Quick questions...

[Grand Master Steve]

i know that what i mean is they are EXACTLY the same down to the punctuation and everything so if smurfs get it so do ba

UGH look if your book Does not say in the weapon rules profile ordance blast then you DONT get it. I dont know wtf a 2d6 super lascannon is or what it has to do with a vindicator, but games go by rules as written by almost every player they always have, fluff has NOTHING to do with what something does rules wise.

[Banosby]

@Troy: Thanks. This isn't a particularly easy game to pick up, and I like to help. On an unrelated note, let me know if you need any help with that tournament you're wanting to run. I'd be glad to be of assistance.

@Skavenknight: You seem to be making two arguments for why we should think BA Vindicators get to use a large blast; I'm going to call them the 'fluff' argument and the 'RAW' argument. I'll explain why they're both flawed and then suggest what I think a better (but still flawed) argument might look like.

The 'Fluff' argument: The fluff for the BA Vindicator is the same as the fluff for the SM Vindicator; therefore they should have the same rules.

There are a number of examples of vehicles/units/wargear that have the same fluff, but different rules. Take, for example, the Daemonhunter Assault Cannon. In the fluff, it is the exact same weapon as the SM (and BA) assault cannon. In the rules, however, it is Heavy 3 instead of Heavy 4 and doesn't have rending. Or, if you'd like an example involving a vehicle, take the Witchhunters' Rhino. I pay 50 points for a Rhino that doesn't come with smoke or a searchlight, despite the fact that, according to the fluff, it is the exact same vehicle. In short, we have ample evidence that fluff and rules do not always coincide.

The 'RAW' argument: The BA Vindicator has a Demolisher Cannon. The BA Demolisher Cannon is an ordinance weapon. The BRB says that 'unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordinance blast weapons use the large blast marker.' (GW really needs an editor).

The problem with this argument is that the BRB refers to 'ordinance blast weapons', while the BA Vindicator doesn't have an ordinance blast weapon. It has an ordinance weapon, but not an ordinance blast weapon.

The 'RAI' argument: Ok, I concede that RAW doesn't support using the large blast and that fluff isn't particularly important when it comes to rules disputes, but I think that the Vindicator was intended to have an ordinance blast weapon and it therefore makes sense for you to allow me to use it as one. Considerations in my favor: there aren't any examples of GW nerfing a unit from one codex to the next, particularly not without changing its fluff. The BA Vindicator's cost is appropriate to having a large blast template; it is 30 points more expensive than the SM version, which accounts for it having the 'fast' property, and you'd expect the cost to be less if it was nerfed in this manner. The fluff describes it as having a blast-like effect. If it doesn't have a blast, it is basically playing the same roll as an assault cannon (except not as good), whereas if it has the blast, it is playing a roll that BA cannot otherwise fill.

I wouldn't expect this to win over any TOs, but I'd expect most reasonable opponents to let you have the blast in a friendly game.

If all else fails, you could try explaining that all Vindicators, large blast or no, are on the low end of the power curve and that they should be happy that you're taking a Vindicator at all. You could, after all, be taking a Predator.  

[Rob S]

Games Workshop is constantly flawed in their rules writing.  They put out so much, it's understandable.  It's been accepted for years, and it's lead to the game played as a community believes it should be, not a strict following of rules (the idea of Rules as Intended).

I'd direct you to the Space Marine codex:

Page 80: The demolisher cannon is Ordnance 1.
Page 144: The demolisher cannon is Ordnance 1, Barrage.

The FAQ fixed both of those to change them to Ordnance 1, Blast as it should be.  We can (and should) assume as a community that there was a similar typo in the Blood Angels codex, even if it is on 2 pages as the SM codex typo was on 2 pages. Unfortunately, the FAQ will likely not be out for months.

A post on a different forum mentioned that it's possible the loss of the blast was in return for the fact the vindicator can move faster.  However this does not make sense as it would simply be a different weapon.  The Vindicator was never meant to be a Railgun, fast or not.

I strongly urge all of us, as a community, to understand this and rule on it accordingly.

[the_trooper]

Land raiders were never meant to deep strike.

For a tournament use rules as written.

For a friendly game, do what you want.



Rob, the issue with your logic is this:
Space Marine shotguns are Str 4.   So in the guard codex, it must be a type-o because we all know shotguns are str 4, not str 3.

It's a single shot ordinance weapon like the tank destroyer.  You get to deep strike land raiders but your vindicators lost it's big blast.  Until it is FAQed or not FAQed because that is what GW meant to print.

Wargear is different from codex to codex.
CSM Land Raider vs. Loyalist
Witch hunters rhinos vs. everyone elses
Shotguns in IG vs. Shotguns in Space Marines
Stormshields in Inquisition vs. SM vs. Dark Angels
Dreadnoughts CSM vs. Loyalist vs. Inquisition
Codex Land Raiders vs. DA land raiders vs. Inquisition land raiders

"Why does my spikey land raider not have 12 spots!?  Obviously because of the heresy blah blah blah..."

Please leave RAW and RAI arguments separate.

[Rob S]

Rob, the issue with your logic is this:
Space Marine shotguns are Str 4.   So in the guard codex, it must be a type-o because we all know shotguns are str 4, not str 3.

It's a single shot ordinance weapon like the tank destroyer.  You get to deep strike land raiders but your vindicators lost it's big blast.  Until it is FAQed or not FAQed because that is what GW meant to print.

I was considering posting about that but I didn't.  I've read that argument everywhere.

