Talk:40K Rules Blooper Reel

Transports and Disembarking

Transports in general have been a deathtrap. The main differences were that:

• In 2nd ed, there were a lot of damage results where all passengers died outright.
• 3rd-7th would, depending on if the vehicle was wrecked or exploded, either place you near the vehicle (or near its access points post-Codex: Armageddon and Chapter Approved vehicle update); post-Chapter Approved, if you were in a wreck, try to disembark within 2" of a vehicle's access point. If that was unavailable, 2" anywhere else but you were automatically pinned. 5th simply consolidated glancing and penetrating into one chart while removing the Ordnance Penetrating Hit table, while 6th made it so you embarked/disembarked within 6 inches. MagicJuggler (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding this for later so I don't forget since I don't have the time to add it tonight (or maybe somebody else will do it before I can): two things that have to be added are the Tau transport that could only drop off all of its passengers if it exploded, and the absence of a certain rule that allowed you to spam out Saint Celestine's at the start of 8th which made your army nearly invincible. -- Triacom (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

8th edition and they shall know no fear

"If you have any ability to re-roll, those are applied before any modifiers." where is this stated?

It's in the main rules, if you can re-roll something, you always have to do it before modifiers. Here's the exact quote even from GW's battle-primer: "Re-rolls: Some rules allow you to re-roll a dice roll, which means you get to roll some or all of the dice again. You can never re-roll a dice more than once, and re-rolls happen before modifiers (if any) are applied." Yes this means that rules like And They Shall Know No Fear can never be used. Personally I think that this is a terrible idea and that re-rolls should be applied after modifiers only. -- Triacom (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Weapon vs Weapon Profile

A weapon has one or more profiles. For example, a combi-weapon or plasma weapon states that when you shoot, you shoot with one of its profiles. For example, Weapons of the Dark Age would/should not let the Bolter profile of a combi-plasma do 2 damage, for although the weapon has "plasma" in its name, the weapon profile "bolter" does not.

To get more specific, the Beta Bolter rules state that any weapon or any weapon profile with "bolt" in its name counts as a valid Bolter weapon for the purposes of Bolter Discipline. Clearly, "weapon" and "weapon profile" are distinct and non-interchangeable terms. MagicJuggler (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Battlegrinder is right in that the stratagem actually can be used, since not all plasma weapons have two profiles, like the one they linked. -- Triacom (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair. For other ones though...I'll update that. 2604:2000:E288:F100:D52A:325B:305A:8174 12:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not good enough and this should never have been put on the discussion page, take the bit here:

but the only profiles most Plasma Rifles/Cannons/Incinerators/etc. have are "standard" and "overcharge" and are thus not considered Plasma Weapons for this Stratagem.

That is a lie. Every plasma weapon profile is defined as being a plasma weapon in the book, so they all work with this stratagem. The book even gives you an example of what to look for. -- Triacom (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that the examples provided are also RAW wrong. :) Weapons of the Dark Age defines plasma as a weapon profile whose name includes Plasma, but you choose one of the two profiles when firing a plasma gun, the same way you choose one or both profiles when firing a combi-weapon (I'm looking at the codex too). Now, either this means plasma weapons cannot fire with Weapons of the Dark Age, as their profile does not include Plasma in it (barring Lion's Roar), or the bolter part of a Combi-plasma also benefits. (A similar discussion was had over the Sisters of Battle beta, over whether the bolter profile of a combi-flamer could be used to proc Holy Trinity, fwiw. MagicJuggler (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not wrong, the plasma weapon profile is "Plasma X" where X is the specific type of the weapon you're using. Standard and Supercharge is in addition to the "Plasma X" bit. -- Triacom (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, if you think that Plasma weapons cannot have this stratagem attached to them because you think their weapon profile doesn't say Plasma when it clearly does, then you need to argue that these Plasma weapons can never be fired, ever, because the models using them are not equipped with 'standard' or 'overcharge'. -- Triacom (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is similar to how "wound" or "attack" can have multiple meanings. A weapon has a profile, which determines its type, strength, ap, range and attacks. However, the base rules fail to define "attack modes" as a subset of the same base profile or otherwise. For example, when I shoot a combi-plasma, I use the Bolter profile, the Plasma profile, or both. I can't shoot with the combi-plasma profile as there is no such profile. Likewise with Frak/Krak missiles, or Standard-Overcharge profiles. If the main weapon itself is a container for different subprofiles, is it considered a profile? GW seems to be favoring the first interpretation, as the rules for Bolter Discipline state that "the bolter profile of a combi-weapon" is one of profiles that Bolter Discipline applies too.MagicJuggler (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are the profiles attached to the plasma weapon profile? If no, the weapon can never be fired, if yes, the stratagem can be used. The "housing" as you put it is still a part of the profile because it's joined with the dash to whichever profile you use (eg plasma pistol-overcharge) otherwise the plasma gun has no profile and the two options are not connected to anything. In short, which is it, does the stratagem work or can you never fire those guns ever? -- Triacom (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Juggler, are the profiles a part of the plasma weapon profile? Yes, or no. As written, there are not two profiles for the weapon, there is only one with a special rule. -- Triacom (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon, and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon’s profile, along with the weapon’s type." In short, a profile has a weapon type, and a number of attacks. "Plasma gun" itself does not have either of these qualifying attributes, but an overriding text that states you "choose one of the profiles below." MagicJuggler (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You should have continued: therefore, the two profiles are a part of the plasma gun profile. If they're not then the gun can never fire, if they are then the stratagem works. Also as I pointed out there's only one profile with a special rule giving it two settings. If you want to claim that they are separate profiles then that means the plasma gun has no profile at all, and can't use either of those settings. -- Triacom (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The plasma gun itself has no profile. The rules say to use one of the underlying profiles. "Attack modes" as a concept seemed to elude GW. MagicJuggler (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, it has no profile initially and that is where you stopped in the "weapons of the derp age" argument. The rule attached says to use one of two weapon profiles listed below, meaning you use their stats for the plasma gun. This makes their stats the stats for the plasma gun and so any stratagem that affects the plasma gun will affect those stats. If we pretend that the argument ends with it having no profile, or if we pretend that "standard" and "overcharge" replace "plasma gun" then, again, that means it can never shoot, ever, because the Marines are not equipped with "standard" and "overcharge". -- Triacom (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

