Zzap gun question Options

[dwbullock]

Have not really played for an edition or two -- um, are we on 4th or 5th? Not sure...

But I have been dusting off the greenskins and started getting ready for games again. After a quick look over the rules, I noticed the zzap gun does not include the 'Does not roll to hit' of prior editions. Did I overlook the rule, or do we now have to roll to hit with the zzap gun?

Thanks all, and now to return to my lurking.

Dave-O

[nkelsch]

Roll to hit They took a huge hit in usefulness in 5th edition.

Kannons are where it's at as they put loobas and zzaps to shame.

[laughterofgods]

They got rid of the auto hit, and the 2d6 armor pen. It is kinda crappy now, except maybe for killing terminators.

[MaddaMek]

Yeah... with AP1 (so auto stun -> auto shake) it could be nice harrasment gun tho.

[laughterofgods]

Zap guns are only AP2, but I guess the auto stun is okay. If any hit caused that then they would still be pretty good. But you need to glance or pen, and you are basically looking at an average of 10 to your penetrating attempt. Of course, I'm cranky and well, mostly just cranky.

[Big Mek Teefordz]

Oh, no not this one again. First post I made on this forum I accidentally attracted the wrath of Dim Reepa with my opinion on this. I clearly haven't learned from my mistake, so while I'll play by the majority opinion in-game to avoid arguments, I don't agree with it.

The codex does not include the tagline "Does not roll to hit". This, obviously, suggests you do roll to hit, just like any other weapon.
However, in the current edition of the rulebook (the page number escapes me, but it's in the unit summary section), there is a footnote for the zzap gun which states: "See special rules in Codex: Orks. Zzap guns do not roll to hit."

The only way I can read that is: Extra rules are in the codex, also you don't roll to hit.

The counter-argument is that codex beats rulebook, even when the rulebook provides a clarification in the same sentence it directs you to the codex. I'm not seeing this. Rules are permissive - they tell you what you can do. The rulebook tells you you can auto-hit. The codex does not explicitly contradict this by saying you don't auto-hit. The rulebook permits it, the codex does not retract permission just because it doesn't clarify one way or the other. To override the rulebook, there has to be a direct contradiction in rules.

A similar point could be made about the KFF - the codex states it gives units a 5+ save and makes vehicles obscured. It doesn't explicitly state whether vehicles get the 5+ save or the 4+ for being obscured. Without a direct clarification most people (except in Poland ) default to the rulebook's 4+.

I was trying to get this point across in my first post, but being new I got quite badly bashed. I've attempted to rephrase the argument to make it clearer. It's still in opposition to the general consensus, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from this time.

*Braces for Kan-flail*

[Shabbadoo]

Just read p. 97 of the mini rulebook, or p.289 in the big rule book. When something is different, the rulebook tells you to use what is in the codex. The rulebook tells you the zzap gun automatically hits. The codex doesn't. That's what we call contradictory information. One says something; the other one does not. Ergo, you use the codex and must roll to hit.

[Dim_Reapa]

Oh, no not this one again. First post I made on this forum I accidentally attracted the wrath of Dim Reepa with my opinion on this. I clearly haven't learned from my mistake, so while I'll play by the majority opinion in-game to avoid arguments, I don't agree with it.

Seriously, a new member who doesn't incur my wrath in their first week foruming probably joined whilst I was in a coma or something...

I don't pick on people, just arguments.

In this case, you're still wrong

It isn't just a case of Codex trumps Rulebook, it's that all other rules always trump summary sections. period.

Rules do not get introduced in summaries. That is not what a summary is for. Rulebooks cover the rules of the game, not factions. Your argument simply cannot hold water, especially when previous rulebooks (such as 40k 3rd Edition) had temporary army list rules for all the factions available at the time. The very second that the proppa Codex came out, the entire army list in the rulebook was rendered redundant.

As to summaries, I have never, ever, read a summary of any game written by GW that did not have at least one typo in it. They are best to be avoided, and they do not contain new rules. Rules are written in relevant locations, and a summary is not one of those locations. It is a throwback to the last codex, when Zzaps didn't roll to hit.

