Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But a circular illogical nightmare that you have reached through the complete embracing of the rules. You may find peace in your soul knowing that you followed the rule that lets you ignore the rules. It is a harmonious state of being. I find it strange that one can discount the most important rule and yet so vehemently defend the other rules; no matter what future conclusions are drawn, we are still tarnished by the fact that we ignored the first rule, and in doing so our rule judgments become tarnished likewise.

I love the 40k, but sometimes these rules battles feel like an argument over a game of Kerrplunk.

Edit: I'm not even from America, what's with the flag of the brave?

Keyasa wrote:Edit: I'm not even from America, what's with the flag of the brave?

Most likely an Error in DakkaDakka's Geolocation Algorythms or your ISP playing Silly Buggers. PM a Moderator and ask to get it locked (I have mine locked for example. I am A Limey but live in Potatoville across the sea )

Forgive my smoked out musings on the rules by the way, its very late and I just enjoyed a rare Necron victory over the Nidzilla! Good luck in potatoville, I always love visiting the family down Cork way and across in Mayo. Cead Mille Failte!

this discussion beautifully illustrates why RAW is not always the way to go and RAI has it's place.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:this discussion beautifully illustrates why RAW is not always the way to go and RAI has it's place.

G

Errr... how exactly? RaW is fine as it is.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:ummm, if it's a deamon, shouldn't it count as a deamon?

Show me the rules that back that up. That's like me saying, it's a Space Marine, it should have 10's for all stats and a 0+ invulnerable save.

Ummm...

I didn't mean that, i just mean if it is in the deamon codex (a.k.a nurgling) then wouldn't it be a deamon? I don't see how it can't be a deamon if it was born of the warp (isn't that what a deamon is?)

Just as pretty much everything in Space Marines codex is a Space Marine.

Or everything in the IG codex is basically human. (Yes there are variants, but I mean they aren't freaking deamons)

I never meant to meddle with the stats. You get weak deamons and strong deamons in the Deamon codex, but aren't they all deamons?

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex can allow the DH stuff to work against it. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons.

No, it doesn't. Any time Daemons is referred to in the DH codex, it refers to ONLY those things listed in the DH codex. Nothing Else.

So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:Much like how allies rules are not in the IG or SM codex, but their existence in the WH and DH codex allows IG or SM to ally with Inquisition units, the Daemons codex can allow the DH stuff to work against it. It seems to do this explicitly on page 24. So, the Daemon's codex seems to adds to the DH list of what counts as Daemons.

No, it doesn't. Any time Daemons is referred to in the DH codex, it refers to ONLY those things listed in the DH codex. Nothing Else.

So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

No, it's because the rules just basically suck when you try to merge the two. In other words, where do you draw the line? Try figuring out the most logical blend of the Daemonic Special Rules on pg. 49 of the DH codex and the rules contained in the Daemons codex. Your head will explode.

Some conversions are obvious and not too much a stretch; sacred incense versus Bloodthirsters, for example. Others are just a complete failure, like anything that applies to Instability tests. Yes, you can figure out something that works, but ultimately it's all going to be some sort of house rule, or based on the allowance of your tourney organizer.

The rules are just horribly outdated. It's a big tip-off that a primarily assault-based army has no frag grenades.

apwill4765 wrote:So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

Wow, way to utterly 100% Fail at both reading and Understanding.

Firstly, the Spelling is the same.
Secondly, the rules clearly list out what counts as a Daemon. The rules do not mention ANY unit in the Codex: Chaos Daemons Armylist (Exception of Nurglings) and thus do not apply to them. If I am TFG because I play by the rules, I hope you don't mind me calling you a Massive Cheater

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:So, you're saying, demonhunters codex special rules used to combat demons don't work against demons? Because codex demons came out with new units later, and they added an 'a' in the word Daemon?

GIVE ME A BREEEAAAAKKKK

Major TFG move

Wow, way to utterly 100% Fail at both reading and Understanding.

