Lanc weapons vs. walls

Debate all the finer points of our fine hobby, or just 4, 5 or 6 it...

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby moonshadow13 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:40 pm

I agree that buildings are not vehicles. i will just have to see what the AWC people rule it and the Adepticon judges rule it.


That being said, Lets take this to another weapon that does not affect walls of fortifications. We looked at hay wire grenades and several other assault grenades on page 62. As per the book haywire grenades only affect vehicles. So they are uselss against walls of fortifications. Krak grenades and melta bombs can only be used on vehicles and monsterous creatures. Again no affect against walls of fortifications.

By the time i am done here everyone will have a Fortress of redemption in their army build. You can still wreck 1 section in 1 shot but you have to get past the 14 building armor :)
The new Tau = Death at 30"

Time to bring the Pain!!! For the greater good :)
User avatar
moonshadow13
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Clinton, Wis.

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Redbeard » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:14 pm

Lord Krungharr wrote:The sentence on page 93 says, "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." This only applies to the act of shooting, not to any effects that special weapons have.


Where does it state that this only applies to the act of shooting, and not the entire sequence, including special effects?

Oh, it doesn't.

I see absolutely nothing in the rules that backs up your assertion here. I mean, this isn't just Lance either, it's also Melta, Ordnance, Chainfists, etc. Weapons designed for cutting into fortifications...

I mean, here's the text for the Melta special rule:

MELTA

Melta weapons are short-ranged heat rays whose wrath grows as they get closer to the foe.They are much-prized by troops attempting to destroy enemy tanks or fortifications, for only specially formulated armour can withstand a melta weapon's incandescent fury.

Ranged weapons with this special rule roll an additional d6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour at half range or less. If the weapon is more than half its maximum range away, it rolls to penetrate as normal. See the Vehicles rules (pg 70) for more details on armour penetration.


I bolded something in there. It seems pretty obvious that they intend melta weapons to be useful against fortifications. And yet, if we take your interpretation of the rule on page 93, the melta rule only says vehicles, and so that doesn't work.

It fails to make sense, and especially considering that the more reasonable interpretation of the page 93 rule does make it work. You treat the building as a vehicle for the duration of the attack, and as such, all these special rules just work.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby moonshadow13 » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:49 pm

UM........... you did it just like my friends did you brought up melta weapons NOT melta bombs. its quite clear as you are assaulting a wall not shooting it with a metla bomb. Melta Guns are a diffent discussion and i was not talking about them. I was talking about melta BOMBS. You need to read the item description and what it affects. You cant use melta bombs against troops now can you? All i am doing is following the book and its descriptions which are quite clear you are trying to add in something that is not there. What the assaulting wall fortification rule says is quite simple. You can attack it just like you can attack a vehicle, BUT its not the same result while you continue to try and combind the two. It just says you can assault a wall like assualt a vehicle. That mean you can base it, attack it, shoot it, and if you penatrait it you can destroy it. Notice i didnt bring up power fists. Why? Because you can smash a power fist against a wall fortification. a dreadnaught can hit it with its str 10 fist too. But a melta bomb melts metal armor not cement and concrete fortification thet are reniforced structurally.

Just like Lord Krugar said unless it says it can affect a wall fortification (I.E. a FAQ) then its pretty simple to follow the written documentation that says what they can and cannot affect. After all a vehicle and a Wall fortification are NOT made of the same materials and unless you can show me where is says they are made of the same materials i will go on supporting the walls and vehicles are 2 different entities.

i am hoping the AWC folks can make a call on this too as i would like to know this for the next adepticon as well as for AWC tounaments so i can decide or not to buy a fortification to use in a army build beynd a Aegis defence line. I will also have to hit up GW on this as this is a matter of spending money on their product or not.

I still say i see it being state that walls and vehicles are 2 differnt entities.
The new Tau = Death at 30"

Time to bring the Pain!!! For the greater good :)
User avatar
moonshadow13
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Clinton, Wis.

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Timber » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:59 pm

Lances Lance, and the rule should be applied to anything they shoot, IMO.
Timber
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Turtle » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:52 am

in fact you can use melta bombs against monstrous creatures now
"Here have a beer, Marines play better with beer: Rhysk
Turtle
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: just outside of mil-town

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Turtle » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:00 am

this thread is why gw hates us americans

It quite clearly tells you that a building i.e. "wall", i.e. "fortification" is treated just as if it were a vehicle.
meltabombs affect vehicles
therefore meltabombs can affect a building since you treat a building just like a vehicle.

therefore there is no need in every single weapons entry to state that it works on a fortification

I really don't understand why people are even debating this
"Here have a beer, Marines play better with beer: Rhysk
Turtle
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: just outside of mil-town

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby moonshadow13 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:39 am

What I am talking about is that is just state you can attack a wall fortification.

The effects that affect vehicles and or mosterous creatures would not apply as its not either.

THey have numerous pages of detailed FAQs that do not include wall fortifications and vehicles as being the same thing.

They are not stated in the rules to be the same thing.

You give me a page number with a ruling that states walls and vehicles are the same thing. All my listed page numbers on the information i provided says they are 2 seperate things or only used on vehicles.

I am not trying to start a war on this i am just following what the 6th edition rules book states in its item descriptions and how and what they affect.

Lastly it comes down to the Judges final ruling on the issue in whatever tournamnt you play. I will Send GW a email on this and get back to you all.
The new Tau = Death at 30"

Time to bring the Pain!!! For the greater good :)
User avatar
moonshadow13
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Clinton, Wis.

