 are 21/36. Since a Land Raider's targetable area (seen from above) is a near-perfect rectangle, we can take 1/2 of 15/36 and 1/2 of 21/36 and end up with the odds that any given scatter will, starting from the exact center of the Land Raider, end up on the targetable area, right?

If we perform the above operation, we get exactly 1/2. And of course that is only relevant 2/3 of the time. The other 1/3 of the time we get a direct hit. Doesn't all this mean that the odds of a shot, targeted at the exact center of a Land Raider, ending up on that Land Raider are:


(1/3) + (2/3*1/2)

Which is to say, a BS4 blast weapon is as a BS4 non-blast weapon so long as the target is no smaller than a Land Raider.

And then there is the risk of collateral damage, as Duke said, as well as the minimum range, and the fact that the scatter-to-regular-BS equivalency assumes that you can target the center of the vehicle, which is extra distance your weapon has to reach. All in all, it seems only sporting to me to offer BA opponents their choice.

When my friend and I did it, we took more detailed measurements. We set the tank on a piece of paper printed with with a polar grid (one inch increments on the radius, 15 degree increments on the..angle? measurement? I'm not sure what that element is called).

Anyway, we counted which intersection points were covered by the vehicle's hull at each increment of radius (with the vehicle was centered on the origin) and worked out the probabilities from those counts.

The reason this produces a more accurate result than your method--and the reason your method has produced a flawed result--is that you presume that the length along the vehicle's axis is the furthest the shot can deviate without deviating off the tank, while, in fact, a rectangular vehicle can be substantially longer along its diagonal than it is along its longest axis.

Further, you presume that the probability of a scatter being sufficiently short to land on the tank in general is simply the average of the probability that it will land on the tank if it scatters directly along the long axis and the probability that it will land on the tank if it scatters directly along the short axis. This assumption is not necessarily true for a rectangular tank--and this should be obvious once you consider that the diagonal is actually longer than the long axis.

Anyway, I've been looking through my old calculator files and it looks like I don't have the original numbers, but I'll contact my friend and verify them for you.

In the meantime, though, yes--your math is wrong. It's a pretty reasonable attempt, but it's not quite accurate.


If you want to play Devil's Advocate, it'd be nice to know what you actually think. But I suppose you don't have to.

If it's obvious how it's supposed to work; PLAY IT THAT WAY.

I think that you are right, and it obviously should be a blast weapon. I also think that you should probably play it as a blast weapon.

I also think that the question of what it should be and how you should play it is entirely different and separate from the question of what it is in the rules, which is the question most of the rest of us have been addressing.

If you want to post a thread which says, "Hey, given that there is what appears to be an obvious typo in the BA codex, should we play as though the BA vindi's demolisher has a blast?" I would answer, "yes, absolutely."

But, that isn't the question this thread was set up to address.

Also, this math is wrong:

1/3+15/36=27/36... or 75%
It would be 1/3+(2/3*15/36), were the probability of the shot scattering and staying on the tank actually 15/36--which it is not. Essentially, you have to multiply the probability that it scatters a sufficiently short distance by the probability that you fail to roll a hit before adding it to the probability that you roll a hit. If you fail to do so, you get a result which is inaccurate and high, which is what happened in your post.

[Rapture]

I find it absurd that you are OK with RAI when it comes to the main rules of the game, but absolutely will not budge when it comes to a weapon profile that may have been a typo. Perhaps you could explain why it is okay to ignore RAW in some cases while applying it absolutely in others?
This is the last one I am going to give you.

Your specific examples are all open to multiple interpretations. No one claims that a Tau pulse rifle is strength 4 because it is clearly listed as strength 5. This is your argument:

"It should be this way because I think it should be this way."

You can throw those heavily debated, WAAC, rules lawyer examples around all day and night but it doesn't change the fact that there is no room for interpretation in a weapon's stat line.

Unless you also admit that it was a typo when they left 'blast' out of the weapon profile for lasguns as well.

[Dingareth]

If you fail to do so, you get a result which is inaccurate and high, which is what happened in your post.

Which as we have seen before the accuracy is around 60%, which is a fair bit lower than the 66% of BS4. So, again, as was stated a few pages back, the Blast is only better against Land Raider size and above. Thank you Bean for writing all that out so I didn't have to!

[Bean]

Which as we have seen before the accuracy is around 60%, which is a fair bit lower than the 66% of BS4. So, again, as was stated a few pages back, the Blast is only better against Land Raider size and above. Thank you Bean for writing all that out so I didn't have to!

