Snapping a Super Heavy Explosion?

[Guest]

Pure rules question. I'd never suggest this in a real game...

 

If a super heavy is forced to snap, when it loses it's last HP can it place the apocalypse blast marker as per catastrophic damage?

 

As I read it, technically the catastrophic damage is a rule of the model. There is no special immunity to snap restrictions upon removal from the table. And it is a blast weapon and specifically references the blast rules on page 158. The blast rules are extremely clear that it can't be snapped.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

[pretre]

Yes.

[Guest]

Yes.

Why? Like, from a rules stance.

[WestRider]

You don't place the Blast Marker until the SH Vehicle has already been removed. It's no longer on the table, it's not making a shooting attack, the Blast just originates where it was.

[AbusePuppy]

If a super heavy is forced to snap, when it loses it's last HP can it place the apocalypse blast marker as per catastrophic damage?

 

Yes, because the Catastrophic Damage explosion is not a shooting attack. (It's resolved using the wound allocation/damage rules for one, but that's not the same thing as being a shooting attack. Vector Strikes, for example, also use the shooting rules for resolving damage but are certainly not shooting attacks.)

[Guest]

You don't place the Blast Marker until the SH Vehicle has already been removed. It's no longer on the table, it's not making a shooting attack, the Blast just originates where it was.

So, a model must be on the table to make a shooting attack with a special rule? I don't think that one is true. The reason it places a blast is due to the special rules of the SH vehicle type, which are part of the model's rules. 

 

 

Yes, because the Catastrophic Damage explosion is not a shooting attack. (It's resolved using the wound allocation/damage rules for one, but that's not the same thing as being a shooting attack. Vector Strikes, for example, also use the shooting rules for resolving damage but are certainly not shooting attacks.)

You say that, and I'm totally trying to find the term "shooting attack" but it doesn't seem to be in the BRB. It references the concept several times, but I haven't found it defined yet. The closest I've found is in the description for witchfire psychic powers, it seems to explain the concept of psychic shooting attack as if shooting attack isn't a defined term.

 

The 7th BRB doesn't seem to distinguish between shooting phase shooting and other shooting-like attacks.

[WestRider]

Haven't you figured out yet that GW is terrible about defining their terms? Simplest option is just to do what the Rules actually say, remove the Model, and place the Blast Marker. It's also fluff-wise accurate (disabled crew are going to make the thing not blow up?) and contradicts no other Rules.

[Guest]

Haven't you figured out yet that GW is terrible about defining their terms? Simplest option is just to do what the Rules actually say, remove the Model, and place the Blast Marker. It's also fluff-wise accurate (disabled crew are going to make the thing not blow up?) and contradicts no other Rules.

To be fair, the super heavy damage table does not make them snap fire. To force a super heavy to snap, you'd need a special effect, like my Cerberus Heavy Tank Destroyer's Neutron Laser. So, it isn't merely a disabled crew we're talking about. A special shooting attack that causes super heavies to not explode doesn't seem too unreasonable.

[pretre]

It just has no rules support.

[Guest]

It just has no rules support.

Which?

[WestRider]

There is no indication anywhere that the explosion is an Attack being made by the Vehicle, Shooting or otherwise. It's just an effect that happens in the place the Vehicle was after it was Destroyed. Without that, there's no reason to connect the Snap Shot restriction to the Explosion.

[pretre]

Just so.

[Guest]

There is no indication anywhere that the explosion is an Attack being made by the Vehicle, Shooting or otherwise. It's just an effect that happens in the place the Vehicle was after it was Destroyed. Without that, there's no reason to connect the Snap Shot restriction to the Explosion.

Are you suggesting that a model's unit type does not reflect a model's rules?

 

The model is a super heavy vehicle which includes specific additional rules that it has because it is of the super heavy vehicle type.

[pretre]

Yeah, you're reaching...

[Guest]

Yeah, you're reaching...

Even if I'm right, it's too obscure to get a ruling on. Too few weapons can force the superheavy to snap, and even there, I'd have to prove that the snapfire condition was retained upon destruction/removing from the table, which is vague at best with GW rules.

 

I don't really think it's reaching in the respect that I'm wrong, but it is reaching in the respect of getting a clear answer one way or another via GW rules. They are just too vague. In this respect, it was sort of a joke thread (or rather, more a mental exercise as it was intended to get a quiet board humming, more than to be humorous).

 

I really don't think that the concept of a shooting attack is actually defined in the BRB. I think that's a term from previous editions of 40k, not unlike the Universal Special Rules, which don't exist in 7th (except in the ITC's FAQ).

[pretre]

No, I think you're reaching because you're trying to make something that is actually pretty simple and clear not simple or clear.

