" a piss ant blog" -Rikimaru


"Dethtron, you are...an asshole" - 38% of Dick Move Readers


" I probably won't read unless I'm bored as shit at work" - A. Hack



"I cannot bring myself to actually read this drivel"- anonymous

"pox riddled post coital stain of a blog"- anonymous



Friday, April 30, 2010

Friday Night Internet Fight, Round 9

I've got to admit, I have up until this time pretty much avoided going into the BoLS lounge. Maybe I was afraid of being flamed by Melissia- who knows, this may well just remain one of life's greatest mysteries. But, earlier this week I got an e-mail from Maxx, pointing out a fight over a possible typo on the Vindicator entry in the new BA codex.

The full thread, in it's 13+ pages of futile glory can be found here. I'll do my best to condense the thread into a more manageable size and cut straight to the bullshit. Make sure to check out the poll at the upper right of this page to vote on the outcome of the fight. I'm going to shake things up a little bit this week, and have the poll reflect the rules argument, rather than the fight participants. We'll see how that goes. As always, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement. Let the snowmobiling commence...

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 ~sometimes there are just too many typos in a sentence to make the fun... ; 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. ~except, of course codex space marines could this be just a misprint ?


BuFFo- Until there is an Errata, it has no blast.
I would discuss this with your opponent before hand. ~I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you actually talking to my opponent is going to be logistically difficult at best 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. ~aww thanks, that sounds like it would be a blast -Dethtron, why do you always go for the easy/bad puns, what the fuck is wrong with you. Why don't you save the planet and kill yourself...


lobster-overlord- I can see it as being the drawback for having it now mounted in a fast vehicle. ~ummm isn't paying a higher points premium drawback enough...what do you want from me, blood? As it is written without blast in both places (final page listing and the weapon entry) that it is not a misprint, ~....and you know this because... but a direct change to offset the new abilities of the BA tanks.


John M. ~nobody cares, Colin H.

hisdudeness- Um, the demolisher is missing barrage not blast. And all ordnance weapons use the large blast unless told otherwise. ~you tell those ordnance weapons 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 ~Since when in the history of space and time has the Vindicator ever been described as an artillery piece?

lobster-overlord- Yeah, I finally got the time to sit with my books. ~I like to sit on my books and learn through assmosis - what did I just say, asshole BRB ~OK, I'll wait p 58 rule listing states ~ oh good, you're back "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. ~what are these toys of which you speak?

hisdudeness- 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. ~because all it is doing is specifying the template size for old entries that say "ordnance blast" and don't have a size listed, perhaps If a specific codex has something different that army must follow those rules.

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

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. ~you're onto something here

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.

Crevab- Relax guys, it's just another GW typo. ~oh thank god, I almost had a panic attack just now 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? ~yess itss sstarting to look that way If feel that reduces its usefullness considering the cost. ~if feel usefellness reduced, hit Matt Ward on head with club 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. ~and I very much doubt your apostrophe key is working

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 ~yep, apostrophe key must be broken or retarded retarded. ~it's not nice to call people retards, you retard

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. ~stop being retarded


The BA version would seem to be a better anti-vehicle/monstrous creature death machine. ~that's such a retarded thing to say

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. ~I'll go get a towel -or- that's what she said -what the fuck is this, like choose your own internet fight?

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. ~don't real bunker busting ammunitions have an explosive blast with a delayed explosion? Two dice for penetration ~you said 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. ~ummmmmmmmmmmmmm, lascannons on any number of fast vehicles would keep pace pretty fucking well, even if at a slightly reduced strength

Makes sense to me.

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. ~I must have not included a previous post that would make sense of this comment...oh well, fuck it -or- Sir Biscuit may just be confused about the Ordnance gets to roll twice to penetrate thing...

Demolisher Cannon
Main rule book: Ordinance is a large blast unless specified otherwise. ~wrong
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? ~absolutely not

EnglishInquisition-No. Doesn't make sense. ~English Inquisition: less expected than the Spanish Inquisition,actually
Because it WAS NOT specified to have blast effect, you can't say one thing and then contradict it with the very next statement. ~yes I can't

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

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

"Ordnance BLAST weapons use the large blast marker." (My emphasis). ~Sir biscuit is clearly emPHAsizing the wrong part of this rule

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

Sir Biscuit- Interesting. You are technically correct. The best kind of correct. ~is it just me or does Futurama pop up an awful lot on Dick Move?
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. ~well pat yourself on the back then

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! ~don't use the F word in my presence

And it becomes very specialised role for the tank, VERY Blood Angels.