Firstly, the Spelling is the same.
Secondly, the rules clearly list out what counts as a Daemon. The rules do not mention ANY unit in the Codex: Chaos Daemons Armylist (Exception of Nurglings) and thus do not apply to them. If I am TFG because I play by the rules, I hope you don't mind me calling you a Massive Cheater

However it is spelled, the rules in the DH codex were written BEFORE codex: demons was released. So yes, you are TFG, and this has never even been an issue in any game I've played against a demons player. I guess I run into a bunch of crazy people who realize that demons are, durr, demons.

RAW serves you pretty well in most discussions, Gwar, but in this case you just seem ridiculous. Demons are Demons, and the demonhunters rules to combat demons should affect demons.

And you aren't TFG for playing by the rules, you are TFG for scouring each book and manipulating the rules to create crazy loopholes. Oh, a comma here means that valks can't disembark normally. Woops, Nork can board a vendetta because the rules for ogryns only say that they can't board valks. It is people like you that come up with this crap. I mean really, cmon. Now GW has to come out with errata that says demons are demons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and another thing, the damn codex: demons specifically mentions that demonhunters are specifically trained to destroy their kind. Or maybe it's just a coincidence and the rules shouldn't affect them. /rolls eyes

Pg 24 btw, a whole page on the demonhunters

apwill4765 wrote:RAW serves you pretty well in most discussions, Gwar, but in this case you just seem ridiculous. Demons are Demons, and the demonhunters rules to combat demons should affect demons.

Well Bugger me Sideways, I hadden't tho... oh wait, they DO still affect Daemons, namely the Daemons listed on Page 20. How Amazing is that!

apwill4765 wrote:And you aren't TFG for playing by the rules, you are TFG for scouring each book and manipulating the rules to create crazy loopholes. Oh, a comma here means that valks can't disembark normally. Woops, Nork can board a vendetta because the rules for ogryns only say that they can't board valks. It is people like you that come up with this crap. I mean really, cmon.

Errrm... You can't disembark from a Valk because you can't get within 2" of an Acess point.... and Nork Cannot board a Vendetta because the Rules for the vendetta are a Subsection of the Valkyrie rules, and as such all vendettas follow the rules for Valkyries. If you are gonna Insult me at least do it right.

Now GW has to come out with errata that says demons are demons?

Yes, and until they do claiming Grey Knights Affect Units from Codex: Chaos Daemons is cheating.

apwill4765 wrote:And another thing, the damn codex: demons specifically mentions that demonhunters are specifically trained to destroy their kind. Or maybe it's just a coincidence and the rules shouldn't affect them. /rolls eyes

Oh really? Please quote to me the part of THE RULES that says that? I cannot seem to find it in my Codex.

1. No one is insulting you, you are being TFG. And I suspect trolling. Those aren't insults, just facts.

2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there



Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't cahnge that

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

Rule two also lets me roll a 1+ and Autowin. Rule two in the context of a Rules Discussion is worse than meaningless, as I have pointed out about 9001 times in this thread.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

And I'm really glad you consider that a win =) berating your opponent into not playing with you obviously gives you more joy than the actual game. Hope you don't run out of opponents man

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

Last I checked people played 40k by using the rules.

Shocking I know

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

It is called fluff, deal with it. It isn't rules. Don't like it? By all means go ahead and cheat. I won't let you, but you can try.

That's ok, I think your asinine letter for letter interpretations of the rules would drive me crazy way before we got all the way to turn one

Good, another win for me. I hope you enjoy playing whatever game it is you play, cause it Certainly is not Warhammer 40,000.

Actually, you're a bit confused. I play 40k, you play "Who's the best at Rules Lawyering"

enjoy

Last I checked people played 40k by using the rules.

Shocking I know

Again, you are confused. Most people play this game using:

1. THE RULES (to quote you)

2. COMMON SENSE

TFGs ignore the second part

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Massive Cheater

Umm, wouldn't rule two telling him that that it okay keep him from being a cheater? Rule two may not be great for RaW discussions, but it does still exist. In the actual application of the rules in a game, I hardly see how following rule two is cheating.

Rule two also lets me roll a 1+ and Autowin. Rule two in the context of a Rules Discussion is worse than meaningless, as I have pointed out about 9001 times in this thread.

You didn't refute that you can't call someone a cheater (for following rule two)...