 

Of all the unclear rules in 40k, you pick exploding vehicles/super heavies, which actually work pretty well.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Even if I'm right, it's too obscure to get a ruling on. Too few weapons can force the superheavy to snap, and even there, I'd have to prove that the snapfire condition was retained upon destruction/removing from the table, which is vague at best with GW rules.

 

I don't really think it's reaching in the respect that I'm wrong, but it is reaching in the respect of getting a clear answer one way or another via GW rules. They are just too vague. In this respect, it was sort of a joke thread (or rather, more a mental exercise as it was intended to get a quiet board humming, more than to be humorous).

 

I really don't think that the concept of a shooting attack is actually defined in the BRB. I think that's a term from previous editions of 40k, not unlike the Universal Special Rules, which don't exist in 7th (except in the ITC's FAQ).

It's not too obscure to get rolled on because it's pretty darn clear what the intent is.

 

though I agree the book Glaxo definition section such as shooting attacks and melee attacks. I don't think this one is muddled at all and is not a case for an FAQ.

[WestRider]

Are you suggesting that a model's unit type does not reflect a model's rules?

 

The model is a super heavy vehicle which includes specific additional rules that it has because it is of the super heavy vehicle type.

It is an effect caused by the Model's Unit Type, yes. That doesn't make it a Shooting Attack by the Model. That's the connection you have to fill in before this matters. How is this a Shooting Attack made by the Model, rather than just a Game Effect that takes place after its removal?

[Guest]

It is an effect caused by the Model's Unit Type, yes. That doesn't make it a Shooting Attack by the Model. That's the connection you have to fill in before this matters. How is this a Shooting Attack made by the Model, rather than just a Game Effect that takes place after its removal?

It is a game effect caused my a model's special rule (unit type) which creates a blast.

 

Blasts are actually not a weapon type in this edition, but are a special rule, which then references itself as a "blast weapon" throughout it's own entry.

 

The special rule in question describes the model that generates the blast as the firer, and specifically says the firer cannot snap blasts.

 

The blast rule is specifically referenced by page number in the Super heavy rules regarding catastrophic damage.

 

Nothing in the blast special rule seems to indicate that it can be resolved as anything other than a "Blast Weapon"

 

And again, the term "shooting attack" is not defined in the BRB.

[AbusePuppy]

Weapons are a specific type of equipment models can carry.

 

Explosions are a rule under the vehicle subheading, not a weapon. They don't even have a weapon statline (which always has a Range, Str/AP, and the weapon's type and special rules.)

[WestRider]

And, again, as Shooting Attack is not defined, what are the grounds for your statement that this is a Shooting Attack, rather than simply an effect that takes place after the Model's removal. The Rules are pretty clear on how you resolve this. What grounds do you have for arguing that there's an exception there?

 

So far all you've presented is that it's not explicitly NOT a Shooting Attack, but you've presented no real evidence that it IS a Shooting Attack. That's the key point that needs solid support before doing anything besides just resolving it exactly as the Rules say.

[Guest]

I did find a definition of "weapon." Page 40.

 

Weapons are a specific type of equipment models can carry.

 

Explosions are a rule under the vehicle subheading, not a weapon. They don't even have a weapon statline (which always has a Range, Str/AP, and the weapon's type and special rules.)

You say that, but if you look on page 40, you see that "weapon" is the term GW has used to format attack/weapon types. The requirement of weapons being equipment is not explained in this section.

 

And the Super heavy vehicle damage type, does have a weapon profile, but it is a variable weapon profile for a weapon that does not use BS to hit things, so it's a bit strange.

 

The jist is that it uses the Apocalyptic Blast Rules. These rules are on page 158, which again, describes all blasts as being "weapons". They explain the apocalyptic blast weapon profile's 3 strength values and 3 AP values (which are terms unique to weapon profiles).

[WestRider]

Here's another one for you: If I Shake a regular Vehicle, and then get an Explodes result, would you argue that couldn't take effect because of the Snap Fire restrictions?

[Guest]

I will note that it would be silly to give the catastophic damage a range, as range "-" is defined as a melee attack and other ranges measure from the model (which has been removed from the table at this point).

[Guest]

Here's another one for you: If I Shake a regular Vehicle, and then get an Explodes result, would you argue that couldn't take effect because of the Snap Fire restrictions?

The explodes result for normal vehicles does not use the blast rule. It does not reference the blast rules. So, does the blast snap fire clause conflict with the normal vehicle explosion? No, they are not related.

 

I'm not sure how normal snap shooting works in regards to the vehicle explosions.

 

Though the flyer "crash and burn" result is very similar. Hmm...not sure if it matters, but crash and burn is resolved prior to removing the model, while the catastrophic is resolved after removing the model.

 

I'll think on this one.