Sir Biscuit's math was wrong, but, if I remember correct, the result is still greater than 66%--just not as great as 75%.

Again, I'll have to wait until I can get ahold of the friend who actually has the spreadsheet we made up to verify, but I'm pretty sure that, for a Rhino, a BS:4 blast is more accurate than a BS:4 non-blast.

Anyway, when did we see before that a BS:4 blast has an accuracy around 60%? What math led to that result?

Remember that Nabterayal's math regarding the Land Raider was also wrong--and produced a low result.

[Dingareth]

I'm pretty sure it comes out to just over 60%.

If you hit 33% of the time, and miss 66%, but scatter less than 2.3" (taking into account scattering 1.5" on the x, and 2.5" on the y, and just under 3" on the diagonal and subtracting BS4) 46.6% of the time (based on 1000 trials) gives 63%. So not quite the 6% difference I had assumed, but still hitting on BS is "better" scattering and subtracting BS. On a Rhino. In a vacuum.

[gcsmith]

Hmm one thing ive seen in this argument is one person dictate fluff as a RAI about using blasts, but then sed ill still use flames on his chimera depsite fluff saying you cant.... Cant have it both ways.
Also The rules are not ambiguous and in a court of law we do have a case, after all there is precedence, IG valykyrie missiles.
Also If going by the fluff its a tank buster, a siege breaker, not a troop killer. so moaning about its anti infantry lack of is kinda misguided.
Oh and BTW even if you kept prefered enemy with SW, BT do get it better, They get it against all unit types, and get all units with it even dreads. and keep it on his death.

[Mycroft Holmes]

15/36 chance it scatters 2 inches or less. (Basically, rolling a 6 or lower on the scatter dice.)
1/3+15/36=27/36... or 75%. Chances go up if your shooting at something larger, like most buildings.


You're a little off. Remember that you're twice as likely to scatter as you are to get a hit. (http://www.twinlinked.net/?p=106)

Also, I find the assumption that a scatter of 3"+ is perfectly good. Is it 100% accurate? Absolutely not, but it's better then attempting to average all the different shape and size vehicles in the game.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Anyway, when did we see before that a BS:4 blast has an accuracy around 60%? What math led to that result?


Calculations using 3"+ as being a miss. (http://www.twinlinked.net/?p=106) You may disagree with that assumption, but it's useful for a baseline.

[Tynskel]

1/3 + 2/3*(15/36) assuming 2" still hits target= ~61%. Slightly worse than a direct fire.

Shooting at a land raider...
1/3 + 2/3*(21/36) assuming 3" still hits the target= ~72% a little better than direct fire.


However, we all know the real difference is shooting at groups.

[Bean]

I'm pretty sure it comes out to just over 60%.

If you hit 33% of the time, and miss 66%, but scatter less than 2.3" (taking into account scattering 1.5" on the x, and 2.5" on the y, and just under 3" on the diagonal and subtracting BS4) 46.6% of the time (based on 1000 trials) gives 63%. So not quite the 6% difference I had assumed, but still hitting on BS is "better" scattering and subtracting BS. On a Rhino. In a vacuum.


You're a little off. Remember that you're twice as likely to scatter as you are to get a hit. (http://www.twinlinked.net/?p=106)

Also, I find the assumption that a scatter of 3"+ is perfectly good. Is it 100% accurate? Absolutely not, but it's better then attempting to average all the different shape and size vehicles in the game.


Calculations using 3"+ as being a miss. (http://www.twinlinked.net/?p=106) You may disagree with that assumption, but it's useful for a baseline.


1/3 + 2/3*(15/36) assuming 2" still hits target= ~61%. Slightly worse than a direct fire.

Shooting at a land raider...
1/3 + 2/3*(21/36) assuming 3" still hits the target= ~72% a little better than direct fire.


However, we all know the real difference is shooting at groups.


I see. All of you are representing the vehicle as a circle with some radius, which explains why your results are not very accurate.

The methodology we used (and I described it earlier) is far more accurate than your "pretend it's a circle" approach, so I think I'm going to stick to my guns, here, and continue to assert that the BS:4 Blast weapon is more accurate against Rhinos than a BS:4 non-blast weapon.

Or, in other words, your maths might be right but your methodologies and assumptions are obviously flawed, leaving all of you with not-terribly-useful results.


edit:

Actually, Dingareth, do I see there that you did a bunch of trials? Care to describe the methodology used for those?

