GW Uk Finally Responds (kinda) about Zaap Guns Autohitting Options

[BossMoshHammerun...]

Why do you think the word 'autohit' was put in the rulebook? typo? And how is it inconsistent with the codex?

Lazy copy&past or someone wrote it who didn't read the new Codex:Orks. I'd trust GW to do either.

[Sukigod]

Alright - me being stoopid here. Where in the Rulebook does it even mention Zzap guns...? I can't recall anywhere in the BRB where this would even come up or any weapon being referred to as "auto-hitting". It may be just me having a stroke here but reading this thread makes me feel like I'm in another edition.

I wouldn't mind using it as autohit since the amount of Grey Knights around our area has skyrocketted.

[MaddaMek]

It does. Check ork page with stats. Specifically "** check codex for more details. Zzap Guns don't roll to hit." under Weapons.

Whoope!



No?
Actually most of "reference $ |-| ! +" can be thrown away due to new codex releases. Gurad, DE, most beakie, Nids, soon Evil Robots, Nuns with Guns and possibly Generic Grey People From Outer Space. Oh, forgit about Failmons, but frankli I don't give damn.

Not to mention errors...


But actually it appears like RB indeed "upgrade" Zzap. "** check codex for more details. Zzap Guns don't roll to hit." seem like newest addition from RULEBOOK.

[Blakkreaper]

It's crazy how we can read the exact same thing and come to two different conclusions.

Why do you think the word 'autohit' was put in the rulebook? typo? And how is it inconsistent with the codex?

Almost definately an error. Whether it was because they had done rhe summary before the ork dex was complete, an editing 'fix' by someone who knew worse or something else is unknown. It's something that was in the 3rd ed codex. But summaries never introduce rules, they jsut sum them up. Otherwise our biker nobs would only get 1 wound.

[Dim_Reapa]

Why do you think the word 'autohit' was put in the rulebook? typo? And how is it inconsistent with the codex?

Yep, it's almost definitely a typo. The inconsistency comes from the fact that the Codex doesn't mention it. GW are notorious for having terrible summaries with endless reams of typos. The Necromunda: Underhive Rulebook had about 5 in its summaries, the main one being that flamers used the Catch fire rules that they'd removed from the ruleset. Anybody who argued that as enforceable that Catch Fire still worked was told quite clearly it was a typo, and was removed from the Online version of the rulebook, and mentioned in the errata.

The introduction to the summaries section even states that if there are any inconsistencies in the summary section, the Codex takes precedent. The fact it is absent, is an inconsistency. Why would the actual rules of the actual weapon in the only actual Codex in which it exists not mention that it doesn't roll to hit, unless it assumes that it does?

I must admit, I get annoyed at this. Not necessarily people who interpret it that way, but that the company producing it evidently does. With a little bit of critical thinking, it becomes completely obvious that the rule to which this issue extends from cannot be enforceable as a rule. It isn't in a place where rules are determined. It is a place where rules from elsewhere are "conveniently" gathered for referential use only.

This whole concept of "It's in the RULEBOOK" bothers me. Certainly it is, but WHERE? That is a more important question to ask. The answer is that it isn't in a very good place to be anything of importance. Just saying it's in the rulebook, therefore overrules any issues is a utterly pathetic argument to use. Because, critically speaking, it is in a place that is not for rules to be created. It is not in addition to the Codex, if it differs from the Codex, then it is a typo. If the rule overrides the Codex, that would be because it was in a relevant section to do so. It isn't. It is there to provide a summary for the Ork Codex. So if it is summarising the Codex, why does it include a rule that isn't in the Codex? Exactly.

But the fact is, it isn't in the weapon section. The fact that GW have updated their Ork Codex FAQ at least twice, and not included it in the errata, along with one actual FAQ entry that outright states that you roll to hit is also highly suggestive.