GW suck at using summaries, so they are almost always best avoided. Rely on your Codex, because it is designed to deal with (accurately) all Ork related rules. The Rulebook is not designed for that whatsoever. Your comment about the KFF though, isn't actually relevant. Codexes are generally designed to refer you to precedents in the rulebook ("Obscured" is a Rulebook Precedent) this isn't in issue. This isn't a precedent. It doesn't even occur in a rules section. If the rulebook did, for your argument's sake make a ruling concerning Zzap Guns, it would be in the Weapons section. Our Codex says that PKs count as power fists. So you use the relevant rule in the weapons section referring to close combat weapons. You don't go to the summary for it, do you?

The last time an argument was this wrong about 40k, a 3-letter word was used to replace the sane rationale of reading with a gimmicky catchphrase used utterly wrongly ever since.


**Kan Flail**

You're lucky. My D3 Str 10 anti-RAW attacks only rolled a 1. Back ta work ya weedy git!

[jack da greenski...]

It isn't just a case of Codex trumps Rulebook, it's that all other rules always trump summary sections. period.

Because the summary sections are sometimes very odd. Check the BRB on Dark panzee weaponry, and you'll see what I mean.

[Cossack]

I suspect the rulebook is just stating something that will be in the NEXT Ork codex....

[Grimuz 'Blud...]

Although I failed to notice this change at first (fortunately I never used Zzap! gunz anyway, as I prefer gunz that go DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA or BOOM to gunz that sizzle or use the weedy warp), I think it's pretty obvious that you need to roll to hit.

Teefordz, you shouldn't be afraid to post your opinion here, but it seems the response was reasonable. If we were playing a game and you argued this, you better believe I'd be brandishing my dreddsokk.

I'm not one of the people who gets into big rules arguments, especially not here on the Waaagh! One thing I've gained from not joining arguments is the realization that I don't know the rules as well as I ought to; there are plenty of folks here who know them a lot better than me.

That being said, this argument is about as baseless a rules argument as I've ever heard. It's clearly an error in the rulebook; army-specific special rules are never introduced anywhere else in the rulebook. They may be summarized or reiterated, but they are never introduced there.

The KFF argument is not related. The KFF refers to a particular rule in the rulebook: vehicles that are said to be "obscured" or "hull down" have a 4+ cover save. The KFF confers this status to those vehicles. That's pretty cut and dry, except in Poland. It's good to have self-confidence and stick to your guns, but consider how poorly received your argument is. Nobody, not even the Poles think that Zzap! gunz auto-hit.

Finally, consider the reverse scenario. Imagine if the rulebook mentioned an out-of-date rule for beakies or panzees that was removed from their newest rulebook. If your opponent tried to argue that the rule stood because it was printed in the rulebook and the Codex didn't specifically mention that the rule was no longer in effect (note that Codices never do this), you'd be right to be outraged.

No offense to you, but if I met someone at a store or even a friend's place and they tried that crap against me, I'd never play them again. If they stuck to the argument, I might not even finish the game. And I can't recall quitting a game since I was a teenager (8+ years ago).

The most important rule in wargaming, if you wanna have fun: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Scrounging through multiple books to find errors that allow your guns to auto-hit? No thanks. I play this game for fun and relaxation, not to come up with crazy arguments that help me win unfairly.

EDIT: I always thought Zzap! gunz were kinda lame, even when they were good. But I agree they're fairly useless now. Hooray! Also, I bet they'll auto-hit again in the future, since they blow now.

[GrogDaTyrant]

EDIT: I always thought Zzap! gunz were kinda lame, even when they were good. But I agree they're fairly useless now. Hooray! Also, I bet they'll auto-hit again in the future, since they blow now.

I think the Auto-Hit might be a bit of a stretch to see again... but I personally wouldn't mind seeing them get their 2d6 Armor Pen back. I'd definitely field Zzaps once more at that point.

I have nothing better to say on the original topic...

[MaddaMek]

That's pretty cut and dry, except in Poland.

This make me emo. Ie. whole situation, not your comment.


Oh well, back to topic.

Didn't they get FAQued in late (~year before new dex) 4rd ed so You actually had to roll on hit? Or it is just me?

Ok, I'm gonna say it one more time - old codex was better suited for "mech da king". Even with to lack of Auto Cannon Lootas. tho I like new little more. If we could take Old KMB (remember KMB Buggies? I had 6...), Old Looted Wagon, Old Burnas, Old Zzaps (even with BS2) and Old Tankbusters then I would be like "own3d, bit ! I'm gonna pee on your head and call it rain etc.".