[Tynskel]

the term is called, First Order Assumption.

They are often flawed, and that is why they must be tested.

We will use your assumption: BS:4 Blast Weapon is more accurate against a Rhino than a non-BS4 blast weapon.

1/3 + 2/3*(15/36) assuming 2" still hits target (target is a circle)= ~61%. The answer is, right from the get go, that BS4 Blast weapon is WORSE than a direct fire (66% accuracy)

Testing the math. ~50% of the time you roll the scatter dice, The 2" is greater than the rhino area (placing the template hole in the center of the model.) Roughly 180 degrees of area is less than 2" from the hole.

From here, I could do further analysis, but the null hypothesis was already disproved by supplied measurements.

But, I'll include the math anyhow.

1/3 (auto hit) + 2/3*15/36*1/2 (to hit with 2" scatter) + 2/3*10/36*1/2 (to hit with 1" scatter) = 56%

With the refined mathematics, a BS4 weapon getting a direct shooting hit at a rhino is 1/10 times more often than a BS4 blast weapon getting a direct hit.

In simple terms, you miss a lot more with Blast weapons versus vehicles.

[Bean]

Yeah, you're right. Sorta. I got about a 240 degree to 120 degree split (directions that need two or less inches to hit to directions that need one or less inches to hit) which leaves you with about a 57% chance of success. So, my memory was off.

Still, it's important to remember that the methodology others have proposed is inaccurate, and that the Rhino is one of the smallest vehicles in the game.

Though, in doing the same thing with a land raider, I came up at about 67%, so it looks like you're probably right. I'll have to go back and review those numbers, soon as I can get another copy of them.

I concede the point.

Still, treating the vehicle as a circle is bad methodology.

[Wolfshade]

Hmmm, interesting RAI vs RAW. Just out of interest in the old pdf version of the BA codex (pre-faqing) did you embark/disembark units out of rhinos and razorbacks as they didn't have access points :)

[tongue in cheek]
But the solution (or how to annoy both sides of the argument)

Either:
Run two vindicators one a fast allegedly non-blast BA variant, and the other an inducted allied C:SM non-fast barrage one.

Or:
"Brother Corbulo, seeing in the future that their techmarines would forget the secret of barrage weapons sent Techmarine Initiate Dave to Mars to learn the ways of the Machine God. Unfortunately, soon-to-be-Techpriest Dave quite liked to indulge Sacra and one day found himself causing mischief in the munititorium. An assignment of Demolisher Cannon shells labelled to be shipped to Maccrag mysteriously got re-directed to Baal."

Consequently my Vindicator can fire with barrage or not (obviously depending on the target) ;)
[/tongue in cheek]

This is one of those occasions that you are so used to playing a vehcile/rule one way that you assume that it works the way it has done previously like DH stormshields were consistent with 4th Ed C:SM storm sheilds. Not quite sure how I would run my vindis myself as I assumed the ordance blast was equivalent to ordance and so would have large blasts, now I am not so sure. I wonder what else I have not read as printed. :confused:

[TSINI]

Why do people use stormshields and assault cannons as examples of weapons randomly changing. yes they have changed - between editions. the 5th ed rulebook lists the old edition assault cannon - which has been updated by the space marine codex, and now all assault cannons will function in this way - garunteed.

I think you'll find that once all of the new codexes are out that all weapons willl be brought into line as exactly the same mechanic. the DE will probably gain some new weapons, or new stat versions of old weapons, which will supercede the rulebook's summary pages.

I don't know why GW havent reacted quicker to the "outdated" marine codexes by simply allowing them to take wargear at "codex: space marine" prices. it would take a page at most to rectify all of the points cost/updated wargear issues of old marine/daemonhunters/witchunters codexes

I'm pretty sure my local gaming group would prefer to see all stormshields work the same way rather than some this way-some that way.

The demolisher cannon, on the other hand - has already made it through the transition from 4th to 5th without any changes - therefore it will work the same for EVERY army that fields one.

this is my argument FOR the BA vindicator having a blast. and i am sure it will be FAQ'd as such. when it is, i hope all those people furiously arguing that the most logical reasoning for it not having a blast is a dogmatic blinkered view of the lettering and hiding behind old and outdated (and in terms of 5th edition) "forgotten" codexes, turn into dust under their own stupidity and inability to actually play the game for fun.

yeah the landraider/drop pod transport numbers are odd for changing, but as someone has already said - the GW team really didnt like that. so why would it happen again?