This clarification is deeply annoying, and heavily suspect. Not because I doubt Greggles' honesty (more to the contrary) but just that fact that they "aren't allowed to answer questions via email". Why?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. Greggles could print the email off, and he can copy it into a forum for us all to see with our own eyes. If he rings in, you only have his word as to the answer. I doubt he lied, but what can Greggles do about it? He has no proof, other than to get people to ring in for themselves. Seems like a money-making GW scheme to me, and just like usual, probably at a high mark-up for a low quality service.

I'm not going to ring GW for rules answers. The fact that they can get something simple like this so wrong, just shows to me that they just don't care.

[Shabbadoo]

It's crazy how we can read the exact same thing and come to two different conclusions.

Why do you think the word 'autohit' was put in the rulebook? typo? And how is it inconsistent with the codex?

It's crazy how we can read the exact same thing and come to two different conclusions.

Why do you think the word 'autohit' was not put in the codex? typo?

Yes, total craziness. We only need to remember this:



The Rulebook reference section says zzap guns autohit. The codex does not. That is a contradiction. In that case the codex takes precedence as per the express instructions at the beginning of the Reference section. Where is there any other example of something like this? There isn't. It would be more than an obvious mistake to leave out something as important as "This weapon hits automatically; do not roll to hit." from the codex. You know, that thing which somebody who hasn't anal retentively read the hundreds of pages of the BRB to know how the weapons that are unique to their new Ork army work. It is not a codex oversight, but a Big Rulebook oversight.

Granted, it is rather annoying that a weapon with obvious anti-vehicle rules will, on average, not be useful against the most heavily armored of vehicles in the game(13-14 AV). No need go and to twist whatever can be twisted out of the rules sources in compensation though. Basically, don't rely on zzap guns for your anti-armor unless you are going after light armor. As somebody alredy siad though, Grey Knights will surely hate, hate, hate them.

Zzap guns need a tweak of some kind. Maybe Str 6+d6 rather than the 2d6 thing(on a 12 the crew gets frizzled, so a 1-in-6 chance of that). Or leave it as it is vs. non-vehicles, and have it roll 3 dice for armor penetration, give it Rending, and have Rending potentially affect all three of the dice being rolled for Armor Penetration, such that each 6 rolled would add a further d3 to the total. That would skew things in a minorly advantageous way, but not overly much. It would make the weapon more attractive to me certainly. Heck, having new plastic models would probably psych me up enough to use them(from these lips to Grok & Mork's ears).

[Cossack]

From the errata...

Q: Does a Zzap Gun hit automatically? (p51)
A: No, the reference to it hitting automatically in the
main rulebook is from a previous codex and should be
ignored.

[big mek tank kru...]

i'm thinking that you roll to hit - the codex doesn't say you don't, so you do.

cossack, the fact that this is the first time i've seen this even come up would give you a fair clue as to why it hasn't been errata'd - it has to be picked up on to be errata'd, then examined, cross examined, lost, found, buried in petey soil for a month and recycled as firelighters before GW will even think about updating the FAQ page - look how long it took for deffrollas to be sorted out!

what a time to lose my ork codex though - i'd love to enter this battle a bit more solidly

[Cossack]

what a time to lose my ork codex though - i'd love to enter this battle a bit more solidly

Don't sweat it. The battle is over now....there's just a giant smoking crater in the ground where the 'roll to hit' crowd used to base their argument.

[Dim_Reapa]

Don't sweat it. The battle is over now....there's just a giant smoking crater in the ground where the 'roll to hit' crowd used to base their argument.

Kustom Force Field.

Also, why would GW errata a summary section? If they did, they certainly wouldn't errata it in the Ork Codex, would they? They'd only errata the Codex if the Codex was wrong, which it isn't, you roll to hit, like virtually every other gun in 40k, unless a relevant rulebook or codex section tells you to do so.

[Cossack]

KFF? Good one! That made me laugh!

If we can't have fun here, what's the point?

Great response, it's appreciated.