By this logic, the bolter component of a Combi-Plasma weapon is a plasma weapon, and the Lion's Roar is not a plasma weapon either. Hoo boy. MagicJuggler (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You would be correct on both accounts, because how the rule for the double-profile is written you use those in addition to the plasma weapon profile, not instead of it, as they are not separate weapon profiles. It does actually make some sense though, the DA were known to use acid rounds that made the bolter deadlier and their plasma weapons were unique to them. In other words, they weren't ordinary plasma weapons so if Lion's Roar wasn't made like them, it shouldn't be able to get the bonus (lorewise anyway). -- Triacom (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, we've just finished discussing this, Plasma Pistol IS the weapon's profile name, if it wasn't then that mean that the weapon has no profile at all since the weapons aren't called standard or overcharge. -- Triacom (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Except it says that when shooting a plasma weapon, to use one of the profiles. Skub away. MagicJuggler (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

So the profile says to use one of the profiles? How many times have we been through this? The only way to know the profile to use for plasma weapons is to look at the fucking profile, if standard and overcharge had no relation to the plasma weapon you could never fire it, and using one of those for a plasma weapon means they are the profile for the plasma weapon, otherwise it could never be fired. I will keep undoing that change unless you really want to argue that the standard is only the profile for a weapon called standard, and as such the Marines can't shoot it because they aren't equipped with standard. -- Triacom (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I may actually see a parsing solution to this. The weapon says use one of the profiles, the same way a combi-weapon says to use one or both profiles. A profile is defined as having a type (pistol, assault, rapid fire, grenade or heavy) and a number of attacks. Clearly, "plasma" itself doesn't. Now, the alternate argument is that the plasma weapon profile is a placeholder, filled in with the profile of the Standard/Supercharge Profile (yet you don't replace the name of the weapon profile, because reasons), and then you do the name check (or "before" in the case of the plasma profiles of Lion's Roar). Doing this would be the cleanest, especially since there is no equivalent wording to "the bolter profile of a combi-weapon," so you couldn't attempt to make a Combi-Plasma do 3/4 damage (apply +1 damage to plasma, +1 to combi-plasma). MagicJuggler (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've been saying this whole time, if you swapped the entire profile, including the names, the gun could never fire, ever, because the Marines are not equipped with "standard" or "overcharge". I can see that reasoning for why it wouldn't apply to a combi-plasma though. I could also argue that relics of the dark age changes plasma weapons from "When attacking with this weapon, choose one of the profiles below." To "When attacking with this weapon, choose one of the profiles below and add +1 Damage." Since if we treat plasma weapon with its special addition as the profile itself, even if we swapped everything including the names there's no reason the bonus wouldn't carry over. -- Triacom (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why can't Eliminators target characters?

If you go by RAW, you pick a unit to shoot, then pick the weapons they're shooting with, then choose targets. The Bolt Sniper Rifle specifically says that it can target a character even if it is not the closest enemy unit, so where's the idea coming from that they cannot do this? Sure the unit itself doesn't overwrite the requirements, which is why they can't use their pistols or grenades against characters that aren't the closest unit, but for their rifles they absolutely can. -- Triacom (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Horus Heresy Reel?

Thought I'd ask before attempting it. Or would it just be too much? --FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't, there's more than enough bloopers there. -- Triacom (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)