Oh well, I guess uber dexes are full 5th ed trait.

[Dim_Reapa]

Teefordz, you shouldn't be afraid to post your opinion here, but it seems the response was reasonable. If we were playing a game and you argued this, you better believe I'd be brandishing my dreddsokk.

Nobody should ever feel bad about sharing their opinions (well, apart from those obvious exceptions, but those aren't wargaming related, really), but I will take people to task over the validity of them if I disagree.

I don't set out to humiliate anyone, I think I speak for everyone else here, too. But I've found in the past, that forums are a good breeding ground for new rules lawyers. Kids will read forums like this one and come to the table with quite crazy ideas that they generally don't budge from.

Perhaps rules lawyers have a point about the ease with which multiple interpretations can be reached, but I seriously doubt it. All the better to try and sort out an answer, and with so many truly difficult issues, this one is so utterly trivial, and outright ridiculous by comparison, that people want it stamped out before it starts, because it is truly on thin ice from the start.

The extent to which some people will go to town over rules can be ridiculous. You probably should have been here for the Missile Launcher fired under a tank at an angle debate. That was... interesting...

and before 5th Ed's TLOS rubbish, too.

All rules have a logic. No matter how rubbish. The whole RAW thing is rubbish, and not a very efficient way of interpreting rules. It encourages literal reading, something you are never supposed to do when reading anything, never mind rules for wargames.

With any interpretation, a number of things are important. Context, devices and content, being what I feel is the main three, but there are others. I view Context the most highly, simply because it is the one that all of us tend to have problems with. Just look at any rules argument based on a single word in a sentence and you have plenty of evidence to support it. By focussing too much on content, and individual content in particular, one can read something far too literally, or apply it incorrectly.

You need context to inform the use of content and devices. It is sort of an unholy trinity of reading. They are all mutually exclusive. You don't just have to read a sentence and understand it. That's just the first part. You then need to understand its importance, and relation to other content. In the case of this issue, the content says one thing, but the context says another.

The Context? There are a few to consider. First, it is in a summary. A Summary is a device. Something we use to collate existing information into an accessible form. Its job is not to provide new information. That is a poor use of the device. You don't write your crucial piece of evidence in the conclusion of an essay if that is the only place you mention it. The conclusion is to take everything that has gone before and bring it together.

Secondly, we know the context of rules in 40k. Rules for factions exist in the relevant Codex. When it comes to codices, the Codex refers to the Rulebook, not the other way around, as you might think. It is kind of a trick, because both occur. It is understanding the importance of which aspect. When playing the game, the structure is neutral. For that the Rulebook refers to all other Codexes. But when using a faction, any faction, the roles are reversed. You refer to the Codex first, and only to the rulebook, when you need answers that the Codex does not provide accurately.

To apply a singular approach, is to to misunderstand the process. Especially as we all do the opposite instinctively. We just don't really analyse it. Understanding isn't just identifying what seems to be in Rules Lawyer circles as the "empowering sentence". Most people who use this, seem to think it is time to clock off, and take the rest of the day off after finding it. You need to then analyse it, and its importance.

Any text can be better understood through critical thinking. The answer/s may not present themselves, but in my opinion, to not use them risks not even approaching the answer at all, and ignoring the search for it completely.

Now, this is just the basics. I need to get back into this study again, because I'm growing rusty. I do apologise for what could well be a rather patronising lecture, but if it helps just one person find something useful for rules interpretation, it was worth it.

But no, Zzap Guns have to roll to hit. If they auto-hit, they'd always shake a tank every time you targeted one. I agree that 40k isn't very balanced, but that's a bit OTT, even for GW.

[Big Mek Teefordz]

Hmm. Some good points. Looks like I'm going Dim-sized on this one! (In fact, I exceeded the maximum number of quotes allowed and had to reformat...)


Quote: When something is different, the rulebook tells you to use what is in the codex. The rulebook tells you the zzap gun automatically hits. The codex doesn't. That's what we call contradictory information. One says something; the other one does not.

I would have to disagree with that. If the rulebook told you the zzap gun automatically hits and the codex specifically tells you the zzap gun must roll to hit as normal, then there would be a contradiction. If the codex does not say anything special about zzap guns, you then use any special rules given in the rulebook, and if that provides no special rules either, then you use the standard rules for shooting. However, the rulebook does provide a special rule for zzap guns while the codex does not.