[big mek tank kru...]

thing is, there's probably a whole load of stuff in the tyranid summary stating that devourers, fleshborers and the like re-roll the 'to wound' dice, which they don't any more, but as there's nothing in the tyranid codex stating that they don't re-roll, you'd say that they still do.

i figure that the folks at GW didn't think it necessary to include the words 'roll to hit' on a gun, as all guns roll to hit (discounting teplates) - they'd assume it's blindingly obvious.

another thing to point out is that on the battlewagon entry it says 'may take a single big gun (does not include crew)' which means that it's still BS2, not BS3.

all the implications are that it either doesn't autohit, or it does and my tyranid army just became nigh-unstoppable.

also note that the zzapp gun is in the ork codex 2 times and in Imperial Armour 8 as well, plus there's the big zzappa, none of which mention anything about autohitting.

the only gun i can think of that autohits is the lifta-droppa.

[Cossack]

[Kaan]

It is a pretty big oversight not to mention that a weapon autohits in the codex.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Blakkreaper]

itt: no really guys, I'm winning! Lalalalaalaa! This picture proves it!

Seriously though, if nothing else the summary in the ork codex overwrites the brb summary, summaries aren't rules, if there's a didference the rules override the discrepency (and if they are different ruleswise then there is a discrepency) aaand the faqs all point to it rolling to hit. This argument is on par with the 1w biker nob.

[Cossack]

Alright! Now we're fighting like Orks! No more of this panzee rulebook crap and calling the droolzboyz....

[GubbinsGob]

Crap. I was really hoping to auto-hit with them like before. I *want* to believe that I can auto-hit, but it feels (to me) like stretching it a bit and rule lawyering to make the argument that it autohits work. Codex doesn't contradict the BRB, but the Codex takes precedence and it doesn't mention it even after a reprint. I figured the thought BS3 would be good enough to drop the auto-hit. Which sucks. Because it's still random strength and no extra penetration.

[Cossack]

Gubbins...they do auto hit. I proved it in this thread. Call GW if you don't believe me.

[laughterofgods]

To jump in on just one point, someone said something along the lines of why would GW errata a summary section. Actually, they did just that with the ORK FAQ. They clarified that Ork Dakka guns in the reference section at the back of our Codex had the wrong stats as it was listed as Assault 2 AP 4, when it should have been Assault 3 AP 5. One could thus assume that the main rulebook would have also been errata'd to remove this if them auto-hitting was not the case.

By any chance is there a White Dwarf from right around when the the Ork Codex was released that has an Ork battle report in it?

[Kaan]

I can imagine how that call would go

"Thank you for calling Games Workshop, where the new Grey Knight models are arriving, would you like to order your own Nemesis dreadknight?"

Um, no. Actually I have a question regarding the zzap gun.

Oh, so you play Orks....do you have enough boys? If not we have a great deal on the Ork Battleforce, You get 20 boys, 3 bikes and a trukk. The new trukks are really cool too......

No, just a question about the zzap gun. In the rulebook it says it autohits, but in the codex, there is no mention of this....

"Wow, I can see where there's a problem there. Do you often field Zzap guns?"

No, actually I don't have any yet, I was reading this thread on Da Waaagh....

WAAAGH!!!!!! We just love to shout that on the phone, hope your ear is OK....hah hah hah....."

Yeah, I get that a lot at the store too.

"Oh, you have a store near you? *taps on keyboard* yes, there is one just a few miles away, do you go there often?"

I try to get there every once in awhile.

"There are some really great contests going on! There's a show off your army on a 2' x 2' terrain board contest where you can win tickets to Games Day - Chicago....do you have a painted army?"

Well my orks are in progress, takes awhile to paint a horde

"Man, don't I know it.....I've just ordered up a Nemesis Dread Knight...you should get the model, it is totally wicked. And they have these units called Paladins and they are totally cool......

10 minutes later

"....and that's how the pyscannon works."

Wow.

"So, did you have any other questions?"

I thought I did, but I can't remember what it was now....

"Oh, well, thanks for calling Games Workshop, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to call back".

*click*