Unfortunately, gwar is right, although being right does not preclude you from being TFG.

apwill4765 wrote:
2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

Valks are a transport that you probably can't disembark from (whether or not you can depends on whether or not disembarking is measured horizontally or horizontally and vertically, something not explicitly stated in the RB.)
Everyone just houserules it that they can.

apwill4765 wrote:
3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

Fluff is not rules. Fluff cannot be used to support arguments about rules. Otherwise everything other than IG would be totally unstoppable.

apwill4765 wrote:
Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't change that

Refer to the earlier point about inquisitors (i.e. read the whole thread)
Basically, things in different codexes with the same name don't have the same rules (unless they do). For example:
GK storm shields are not SM storm shields, even though they have the same name.
Fleet in the 'nids codex is the same as Fleet in the Eldar codex (although if 'nids were still at 3rd ed it wouldn't be.)

when you figure that out I'll salute you bro. If I could explain it to ya I surely would.

G

Crucius wrote:Unfortunately, gwar is right, although being right does not preclude you from being TFG.

apwill4765 wrote:
2. Valks are a transport vehicle that you absolutely can disembark from. No one agrees with your point of view except Those FGs. This includes tournament organizers at GW hq in glen burnie, and in every single game I've played since the rules came out. It's a scenic base, and you have absolutely no imagination to think that a valk/vend cannot hover low enough to disembark. The rules specifically state that the representations on the board are only static approximations of a dynamic environment.

Valks are a transport that you probably can't disembark from (whether or not you can depends on whether or not disembarking is measured horizontally or horizontally and vertically, something not explicitly stated in the RB.)
Everyone just houserules it that they can.

apwill4765 wrote:
3. You still haven't told me why there is a full page spread in codex: demons that talks about DH being specifically trained to kill them, you just wrote THE RULES in really big font. Great argument there

Fluff is not rules. Fluff cannot be used to support arguments about rules. Otherwise everything other than IG would be totally unstoppable.

apwill4765 wrote:
Also, pg 27. Daemon, this rule affects every model in this army. They're demons. Period. Demonhunters rules affect demons, and a slight Unintended change in the terminology of a subsequent codex doesn't change that

Refer to the earlier point about inquisitors (i.e. read the whole thread)
Basically, things in different codexes with the same name don't have the same rules (unless they do). For example:
GK storm shields are not SM storm shields, even though they have the same name.
Fleet in the 'nids codex is the same as Fleet in the Eldar codex (although if 'nids were still at 3rd ed it wouldn't be.)

Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

Ya know, all you have to do is show me where in the Daemonhunters Codex it says to count models from Codex: Chaos Deamons...

Oh wait, you can't. Page 20 has a VERY specific list. If it is not on that list, GK stuff does not work. It's that simple.

Well this is all very...what's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes. Childish.

Anyway, the problem is that Daemons got a massive revamp after the Daemonhunter Codex. Simply put the DH rules no longer work right against the new Daemons. It's a bizarre situation but precedent is clear...if a piece of wargear or a rule no longer works, such as anything that would affect a Daemon's instability test, or if something isn't in the Codex (Space Marines that aren't Smurfed getting the finger) then you're stuffed.

Since the DH rules specifically state which units there powers work on the situation is pretty clear. Is it stupid as hell? Oh lord yes. And can you play it differently with a friend? Of course you can, since despite what Gwar says the idea is for both people to have fun not fanatically follow a rule set that seems to have been created by madmen. But from a pure rules stand point...most Daemons do not count as such when fighting the Grey Knights.

Jon Garrett wrote:despite what Gwar says the idea is for both people to have fun not fanatically follow a rule set that seems to have been created by madmen. But from a pure rules stand point...most Daemons do not count as such when fighting the Grey Knights.

I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Furthermore, this is the Rules Section of DakkaDakka. In this forum, we discuss how the Rules as Written work, or how those Rules as Written interact with other Rules as Written. Of course, this is in the Knowlege that you can also ignore the rules if you want. it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine. Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

If you want to Propose Rules, there is a whole section just for you.

Gwar! wrote:I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Not wrong, but not the only perfectly legal way to play the game. Playing the game using TMIR is just as legal as your method (psst, the rules agree with me).

Gwar! wrote:it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine.

In a lot of your posts, you strongly imply that following TMIR is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

No, that someone is just playing 40k and utilizing TMIR.