Dim, your first post is very convincing. I suppose I was clutching at straws with the KFF argument because I wanted something similar where the codex contradicted the rulebook and the rulebook won. I also agree that a summary is not intended as a place to introduce new rules, but as the rulebook was released AFTER the codex, and the summary points you to the codex at the same time as providing the extra rule it does appear as though the summary is adding an additional clarification that they somehow forgot to add to the codex. Of course, if they wanted to do that, they'd put it in the FAQ or errata, so I guess I got that bit wrong too.

Incidentally, I've seen a few references to the original RAW argument in peoples' signatures and have been wondering what it was about. Is that the missile launcher under a tank thing, or something else? Probably better I don't ask?


Quote: Teefordz, you shouldn't be afraid to post your opinion here

Clearly you've never offended Dim...

Some Quotes: I'm not one of the people who gets into big rules arguments
If we were playing a game and you argued this, you better believe I'd be brandishing my dreddsokk.
That being said, this argument is about as baseless a rules argument as I've ever heard.
No offense to you, but if I met someone at a store or even a friend's place and they tried that crap against me, I'd never play them again. If they stuck to the argument, I might not even finish the game. And I can't recall quitting a game since I was a teenager (8+ years ago).

Hmm.

Quote:That's pretty cut and dry, except in Poland.

So it's not entirely cut and dry. (Sorry MaddaMek)

Quote: Imagine if the rulebook mentioned an out-of-date rule for beakies or panzees that was removed from their newest rulebook.

That's slightly different. In that case the codex would be newer than the rulebook, and out-of-date rules would no longer apply. In this case the rulebook was written after the codex, and the line in question looks more like a clarification/correction than anything else. Although, as I agreed above, the summary isn't the place for clarifications.

Quote: Scrounging through multiple books to find errors that allow your guns to auto-hit?

Not really. First time round I spotted this debate and looked through the rulebook to find anything relevant so I could stop lurking and start contributing. Not being familiar with the usual processes for rule interpretation, I made rather a mess of it. This time around, I've tried to clean up my argument a bit to see if it has any grounds whatsoever or (as seems to be the case) it's completely flawed.

Also, I suggest you re-read my post. I think I mentioned that I wouldn't be pushing this interpretation in a gaming situation. This is an online discussion about rules, not a game, so please don't threaten me with the dreadsock.

Quote: I do apologise for what could well be a rather patronising lecture

No problem. It didn't read that way to me. I must admit, I usually find your opinion in a rules debate to be the most convincing. Nkelsch and Shabbadoo are also good at getting their points across. When two of you are on opposite sides of the debate, it gets very interesting...

You also have a point about the auto-shake, which didn't occur to me the first time round, and probably is overpowered now I think about it.


So, to conclude, I still don't accept that the codex overrules the BRB on this one, but I'm willing to agree that the fact the rule is in the summary probably invalidates its relevance. You've managed to convince me. Well met!

PS

Quote: Also, I bet they'll auto-hit again in the future, since they blow now.
We can only hope.

[dwbullock]

Thanks for the replies. I seem to have started something quite heated. Without fighting the fight, I will go with the consensus and say you need to roll to hit. Sad, really, as I loved my zzap guns.

Oh well. Kannons are easier to convert, anyway!

Thanks again. This is what comes from building rather than playing.

[Grimuz 'Blud...]

Yar, Teef, that were a mighty post. Worthy of Dim, mayhaps.

Anyway. Reading myself paraphrased in quotations, I seem rather harsh. No offense intended. I was just trying to put what you were saying into perspective.

Also, I generally do step out of the room when the rules argument gets to a certain pitch. Nkelsch and Shabs (and Dim, and many many others) have a firmer grasp on the rules than I do. I don't want my head to end up on a Bosspole.

And I have pissed off Dim (twice, that I know of)!

[Dim_Reapa]

Dim, your first post is very convincing. I suppose I was clutching at straws with the KFF argument because I wanted something similar where the codex contradicted the rulebook and the rulebook won. I also agree that a summary is not intended as a place to introduce new rules, but as the rulebook was released AFTER the codex, and the summary points you to the codex at the same time as providing the extra rule it does appear as though the summary is adding an additional clarification that they somehow forgot to add to the codex. Of course, if they wanted to do that, they'd put it in the FAQ or errata, so I guess I got that bit wrong too.

Yep, that's an errata job if ever they wanted to do anything about it.