Tynskel- This is silly ~no your tinsel hat is silly

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. ~so not all ordnance weapons have a large blast after all. thank you, come again


Paul- Why do all ordnance weapons have a large blast? Where does it say that? ~you know, that one place...that I made up







Tynskel- first, it is implied by the rule on p. 58. ~no, no it's not

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 ~FUCK YOU!=Explitive


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. ~well due to a typo the SM one doesn't say it either in the unit entry....

Dingareth- 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 if somebody has said the exact same thing as you did several times and Paul still doesn't get it what exactly do you think the odds are that you can set him straight on this....

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. ~technically incorrect, the best kind of incorrect

Paul- because they copy pasted... ~perhaps Paul spent his childhood eating paste. that would explain some things

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. ~so if somebody has said the exact same thing as you several times and Dingareth still doesn't get it, what do you think the odds are that you can set him straight on this... -oh I see what you just did there with your copy/paste, dicktron

Bean- 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 ~zing. too bad i'm not putting names up in the polls this week, you'd surely win it.



Darklink- 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 ~haha, you don't get red, this is my blog and that's my color, bitch text I emphasized.

Edit: Hopefully, I'm being sarcastic, and no one actually missed that. ~so wait, you're not sure that you're being sarcastic either? I'm glad I'm not the only one that missed your sarcasm. Must be the whole 'interpretting the rule correctly' thing. The internet can always surprise, though.

Dingareth- You are still wrong. 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. ~I have a learning dissabilty that prohibits me from seeing the word blast -so 'I have a learning dissability that prohibits me from seeing the word....?

Please tell us you understand this, it's not that hard. Actually read page 58, you'll see we're right. ~if only he would see
Lastly, in the future, listen to Culven ~totally edited out of the fight, due to boring repetition of everyone else's opinion 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.

Tyskel- 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.

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

Dingareth- 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. ~I'll wait -you're a fucking idiot 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. ~maybe he'll get your point if you explain it again, cuz that seems to be working out for you so far

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 think everyone deserve a good FAQing now and again

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.

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

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. ~damn, going for the throat Bean machine

Sir Biscuit- Three things:~oops here comes the weaseling -I'd rather do some wassaling ~@ green text guy: who the fuck are you?

1.) It's obvious that the demolisher should have a blast. ~well, we all know it does like to party 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. ~it took this long for someone to bother mentioning that none of this matters, because the Vindicator is one of the biggest pieces of shit in the game Even beyond the vindicator itself, all demolisher cannons across all armies are the same.

I understand that weapons change over time, ~survival of the dakkaest 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. ~FAQ party!! 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. ~dickfartfuckface? 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. ~Dick Move! Play the game, be good to each other, ~call other players dicks, 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. ~except that it technically does matter 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. ~the terrific blast could be an implosion. maybe that's what Ward meant.... 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 think I've run out of party jokes

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. ~really, that's how you're going out....facepalm

8 comments:

kennedy said...

Did you develop multiple personalities during the reading and condensing of this thread? Or is the green text something else? Kuato?

Well, we all knew it was gonna happen sometime...

The_King_Elessar said...

What if the blast in the fluff is noise? What a fucking spastic.

Yay! Let's all ignore exact wordings, never complain, and encourage GW to write sloppy, shitty rules - like they did in 3rd!

Again.

I hate the internet.

Chumbalaya said...

LOUD NOISES!

chaosgerbil said...

Farts! Explosions! Rock music! Screams! Hoots! Hollers! Blast Templates!

Satisfied, Chumb?

jerseyboy381 said...

Of course it all makes sense. All Assault cannons are rending. All Storm shields give a 3+ save. All Demolisher cannons fire a large blast. All rules arguments are civil and logical meetings of minds for the purpose of a logical debate. Oh wait...none of those are true.

Brother Loring said...

That was a tough read!

TKE - the offiical term is Scopey!

The_Dude_Beside_You said...

I stand by my statement that Nijram, in fact, wins internet fight round 9, with his one-comment TKO following this article:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/04/40k-editorial-why-do-you-hate-special.html#comment-47597165

DFM said...

tjeck owt mi spelling awsumnyss!

See what having a 6 year old who's arguing "Why?" when you tell him that he spelled something wrong because that's the way it sounds?