[Culven]

this is my argument FOR the BA vindicator having a blast. and i am sure it will be FAQ'd as such. when it is, i hope all those people furiously arguing that the most logical reasoning for it not having a blast is a dogmatic blinkered view of the lettering and hiding behind old and outdated (and in terms of 5th edition) "forgotten" codexes, turn into dust under their own stupidity and inability to actually play the game for fun.
I think you are making a fundamentally flawed assumption when reading the arguements against the BA Demolisher Cannon having Blast. That is, you are not separating Rules as Written (RaW) from Game as Played (GaP). This is a rules discussion, so we can only use the RaW to define how something works. This doesn't mean that when we get to the table we wouldn't house rule it to work as every other Demolisher Cannon, but that is not what the rules actually say. I will go back to my earlier example of a new 40K player who only has the Blood Angels codex for reference. When playing against another Blood Angels player, they would probably be a bit surprised that their opponent was trying to use a Large Blast Marker when nothing in the codex or rulebook say that they have it. But debating RaW, at least players will be informed that there is an issue with the rules and they can explain it before the game instead of springing it upon an ignorant opponant.

In conclusion, please don't insult those debating RaW simply because you are assuming that they will try playing by strict RaW. Now, if you play against someone who actually tries using this against you, feel free to insult them.

[Old_Paladin]

Actually, the assault cannon didn't change between editions, it changed between codexes, although the trial run for the new assault cannon was in the quick play rules for Battle for Macragge.
They haven't had a official change to "just use the Space Marine Codex" because their official stance is a change to self-inclusive codexes; you don't need to buy suppliments to play your own army anymore.

Most people here probably feel that it IS a typo; but, as has already been pointed out, we don't play this game pulling stuff out of our butts and calling things typos to get what we want or feel we should get. We play by the rules given until we're told that there has been a mistake.

The defence is that all demolishers are played one way; the tanks discription is word for word the same. If that's true, why is it fast? Is it listed with equipment demolisher cannon and overcharged engines, with a seperate vehicle equipment section stating that overcharged engines make it fast (I don't have the codex, so cannot look it up)?
If it was a copy and paste mistake, then is won't be a fast tank, as that is a change to the copy; which means someone has gone through and made some changes (it's must not be a straight copy).

I feel that it will be addressed in a FAQ; and will either read errata: "ord. 1, blast" or FAQ: "it is non-blast, this is the compromise for it being a fast vehicle."
But until then, we should play be rules given, not rules desired.

[TSINI]

I think you are making a fundamentally flawed assumption when reading the arguements against the BA Demolisher Cannon having Blast. That is, you are not separating Rules as Written (RaW) from Game as Played (GaP). This is a rules discussion, so we can only use the RaW to define how something works. This doesn't mean that when we get to the table we wouldn't house rule it to work as every other Demolisher Cannon, but that is not what the rules actually say. I will go back to my earlier example of a new 40K player who only has the Blood Angels codex for reference. When playing against another Blood Angels player, they would probably be a bit surprised that their opponent was trying to use a Large Blast Marker when nothing in the codex or rulebook say that they have it. But debating RaW, at least players will be informed that there is an issue with the rules and they can explain it before the game instead of springing it upon an ignorant opponant.

In conclusion, please don't insult those debating RaW simply because you are assuming that they will try playing by strict RaW. Now, if you play against someone who actually tries using this against you, feel free to insult them.

I apologise if you feel i was insulting anyone, but i wasn't aware i was.

My intention however, was to address those responses to my previous posts (amonst others) who claim there are multiple versions of other weapons as evidence of a skitzophrenic nature by GW to randomly change weapon stats

for example:

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there two different "types" of smoke launchers, psychic hoods and assault cannons, to name a few?


These changes between weapon stats have ALL happened between editions 4 and 5. old weapon stats by the same name are technically redundant, but still used due to lack of updates of points cost/codex.

It won't happen between codexes (within the same edition) because it's supposed to be the same weapon.