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Redbeard » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:51 am

moonshadow13 wrote:What I am talking about is that is just state you can attack a wall fortification.


Prove it. Cite a rule that says this. Quote a page number. You can't, because you're wrong.

The only way you read this as simply allowing an attack is if you have some vested interest in making fortifications far tougher than they're designed to be.

You give me a page number with a ruling that states walls and vehicles are the same thing.


They' re not the same thing. They're simply treated the same for shooting and assaulting. As it states on page 93.

I am not trying to start a war on this i am just following what the 6th edition rules book states in its item descriptions and how and what they affect.


Right... by ignoring the simplest possible interpretation of the rules specifically to be obtuse.

There's a rule on page 93, that's the key to this whole thing. "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle." There are two possible interpretations of it:

1) It just allows you to attack a building. This means that all the weapons in the game that are designed to tear down fortifications and cut through buildings, such as chainfists, meltaguns, lances don't work.

or

2) It means that for the duration of the attack, the building counts as being a vehicle for all purposes. This means that all the aforementioned weapons work on fortifications as their descriptions imply they should.


No rational person is going to pick interpretation one over two because interpretation two just makes more sense.

The game works when you take the second interpretation. If you take the first, you're left with a game system in which a handful of armies can never hurt a fortification. That makes no sense. You know what does make sense? When they write "a melta weapon gets to roll 2d6 against vehicles" and assume that you're smart enough to realize that when a building counts as a vehicle, the melta rule doesn't need the extra wordage.


Lastly it comes down to the Judges final ruling on the issue in whatever tournamnt you play.


Any judge who rules that buildings are immune to special rules is asking for a field dominated by ugly oversized, overpriced dark angel forts.

I will Send GW a email on this and get back to you all.


I'm sure they'll drop everything and get back to you. :roll: Unless they're really really trying to sell more Fortresses, the answer is pretty obvious.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Lord Krungharr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:03 pm

It's interesting to note that there is a separate rule called Armourbane which is not the same as Melta. Melta says it rolls the "additional D6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour...". Armourbane weapons, whether Melee or shooting, rolls 2D6 for armour penetration, but does not specify against vehicles only. So we must ask why didn't they write that Melta weapons get Armourbane when shooting within half-range, rather than what they did write specifying vehicles?

Redbeard speaks of sensible interpretations. I agree that would be a sensible interpretation to permit all effects against Armour be against Vehicles and Buildings, but this does not mean that the limited specified-effects argument is not sensible as well.

Argument churns up reason and eventually erupts into concensus, that's a good thing, like Mysterious Terrain.

Ergo, in light of realizing the Melta rule only mentions vehicles, I will change my vote, as I use Melta guns :P (though not Lance weapons).
User avatar
Lord Krungharr
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: Lehigh Acres, FL

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby seahawk » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:43 pm

Armorbane does say that it doesn't have any effect on non-vehicle models.

Hammer of Wrath does make a distinction between vehicles and buildings.

Fleshbane and Poison only say that they don't affect vehicles.
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war, minus the shooting." - George Orwell
seahawk
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:36 am
Location: Sycamore, IL

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Timber » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:30 am

I see no reason why this would not affect fortifications as it does vehicles.

page 93 says, "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle."

How you get from the above rather crystal clear statement to this:
This only applies to the act of shooting, not to any effects that special weapons have.
is a feat of semantics that boggles the mind.
Timber
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby moonshadow13 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:00 pm

Well, GW did get back to me (the same day i sent it) and their FAQ people are reviewing my questions as we speak. How long that will take is another question. What i wanted to note was I was unsure and its good to get some solid feedback from other players on their veiw point. I hope that wasn't too obtuse for you red, but I see it as I see it and so i posted a question to get some good feedback. You hit it on the head about GW selling us fortifications. That was my point exactly as if its a easy kill then why bother? You can still take out the units on it and make the guns useless when there is noone manning it, but to make it a easy kill does not make any sence.

I agree with atacking a wall like a vehicle, but as the wall being effected like a vehicle (lance effects) i still am on the fence about it, because when push comes to shove lance weapon effects vehicles and the walls are walls. there are factions out there that spend a couple of extra points to get blessed hull and lance weapons have no effect. I find the fortifications intersting as it can basically remove the need of favorable terrain or transporst to hide in giving you a portable base with some really nice fire power.

I didn't say i was right, but i do have a view point and both of us have been proven wrong in the past about our veiw points so that why i posted the question. When GW posts the results they shared with me we can again revisit this topic and see who's view point was correct. Until then I will accept whatever the judge running the tournaments interprets the rules as when it comes to weapon effects for vehicles vs. walls.
The new Tau = Death at 30"

Time to bring the Pain!!! For the greater good :)
User avatar
moonshadow13
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Clinton, Wis.

Re: Lanc weapons vs. walls

Postby Lord Krungharr » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Let's consider the case of Walkers and poison. Walkers can assault, and be assaulted, like Infantry models. So why doesn't Poison do anything to them? Because they laid it out very clearly that Poison has no effect on vehicles. So just because Walkers can be assaulted like Infantry models doesn't mean they qualify as Infantry models for the effects of Poison.

This is why it is as yet unclear whether or not Lance and Melta and Armourbane will effect Buildings, because it is unclear whether or not shooting at Buildings 'just like vehicles' means anything beyond range checking, target declaration, rolling to hit or scatter, and a normal AP roll. It's not 'semantics', it's wording, and people have different interpretations, plenty on both sides.
User avatar
Lord Krungharr
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: Lehigh Acres, FL

Previous

Return to Rules Discussions (40K)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron