PDA

View Full Version : Helstorm Problem



Atrahasis
31-01-2007, 14:03
What happens if a Helstorm rolls a misfire on the second artillery dice (the stonethrower-like scatter)?

Atrahasis
31-01-2007, 14:11
By the by, thanks to GW's impressive errata system, the Helblaster volley gun doesn't roll to hit. cf Lizardmen Errata.

EDIT:Post!=edit, sorry.

Keller
31-01-2007, 15:01
You simply re-roll the dice in the event of a misfire on the scatter. It is explained on pg. 49 of the Empire book.

Atrahasis
31-01-2007, 15:02
Thanks, didn't have the book to hand and for some reason couldn't recall if it was covered.

Baindread
31-01-2007, 21:36
By the by, thanks to GW's impressive errata system, the Helblaster volley gun doesn't roll to hit. cf Lizardmen Errata.

EDIT:Post!=edit, sorry.

Whatever do you mean?

Murderous Monkey
31-01-2007, 21:57
The lizardmen errata/FAQ mentions that salamanders hit automatically, like ratling guns and helblaster volley guns.

But I won't be suggesting my opponent not roll on that basis anytime soon.

Atrahasis
31-01-2007, 22:45
But I won't be suggesting my opponent not roll on that basis anytime soon.

Nor would I. In fact I'd go one step further and say I wouldn't suggest that I not roll.

TKitch
31-01-2007, 22:46
doesn't the book specify the hellblaster does roll to hit now? And the Lizzie FAQ is older, so that's overruled.

Atrahasis
31-01-2007, 22:54
Age is of no relevance, for a start the Lizardmen FAQ has no date printed on it.

FAQ/errata must overrule because otherwise they cannot correct the rules.

Delicious Soy
31-01-2007, 23:41
You can't simply adjust the rules to your liking simply because they use a previous version of the rules as an example of comparison in an older rule correction. The comparison is invalid until they have an EMpire FAQ that tells you otherwise. It's not the first time there has been contradicting rules explanations across FAQ's and it won't be the last.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 00:10
You can't simply adjust the rules to your liking simply because they use a previous version of the rules as an example of comparison in an older rule correction. The comparison is invalid until they have an EMpire FAQ that tells you otherwise. It's not the first time there has been contradicting rules explanations across FAQ's and it won't be the last.

I know its a comparison to an older rule. Did you miss the part where I said it was not something anyone should take advantage of?

However, it is still a change and it is still in a current errata.

Yellow Commissar
01-02-2007, 03:22
I know its a comparison to an older rule. Did you miss the part where I said it was not something anyone should take advantage of?

However, it is still a change and it is still in a current errata.

So did you misremember or misinterpret it?

T10
01-02-2007, 07:38
However, it is still a change and it is still in a current errata.

Hehe. Nice. Let me see if I can break it down.


The errata refers to the Lizardman Army List, so it has no bearing on the Empire book - that would require an errata for the Empire Army List.
The reference to the Volley Gun not rolling to hit is thus false
Salamanders work in the same way as the Volley Gun.
Salamanders must roll to hit!


Of course this whole thing breaks down since it also references Ratling Guns, so in this case it creates an unresolvable conflic that causes the game to crash. Reload from last successful armour save.

-T10

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 11:07
The errata refers to the Lizardman Army List, so it has no bearing on the Empire book - that would require an errata for the Empire Army List.I'm not sure that's an entirely valid assertion. Can a clarification in the FAQ for the main rulebook not then apply to an army book?

The scope of errata is not defined as narrowly as you (or I) would like (or at all).

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 12:38
The Errata was presented before the new Empire army book was released. The Hellblaster that the FAQ is refering to is the one present in the 6th eddition army book. Saying that since the rule in the NEWEST version of the army list requiers a roll to hit that would overide a mention in another army books FAQ saying that it auto hits. As a general rule you should always go with the newest rules that have been published.

As far as scope goes the 6th eddion FAQs only extend to 6th eddition rules. That being the Lizardman FAQ would extend to the 6th eddition Empire book but not the 7th eddition one.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 12:55
The Errata was presented before the new Empire army book was released. The Hellblaster that the FAQ is refering to is the one present in the 6th eddition army book. Saying that since the rule in the NEWEST version of the army list requiers a roll to hit that would overide a mention in another army books FAQ saying that it auto hits. As a general rule you should always go with the newest rules that have been published.

As far as scope goes the 6th eddion FAQs only extend to 6th eddition rules. That being the Lizardman FAQ would extend to the 6th eddition Empire book but not the 7th eddition one.

Prove it.

There is no date on the FAQ, and it is presented in the 7th edition style.

How would someone with no knowledge of 6th edition know that it was outdated?

T10
01-02-2007, 13:00
The scope of errata is not defined as narrowly as you (or I) would like (or at all).

Lizardman errata is not Empire errata. Done.

-T10

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 13:09
Prove it.

There is no date on the FAQ, and it is presented in the 7th edition style.

How would someone with no knowledge of 6th edition know that it was outdated?

The date on the FAQ (on the US site) is 7/20/06. This was put into effect more than 5 months before the Empire book was released officialy.

They would simply look at the date and see that the lizardmen FAQ was older than the Empire Book. In addition to that they would not be looking in the Lizardmen FAQ for Empire rules.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 13:10
Lizardman errata is not Empire errata. Done.Please point out where it says that, and not just because you say so.

If what you say is true, then the main rulebook FAQ can have no effect on rules in army books.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 13:13
They would simply look at the date and see that the lizardmen FAQ was older than the Empire Book.How do they know how old the Empire book is?

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 13:15
They open the book and look at the publication date. If they don't have it they can open the new book and look at the publication date.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 13:17
They open the book and look at the publication date. If they don't have it they can open the new book and look at the publication date.

The publication date is simply "2006". What now?

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 13:25
You look for the book on amazon and I have found it here.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire/dp/1841547999/sr=11-1/qid=1170339610/ref=sr_11_1/203-0415713-9083938

Date is 7 Jan 2007

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 13:26
You're suggesting that a new player should have to use Amazon as a rules source?

BTW, the Empire book was available before that date.

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 13:33
The Empire book was only availble in the army deal before that date. The official release date is what is present on Amazon. And no i am not advocating using Amazon as a rules source but it is a very good tool to gain information as to when things have been published. They are very good at keepin track of that sort of thing.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 13:37
The Empire book was only availble in the army deal before that date. So if an FAQ was released on the 5th Jan it would not apply, but on the 8th it would, despite the Empire book having been released (albeit in a limited number) on both dates?

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 13:48
The fact that there is a 5 month diffrence between the release of the Empire book and the Lizardman FAQ is enought to go by. If there was only a day or two diffrence then I would say the FAQ would take presidence but that kind of timing would highly unlikely. The Faq's were written when 7th eddition was released to update the FAQs to the current rulling standards. Since at this time the Empire rules were no where near to being released they still related the rule to the old army book as it was the one that would be in use untill the release of the new book.

Reinnon
01-02-2007, 14:49
Please point out where it says that, and not just because you say so.

If what you say is true, then the main rulebook FAQ can have no effect on rules in army books.

i think the words "lizardmen errata" and not "empire errata" is a pretty good indication that the errata is not for the empire.

and GW would know the date of the book because they ******** wrote it.

The main rulebook errata would effect all the other books as on the back of every book is teh line "you need a copy of the warhammer rules to use the contents of this book"

this debate is solved by the use of logic, the english language and the concept of time.... and you are just grabbing straws by denying that all three apply.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 15:09
i think the words "lizardmen errata" and not "empire errata" is a pretty good indication that the errata is not for the empire.Its an indication, but its not fact. A rash in an indication of meningitis, but you don't give your child heavy-duty antibiotics every time their nappy rubs, do you?

Nothing limits the answers given in any given FAQ to any particular subject except the answers themselves. For example, if someone asked "Does the Banner of Swigglebork work when fleeing?" in the Q&A for whichever race can carry the Banner, and the answer was "No, banners do not function when the bearer is fleeing", would you still argue that the answer does not apply to any other banners?


and GW would know the date of the book because they ******** wrote it.The issue isn't whether GW know the dates, its whether the players can be reasonably expected to know them.


The main rulebook errata would effect all the other books as on the back of every book is teh line "you need a copy of the warhammer rules to use the contents of this book"You've added several words there. the actual inscription is "You will need a copy of Warhammer to use the contents of this book."

Now I ask, what is "Warhammer"? Is the just the Warhammer Rulebook, or is it all the Q&As, Errata, and other accoutrements as well?


this debate is solved by the use of logic, the english language and the concept of time.... and you are just grabbing straws by denying that all three apply.Logically, an erratum must overrule an original, otherwise it is pointless.

Saying something is logical is not the same as it being correct. Logic doesn't guarantee veracity.

Logically, you need a copy of the Empire book to use a Volley gun, so does that make the reference to the Volley Gun in the Lizardmen FAQ valid? To know what it is talking about you must have (or be aware of) the Empire book.

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 15:27
In any situation where you have conflicting rules you should always use the most current version of those rules. In this case it would be the Empire rule book not the Lizardman FAQ. Furthermore if you still had a copy of the old (from 07/20/06) Empire FAQ would you apply it to the new rule book? As reinnon said you are picking at straws. No judge at a GT or even at a local tournament would buy what you are trying to sell.

Honestly give up, you are fighting a duel with cardboard weapons and armor. The best you can do here is give a show but in the end when the day is done you will be on the loosing side of this argument.

Ganymede
01-02-2007, 15:33
You know, we never had this debate over whether the Warp Fire Thrower was a warmachine (as stated in the rulebook), or not (as stated in the skaven book). Why is this situation special?

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 15:44
In any situation where you have conflicting rules you should always use the most current version of those rules. In this case it would be the Empire rule book not the Lizardman FAQ.You're arguing in circles. "Current" is superlative, one thing cannot be "more current" than another. It is either current or it is not.


As reinnon said you are picking at straws. No judge at a GT or even at a local tournament would buy what you are trying to sell. You might want to read my fourth post in this thread.


in the end when the day is done you will be on the loosing [sic] side of this argument.At the end of the day when all is said and done and the cows come home and the chickens are roosting and we're all blue in the face , I will still have said right at the start of this thread that this is stupid. That doesn't change the fact that errata apply, or that you've chosen to tell me to give up rather than address my argument.

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 17:22
You're arguing in circles. "Current" is superlative, one thing cannot be "more current" than another. It is either current or it is not.


This is where you are wrong. The Lizardman FAQ is the "Current" FAQ with regards to the Lizardman army book. However the information regarding other armies in it is no longer current once a new version of those rules (Empire in this case) comes out. Your argument is flawed by the fact that you are arguing that older rules take presidence over newer ones.

At the time of the creation of the Lizardman FAQ the Empire book that was availble stated that the hellblaster auto hits. This is no longer the case when the new book came out 5 months later that had you roll to hit. This is even further suppored by the developers stating that you need to roll to hit in the latest eddition of WD in the standard bearer section.

Even further more unless the FAQ is stated like this:
---
Q: Does a hellblaster need to roll to hit?
A: No.
---
Then the rule is not directly addressed and can be atributed to the changing rules.

To touch on what you said before regarding new players and the rules. I don't know of any new players, or many old ones for that matter, that would look for an empire rule in a lizardman rule book. And if for some reason that new player would find that rule he would then refer to what is said in the rule book as it directly states you need to roll to hit.

Now if you realy want to be technical the FAQ states "Volley Gun" There is no "Volley Gun" in the Empire army book there is however a "Hellblaster Volley Gun". I say this because there is a diffrence between a "Bolt Thrower" and a Repeater "Bolt Thrower", as well as a "Crossbow" and "Repeater Crossbow", or a "Cannon" and a "Great Cannon". All of those that I mentioned have diffrent rules and diffrent names. So while there is no such thing as a "Volley Gun" in the Empire book I can say that the "Hellblaster Voley Gun" is not effected by this.

I still don't see how you can even think that the Lizardman FAQ would overide the new rules for the Hellblaster when there are brand new rules for that warmachine.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 17:33
This is where you are wrong. The Lizardman FAQ is the "Current" FAQ with regards to the Lizardman army book. However the information regarding other armies in it is no longer current once a new version of those rules (Empire in this case) comes out. Your argument is flawed by the fact that you are arguing that older rules take presidence over newer ones. "Current" by definition is exclusive. A cannot be more current than B unless B is not at all current.


At the time of the creation of the Lizardman FAQ the Empire book that was availble stated that the hellblaster auto hits.Time of creation is irrelevant. If it is current then it applies. Is the Lizardmen FAQ current?


Even further more unless the FAQ is stated like this:
---
Q: Does a hellblaster need to roll to hit?
A: No.
---
Then the rule is not directly addressed and can be atributed to the changing rules. I wish I could choose which rules to listen to based on my perceived notions of how they should be expressed.


To touch on what you said before regarding new players and the rules. I don't know of any new players, or many old ones for that matter, that would look for an empire rule in a lizardman rule book. And if for some reason that new player would find that rule he would then refer to what is said in the rule book as it directly states you need to roll to hit. I guarantee that within 6 months there will be a thread in Fantasy Rules saying "I have just bought the Empire book and it says I roll to hit, but the Lizardmen FAQ says Volley guns don't roll to hit. Which is right?"

I guarantee it.


I still don't see how you can even think that the Lizardman FAQ would overide the new rules for the Hellblaster when there are brand new rules for that warmachine.I don't think it should.

All of this could be avoided if GW resisted the temptation to use lazy examples instead of simply writing concise clarifications (or even just got the rule right in the first place).

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 18:05
"Current" by definition is exclusive. A cannot be more current than B unless B is not at all current.

As far as the Lizardman FAQ goes it is current. That rulling on the Sallies while correct contains information that is no longer current (the Volley Gun). The current rules for the Volley Gun are found in the Empire book.



Time of creation is irrelevant. If it is current then it applies. Is the Lizardmen FAQ current?

It is very relivent because while the majority of an item can be current while its entierty might not be.



I guarantee that within 6 months there will be a thread in Fantasy Rules saying "I have just bought the Empire book and it says I roll to hit, but the Lizardmen FAQ says Volley guns don't roll to hit. Which is right?"

I guarantee it.


I'm not going to hold my breath.



All of this could be avoided if GW resisted the temptation to use lazy examples instead of simply writing concise clarifications (or even just got the rule right in the first place).

The FAQs that were released on the 20th of July were just updates for the old FAQs to bring them up to the current ,7th eddition, rules set not the 7th eddition army books that are being worked on.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 18:15
It is very relivent because while the majority of an item can be current while its entierty might not be. Who decides which parts are and are not current? You? I certainly wouldn't presume to do so.


I'm not going to hold my breath.I wouldn't ask you to, but I'm still sure it will happen at some point.

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 18:19
Who decides which parts are and are not current? You? I certainly wouldn't presume to do so.


The Developers do. And The deveoper for the Empire book stated in the latest issue of WD that you need to roll to hit. Are you say that he is wrong because of an FAQ that was copy and pasted over 5 months ago?

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 18:23
The Developers do. And The deveoper for the Empire book stated in the latest issue of WD that you need to roll to hit. Are you say that he is wrong because of an FAQ that was copy and pasted over 5 months ago?

When White Dwarf doesn't have a dozen errors per issue, I'll start believing it. Don't forget that the designer of the Brettonian book issued a tentative Brettonian Q&A which never saw print because most of the answers were wrong.

White Dwarf isn't a part of the official GW rules resolution process anyway ;)

Reinnon
01-02-2007, 18:34
this is getting to be even more stupid as we go on, and i'm now forced to move onto big guns, the warhammer rulebook, which i think we can all agree is "warhammer"

page 85 states that each warmachine fires according to its own set of rules.

Now, the old empire warhammer armies book stated that the number of hits caused is determined by the number of roles on the misfire dice, it is an autohit weapon in this case.

however, the new (i.e the most recent edition, the one produced the latest, the NEW one) book makes it quite clear that you have to roll to hit with it in the following ways:

page 48 of the empire rules:

"The barrel will fire a variable number of shots" - the old book stated "hits" not "shots"

"Measure the range to the target and roll to hit as normal for the shots that have been fired, applying all normal to hit modifiers"

there, thats all the evidence one needs to say that the hellblaster is not an autohit weapon, the lizardmen errata is refering to old rules whereas the empire books states clearly what the hellblaster can do.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 18:44
the lizardmen errata is refering to old rules

Are we back here again?

Prove it.

Reinnon
01-02-2007, 18:48
ffs, i just did

bah.... ok i'm getting pi**ed off with this, i'm leaving this thread

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 18:50
Prove it.

The date in which the rules were posted the current Emprie rulles were still in development. Its as simple and strait forward as that.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 19:19
The date in which the rules were posted the current Emprie rulles were still in development. Its as simple and strait forward as that.

And where does it say that, other than on a third party website you yourself admit is not a source for rules?

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 19:29
Rules no, publication information yes.

Regardless of that any Redshirt or game store employee should know the order and dates when certain items have arrived.

Atrahasis
01-02-2007, 19:33
Regardless of that any Redshirt or game store employee should know the order and dates when certain items have arrived.The Redshirts around here can't even get the rules that are in the book right, why should I trust them with any other information?

If I told you a redshirt said all large targets could fly would that be true? I mean, its public information, a redshirt said so.

Negativemoney
01-02-2007, 19:54
I think what I am trying to say isn't getting across to you. The publication information for the Empire Book is available in easy to find places. the fact that the Empire book is in conflict with the Lizardman FAQ just means one thing. That is "THE RULES CHANGED!" Show me some form of information to tell that the intentional rules change should be overturned because of an old FAQ that does not even fully state how the wamaching should work.

NakedFisherman
01-02-2007, 20:09
"Current" is superlative...

No it isn't.

loveless
01-02-2007, 20:22
No it isn't.

thank you, NF, i was about to go into a rant about that, but i didn't since I wasn't sure if I could control myself

T10
01-02-2007, 20:49
Atrahasis: I gather you are understandably excited at uncovering this gem of rules conflict. Finding that GW got their rules mixed up is fun in much the same way as the blunders of national leaders like Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Blair. It reminds us that they are mere humans after all. In this case, however, I sense your enthusiasm may be ill-founded.

You have pointed out a conflict in what is now the currently valid rules. The (still valid) errata for the Lizardman book hint that the rules for the Volley Gun are actually different from the way they are described in the Empire book.

However, you seem to jump at the conclusion that a passing reference in the errata overrides the clearly explicit rules laid out in the Empire book.

I submit that the argument is flawed as any errata is simply what is intended to be included in the relevant text replacing the erroneous text, not existing as an authority in addition to it.

In short: The errata for the Lizardman book is a part of the Lizardman book, and it is therefore quite unreasonable that it serve as an authority of change upon the Empire book.

-T10

EvC
01-02-2007, 22:05
Didn't we already have a stupid debate over that weapon that auto-wounds against things without an armour save that referenced Steam Tanks as an example? Why would anyone want to repeat that travesty?

At the end of the day, if you're going to pretend to be so anal about the exact dates and wordplay then you should really go back to NegativeMoney's excellent post, containing the quote, "Now if you realy want to be technical the FAQ states "Volley Gun" There is no "Volley Gun" in the Empire army book there is however a "Hellblaster Volley Gun". I say this because there is a diffrence between a "Bolt Thrower" and a Repeater "Bolt Thrower", as well as a "Crossbow" and "Repeater Crossbow", or a "Cannon" and a "Great Cannon". All of those that I mentioned have diffrent rules and diffrent names. So while there is no such thing as a "Volley Gun" in the Empire book I can say that the "Hellblaster Voley Gun" is not effected by this." which you conveniently ignored.

Feel free to make the point that if the FAQ had said "Helblaster Volley Gun" then your awful point would still stand, but hopefully no-one will bite on that one :o

eldrak
01-02-2007, 23:33
Regarding army book specific erratas, check the new one for OK.

It clearly shows that there can things in it applying for other armies too, in this case all who can take DoW or Chaos ogres.

AFAIK GW has never used dates in anything they publish (except for in the tiny print).

ewar
02-02-2007, 00:15
Every time a thread like this occurs a puppy gets kicked in the face with hobnailed boot.

intellectawe
02-02-2007, 01:47
Every time a thread like this occurs a puppy gets kicked in the face with hobnailed boot.

You can thank GW for creating this Tournament mentality in its players over the past 8 years for pushing the big bucks.