The defence is that all demolishers are played one way; the tanks discription is word for word the same. If that's true, why is it fast? Is it listed with equipment demolisher cannon and overcharged engines, with a seperate vehicle equipment section stating that overcharged engines make it fast (I don't have the codex, so cannot look it up)?
If it was a copy and paste mistake, then is won't be a fast tank, as that is a change to the copy; which means someone has gone through and made some changes (it's must not be a straight copy).


the weapon's stats are very very unlikely to change just because the vehicle it is mounted on has a change to its stats.

the engine change is documented in the codex specifically

the weapon change is not mentioned at all. - i read here that there has been a mistake, removing the explosive materials from a shell would definately be mentioned in the fluff or as a side note highlighting the change, because this is a standard weapon across the imperium


I understand this is a RAW conversation, but the RAW conversation ends at "It gets no blast" Which has no room for discussion - What does have room for discussion is how people are interpreting this and whether they are playing games like this or not. according to some, some are. hence the back and forth of opinions as to why we should or shouldn't ignore this as a typo. The RAW conversation would have ended 12 pages ago lol!

as an aside

IG Vanquishers get to fire blasts. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid. There are other, different books (PDFs, Forge World IA) that have it firing either a blast or a AP shell, so why would a new, different codex be any different? Playing by RAW is not important if the rule changes something.

I play my Veterans with AP1 lasguns. Only AP - wouldn't be as good, so it's OBVIOUSLY a typo. Robin Cruddace must've spilled coke on his keyboard.

Seriously.

This quote made me wince, it was entirely designed argue and not discuss, all of the examples of changing weapons were flawed too

The old vanquisher cannon PDF's and books have all been updated (by forgeworld's new PDF) in line with the 5th ed Imperial Guard Codex. No more blast at all.

and the trusty lasgun has been the same way for several editions, it's not a mistake.



again, apologies if this comes across as agumentative, it isn't intended that way, I Guess i'm just trying to get my head around those that will go out and force their BA opponent to have no blast, and persuade them otherwise.

[Renegade]

I will truly laugh like a daemon if GW decides it can do the below, just to stop annoy those that call for an FAQ for the something that has already been cleared up in the C:SM.

"In the controlling players shooting phase, the Demolisher Cannon can either shoot an Ordinance 1 shot or an Ordinance Blast shot."

Lets see how picky get when GW decide they really can't be bothered to keep going over the same old thing.

[Culven]

I apologise if you feel i was insulting anyone, but i wasn't aware i was.
When you wrote:

when it is, i hope all those people furiously arguing that the most logical reasoning for it not having a blast is a dogmatic blinkered view of the lettering and hiding behind old and outdated (and in terms of 5th edition) "forgotten" codexes, turn into dust under their own stupidity and inability to actually play the game for fun.
It came across as though you were claiming those arguing RaW and presenting cases where weapon stats have changed as being stupid and unable to play the game for fun.

My intention however, was to address those responses to my previous posts (amonst others) who claim there are multiple versions of other weapons as evidence of a skitzophrenic nature by GW to randomly change weapon stats
These changes between weapon stats have ALL happened between editions 4 and 5. old weapon stats by the same name are technically redundant, but still used due to lack of updates of points cost/codex.
It won't happen between codexes (within the same edition) because it's supposed to be the same weapon.
May I direct you to the Space Marine and Imperial Guard shotguns? They have different stats without an explaination as to why, and the rules are both from 5th edition codecies. We don't know why they are different, we just accept what is written in the different codecies and get on with the game. Arguing that the BA Demolisher Cannon is "supposed" to be a Blast weapon is no different than arguing that the IG shotgun should be S4.

I understand this is a RAW conversation, but the RAW conversation ends at "It gets no blast" Which has no room for discussion - What does have room for discussion is how people are interpreting this and whether they are playing games like this or not. according to some, some are.
again, apologies if this comes across as agumentative, it isn't intended that way, I Guess i'm just trying to get my head around those that will go out and force their BA opponent to have no blast, and persuade them otherwise.
I don't recall anyone saying that they are playing it as non-Blast or any who are forcing their BA opponents to play it as such. I had mentioned a hypothetical situation where a player doesn't know about the Demolisher Cannon outside of the BA codex, and another situation in which I would play by the rules as written if using a BA Vindicator. Did I miss the post where someone said they would actually require their BA opponents use use it as written?

[Duke]

Im just going to throw in my two cents, though nobody might care...

As culven stated, this whole thread is really, (IMHO), more about application of raw, not necessairly how we are actually playing games. I agree that technically we see it doesn't have a blast, but I think nobody would argue it to death if your opponent used a blast template from their ba vindicator.

Duke

[Tynskel]

Actually, the assault cannon didn't change between editions, it changed between codexes, although the trial run for the new assault cannon was in the quick play rules for Battle for Macragge.
They haven't had a official change to "just use the Space Marine Codex" because their official stance is a change to self-inclusive codexes; you don't need to buy suppliments to play your own army anymore.