Notice that they are also different armies.  A more clear example of this is an Inquisitor.  A Daemonhunters or Witch Hunters inquisitor is different.  Would anybody really say that's a typo, even though they're the same thing?

A more subtle comparison is the assault cannon.  The Inquisition's assault cannons are different than the Space Marines.

There are instances where similar things are different.  Storm Shields compared between Space Wolves and Space Marines, for one.  However we can think that they changed them because of any certain reasons.

Show me an instance where, between army variants, a weapon changes.  It makes no sense that the same weapon would do something so dramatically different.  This is a game that was built around models, not the other way around.  To play every instance that is written simply because "that's what it says" can lead to ridiculous situations.  I quote the following post:

"you could also try to call them on not getting a dedicated transport from only page 90. land raiders are on page 91, and most entries besides terminators says see page 90. once again it will depend more on the judge than anything else and the player playing against you will call you a dick."

This is in reference to the Blood Angels codex.  Would that situation really cause any questions?

[Ed]

[/quote]

I dont know wtf a 2d6 super lascannon is or what it has to do with a vindicator,
[/quote]

Sorry, i have funny wording i meant to say str 10 ap 2 with 2d6 armor pen

[the_trooper]

My first thought about the Str 10 Ap2 Ordinance 1 with their demolisher cannon made me think to check all references in that codex for it.  Sure enough, everywhere it was consistent.  It would be up for debate if there were inconsistencies in the codex but they seem pretty clear on the profile.

Another example is: Daemon hunter force weapons.  Yes, they can force suck anything as per RAW.  Every other force weapon just cause instant death.  Should we force grey knight players to use normal force weapon rules and ignore the codex?

What profile should we use when considering DA/SM/BA/SW?  They have different wargear because they are different armies.  We could theorize all night as to why they are different but the only real answer is  "I don't know."  So the best we can do is use the rules as written. 

Keeping it simple and erring on the side of caution is always best in the case of tournaments.   Friendly games the official ruling is to "dice off".

[Rob S]

My first thought about the Str 10 Ap2 Ordinance 1 with their demolisher cannon made me think to check all references in that codex for it.  Sure enough, everywhere it was consistent.  It would be up for debate if there were inconsistencies in the codex but they seem pretty clear on the profile.

Another example is: Daemon hunter force weapons.  Yes, they can force suck anything as per RAW.  Every other force weapon just cause instant death.  Should we force grey knight players to use normal force weapon rules and ignore the codex?

What profile should we use when considering DA/SM/BA/SW?  They have different wargear because they are different armies.  We could theorize all night as to why they are different but the only real answer is  "I don't know."  So the best we can do is use the rules as written. 

Keeping it simple and erring on the side of caution is always best in the case of tournaments.   Friendly games the official ruling is to "dice off".

On the topic of force weapons, note that the DH ones haven't been updated to the new edition.  And it's GW's policy to leave the rules of an outdated codex if they conflict with the official rules.

All situations where there are conflicts like that have been FAQ'd.

The thing about it being consistent I have covered, the vanilla SM codex has it either as Ord 1 or Ord 1, Barrage.  Both were wrong, and the FAQ corrected it.  Keeping it simple in the case of tournaments would be to have it be the same as any demolisher cannon, not a special BA one.  Everybody in the tournament would be aware of this and play as such.

This game can't be played as if everything works out perfectly.  It doesn't, and I'm still saying that it makes no sense for the demolisher cannon to have changed like the codex implies.  It should be treated as all the other demolisher cannons, and I'm certain once the FAQ is released it will reflect this.

[Chase]

This is ugly and I dislike it.


Here's what I think:

It seems like the intent might be that it functions exactly like any other Demolisher Cannon.
The BA Codex seems to be consistent and clear in saying that it's a Str 10 AP2 Ordinance 1 weapon.
It is not inconsistent like the SM Codex.
This could mean one of two very different things:  Either it is worded as intended or it's another one of GW's errors.
To assume it's an error is probably not in our best interest in terms of running a tournament.  (Note:  The Megabattle is entirely different)
The increase in cost seems to justify the increased movement.
If I were playing a game, I'd allow my opponent to use it like the normal SM Vindicator + fast movement for cost +30 (or whatever).


How it will be played and how I feel it must be played to maintain the integrity of the tournament:

The BA Vindicators Demolisher Cannon will be a Str 10 AP 2 Ordinance 1 weapon as per the Codex.  Nothing more, nothing less.



I fully understand the issues with this choice and how little sense it makes to some people.

I really hope this doesn't open up a can of worms.

[Logan007]

I think that's the fairest way to do it until they release an official FAQ that addresses it.

[Rob S]

I want to play Blood Angels now that I have a fast moving BS4 Railgun.  Adios opponent's vehicles.

I just hope the FAQ will be released soon.

[skavengear]

the cannons are the same and thats whats of importance i doubt id ever move the thing beyond a few inches to hit stuff 

[skavengear]

it seems kind of ridiculous that if were a chapter of space marines still that we wouldnt use the exact same cannon as them, gw just wants space marines to hate on the blood angels.

so now its anti tank instead of anti-20 dudes? good enough ill take down a tank or two, guess ill have to add more DEATH COMPANY bwahahahahaha 

[the_trooper]

I want to play Blood Angels now that I have a fast moving BS4 Railgun.  Adios opponent's vehicles.

I just hope the FAQ will be released soon.

And you can have the rest of their chapter specific wargear. 

[skavengear]

we have chapter specific wargear? since when?