Players feel justified for being eTarded because GW gives them garbage examples on how to be a player/customer through their oh so crap happy rules editing and writing.

sulla
02-02-2007, 03:01
You can thank GW for creating this Tournament mentality in its players over the past 8 years for pushing the big bucks.



Only some players...

intellectawe
02-02-2007, 03:15
Only some players...

I would say most players.

DaBrode
02-02-2007, 06:20
Are we back here again?

Prove it.

The Lizzie FAQ has to be referring to old Empire rules because when it came out the "current" Empire rules didn't exist.

You are very good at debate and I've followed you throughout these forums for the last month or so...and I'm sure i'll be entertained and even agree in the future...but here you're wrong bro.

Your definition of current is correct.

The lizardmen FAQ is current as it pertains to the most recent FAQ for lizardmen.

The Empire book corrects the previously current information in that very lizardmen FAQ about the Volley gun as it is the newest information regarding volley guns.

Errata can be corrected by an updated print of the actual rules just as a rulebook can be corrected by an updated errata.

It's simple logic really.

WLBjork
02-02-2007, 09:11
As Atrahasis says, prove it.

Sure, we all know it, but how does a brand new Empire player know it?

They've bought the books, the models and is looking at the FAQ and sees the ruling referenced. They have no way of knowing this is from an old version of the game, and may well try to play it in this way.

Just as long as GW update the Lizardmen FAQ soon, it shouldn't be any further problem.

Artemis
02-02-2007, 10:07
As Atrahasis says, prove it.

Sure, we all know it, but how does a brand new Empire player know it?


I would be very surprised if a new empire player would think that something publshed on the web in relation to a different army should overrule what is clearly stated in his army book. If he did so, he would soon be corrected.

And, btw, is this entirely on topic? :angel:

Reinnon
02-02-2007, 11:04
The Lizzie FAQ has to be referring to old Empire rules because when it came out the "current" Empire rules didn't exist.

You are very good at debate and I've followed you throughout these forums for the last month or so...and I'm sure i'll be entertained and even agree in the future...but here you're wrong bro.

Your definition of current is correct.

The lizardmen FAQ is current as it pertains to the most recent FAQ for lizardmen.

The Empire book corrects the previously current information in that very lizardmen FAQ about the Volley gun as it is the newest information regarding volley guns.

Errata can be corrected by an updated print of the actual rules just as a rulebook can be corrected by an updated errata.

It's simple logic really.

theres a difference at being good at a debate and being anal, and constantly saying "prove it" when someone has given you a direct quote from the rules as to why the lizardmen errata no longer applies to a situation is going over to the anal side of things

T10
02-02-2007, 13:01
Q: What color is that house?
A: It is white on this side.
Q: Prove it!

:P

-T10

DeathlessDraich
02-02-2007, 13:29
I was going to contribute but there's a Jehovah's Witness at my door!:D Back soon!

T10
02-02-2007, 13:48
Remember to get their opinion! I'm sure they can prove stuff easy!

-T10

Cloud Strife
02-02-2007, 16:13
can't believe how much some people will try to push rules just for the sake of winning games of warhammer - remember it is just a game of toy soldiers after all (admittedly a very good one that I love, but come on this is pushing it guys)

right as someone said I really can't see new Empire players coming online and wanting to check a Lizardmen FAQ for info as for some strange reason my word calculator says Lizardmen does not equal Empire, but Empire=Empire. hey its strange logic but it seems to make sense. not to mention that they will probably only look at the rulebook FAQ as the Empire one is dated 01/09/2006 which is before the new Empire book came out so most if not all of it is now useless.

oh and lets not forget that the Lizardmen FAQ is dated for 01/09/2006 which is not only a good few months older than the Empire book its also 3 months older than the rulebook FAQ so I can't see any new player bothering to look there unless they play Lizardmen or possibly if they play against Lizardmen a lot.

and at the end of the day no player in their right mind would allow you to try to be so pendantic and have an auto-hitting Helblaster - I'm sorry but if you want to have the possibility of having 30 S5 hits then either get very jammy dice rolls, or get a 3k Dwarf army with 3 Organ Guns. all I can say is if someone tried that on me and wouldn't change their mind after reading the Empire book then I would just pack up and I would expect them to struggle to get a game while they maintained that opinion.