Most people here probably feel that it IS a typo; but, as has already been pointed out, we don't play this game pulling stuff out of our butts and calling things typos to get what we want or feel we should get. We play by the rules given until we're told that there has been a mistake.

The defence is that all demolishers are played one way; the tanks discription is word for word the same. If that's true, why is it fast? Is it listed with equipment demolisher cannon and overcharged engines, with a seperate vehicle equipment section stating that overcharged engines make it fast (I don't have the codex, so cannot look it up)?
If it was a copy and paste mistake, then is won't be a fast tank, as that is a change to the copy; which means someone has gone through and made some changes (it's must not be a straight copy).

I feel that it will be addressed in a FAQ; and will either read errata: "ord. 1, blast" or FAQ: "it is non-blast, this is the compromise for it being a fast vehicle."
But until then, we should play be rules given, not rules desired.

The assault cannon did not change between codexess--- it changed between editions. Assault Cannons in 3rd edition were 3 shots.

In 4th edition, they are 4 shots with rending.


As for TSINI's argument--- it is actually valid.

Precedent within the rules show how edition changes are uniformly changed, that every book that is brought to the new standard has the same weapon profiles-- however, they may have different costs.

Blood Angels have, essentially, an army wide special rule of fast vehicles, but the weapon profiles between SM and SW are the same.



Don't forget to copy paste...

[Old_Paladin]

The assault cannon did not change between codexess--- it changed between editions. Assault Cannons in 3rd edition were 3 shots.
In 4th edition, they are 4 shots with rending.


As for TSINI's argument--- it is actually valid.
Precedent within the rules show how edition changes are uniformly changed, that every book that is brought to the new standard has the same weapon profiles-- however, they may have different costs.
Blood Angels have, essentially, an army wide special rule of fast vehicles, but the weapon profiles between SM and SW are the same.

Don't forget to copy paste...

Meh, I actually skipped 4th edition all together; I just remember reading the quick play rules for Battle for Macragge that basically meant that it was heavy 4, rending. I thought Macragge was just a better box set for late 3rd ed. but it was years ago, and I didn't really care at the time.
And can you blame me, it feels like Ultramarines get like 2-3 codexes per edition; even though they only get one.

Yup, all 5th ed codexes are uniform... except shotguns... and landraider carrying capacity.
Actually, it seems more like each codex is very similar; but each have a few things different that make them special and unique to play.

[BuFFo]

Blood Angels have, essentially, an army wide special rule of fast vehicles, but the weapon profiles between SM and SW are the same.

Except for the Demolisher Cannon... :P

[Tynskel]

hehe, the exception isn't shotguns.

The codexes make a distinct mention that space marines use Manstopper Rounds.

[DarkLink]

Actually, Assault Cannons were changed by codex. All the 4th ed and later codices have heavy 4 rending. All the third ed codices remaining have heavy 3, with no faq or anything to update it. I think GK land raider crusader/dreadnought is the only non-heavy 4 assault cannon left, but it is still left nonetheless.

Edit: though I've never had anyone complain when I use the Heavy 4 rending stats.

[Culven]

hehe, the exception isn't shotguns.
The codexes make a distinct mention that space marines use Manstopper Rounds.
I know that the Dark Angels codex used this to explain the strength increase, and even mentioned it in the wargear as being Shotguns with Manstopper Rounds. It seemed to disappear from the wargear description over the next few codecies with S4 Shotguns, and I don't recall the Space Marine Codex as mentioning Manstopper at all. Was it buried in the fluff that I still haven't read?

[Paul]

I know that the Dark Angels codex used this to explain the strength increase, and even mentioned it in the wargear as being Shotguns with Manstopper Rounds. It seemed to disappear from the wargear description over the next few codecies with S4 Shotguns, and I don't recall the Space Marine Codex as mentioning Manstopper at all. Was it buried in the fluff that I still haven't read?

So normal shotguns are, like, birdstopper rounds? Or maybe lizardstoppers? lol

[Tynskel]

I know that the Dark Angels codex used this to explain the strength increase, and even mentioned it in the wargear as being Shotguns with Manstopper Rounds. It seemed to disappear from the wargear description over the next few codecies with S4 Shotguns, and I don't recall the Space Marine Codex as mentioning Manstopper at all. Was it buried in the fluff that I still haven't read?

Interesting point.

C: SM has no mention of the Manstopper rounds, however, C: BA does mention Manstopper rounds- they do have the same profile.
Shotguns are unavailable to C:SW.