As much as it is a good point that the rulebook was released after the Codex, it doesn't really change anything, and certainly not in a summary. Your later point about older ones being different, well that's just it, it isn't. Summaries with GW rulebooks are so quickly outdated, they have a very limited shelf life. Being new or old makes very little difference. If rules were written in the summary to correct a Codex, then you'd have the rulebook updated with unreleased rules (of say, the new Dark Pansee Codex), or an errata specifically for the 40k rulebook Summary Section. Nobody bothers to errata the summary as far as I know, for obvious reasons.

Additional clarification is the job of erratas and FAQs. Why would GW place an important clarification in a place that is going to be missed by a lot of players? Who checks the summaries for faction rules? A very small amount of people. It wouldn't be logical to limit the correction merely to that medium.

Incidentally, I've seen a few references to the original RAW argument in peoples' signatures and have been wondering what it was about. Is that the missile launcher under a tank thing, or something else? Probably better I don't ask?

Probably. It was an unpleasant debate. I missed quite a lot of it, but it was the forum's biggest ever flame fest, and well, it didn't go too well. Needless to say, it is better not to ask, and it doesn't matter much now. TLOS could have actually made the debate worse, but it wouldn't be as arguable.

TBH I've seen worse on the Bolter and Chainsword, but this is probably why I can be so militant about rules interpretation, and why I hate RAW so much.

Clearly you've never offended Dim...

I did check back on that thread, and I was being pretty overzealous on that one. I don't know what the hell the chip on my shoulder was during that time, but I've mellowed a bit since. I seem to remember that I had this big thing about Zzap Gun debates at the time. No idea why. I'll rant at someone, and forget about it almost immediately after. I like to think that as a good indicator that I don't make things personal. I debate the issue, then I go off and do something else.

No problem. It didn't read that way to me. I must admit, I usually find your opinion in a rules debate to be the most convincing. Nkelsch and Shabbadoo are also good at getting their points across. When two of you are on opposite sides of the debate, it gets very interesting...

Should have been here when Steelmage was a regular poster. Those were interesting indeed. We agreed about twice in the entire forum's history. I miss duking it out with that guy. He was extremely good.

You also have a point about the auto-shake, which didn't occur to me the first time round, and probably is overpowered now I think about it.

I didn't think of it myself for quite a while, but it must be the reason why they removed the auto-hit, assuming Ork players would prefer the auto-shaken over auto-hitting. Oh, how wrong they were...

So, to conclude, I still don't accept that the codex overrules the BRB on this one, but I'm willing to agree that the fact the rule is in the summary probably invalidates its relevance. You've managed to convince me. Well met!

I think it helps that I've been involved with GW games for about 16 years. I've read many, many summaries, and I just dismiss them now, because there's always some typo in them. In Necromunda: Underhive, they removed the "Catch Fire!" rules from the system for flame weapons, but they left it in the summary. You can't really apply a rule that isn't in the core rules, can you.

It was errata'd eventually. The downloadable version I believe has it already corrected. But GW blatantly copy and paste for their summaries. They must do, because there are so many errors with them. Even Codex ones aren't safe. A regular feature of erratas is stuff they got wrong in their summary sections. But nothing worse ever came close than GW managing to completely leave out the summary from the 3rd Ed Ork Codex in the first print.

Summaries. Sigh. You're better off doing with out them. Seriously.

And I have pissed off Dim (twice, that I know of)!

Have you? I don't remember...

That isn't surprising, most likely. I can't remember who said it (there was probably more than one) but a poster once joked that getting ranted at by me was a forum rite of passage. I wouldn't go that far, but I do have a habit for launching off on one for next to nothing. Let's hope I'm mellowing with age...

[Cossack]

I'm going to get in on this one, just because I love a good scrap....

I say Zzap gunz do not need to roll to hit because the rulebook summary specifically says that. It is a later publication than the Ork Codex and could not have been a misprint nor an accident.

And NOTHING in the codex says they DON'T auto-hit. It does not contradict the codex.

So there. Bring it Dim. And I'm not afraid of any smelly dreadsock either....all y'allz are made of plastic! Pfft! I'll auto-hit you with my zzap gun and stun it anyway.....

[Dim_Reapa]

Cossack, if your trollish posts were actually worth bothering with, I'm sure everyone else would bring it too, and by that I mean the beer.