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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
It shouldn't get a cover save because it as a toe and its ankle behind something...

Thats actually one of the very few things that makes sense in this game.

If you shoot at me with a PB gun and only my foot is behind some obstacle, are you gonna aim at my foot who's obscured?, or at the rest of my body who isn't obscured?...

Which would be fine, if it wasn't how cover works for other models... Having one system for some models and another system for others makes less sense that both of them using the same abstracted system.

Your static model with the edge of his base sitting on the terrain isn't supposed to represent the warrior actually standing there in a heroic pose with his feet glued to a giant plastic circle. It's an abstraction.

Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I'm pleased that the FAQs seem to have been positively received on the whole, however this discussion around Hive Tyrants not being able to join tyrant guard is a classic example of why we, as players, need to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of the game. GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'. The bottom line is, in a game as complicated as Warhammer 40,000 it is simply not possible for rules writers to address every single possible specific interaction. A degree of common sense is ALWAYS going to be required and suggesting that Hive Tyrants can now no longer join a unit that in both the fluff and in the rules (the shieldwall rule specifically says 'A hive Tyrant CAN JOIN A UNIT OF TYRANT GUARD...') is simply not using common sense regardless of how you want to read the rules.

Magic the Gathering currently includes more than sixteen thousand cards. Rules issues are plugged as they arise, and it is extremely uncommon for a rules debate to crop up mid-game that can't be resolved just by looking at the specific wording of the rules involved.

The 'It's a complicated game' defense doesn't actually hold any water, and never has.

And yes, players expect GW's rules writers to spell out exactly how the rules work. That's, you know, kind of their job.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.

Being big doesn't make it impossible for something to hide behind other things that are also big.

 insaniak wrote:
Being big doesn't make it impossible for something to hide behind other things that are also big.

Yes. Which is why wraithknight can get cover. It just needs to have big cover to hide behind. Not toe behind rock the size of a human fist.

 insaniak wrote:

Caederes wrote:
Let's be real, if someone legitimately tells a Tyranid player that their Hive Tyrant is unable to join a unit of Tyrant Guard - you know, the creatures SPECFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT HIVE TYRANTS - they deserve to be punched in the throat. If someone actually pushes that on you, they're not worth playing with. End of story.

Threatening physical violence over a game of toy soldiers is possibly not the high road you envisage...

I completely agree that enforcing the RAW on this would be a little absurd, but there's no need to get silly about it, whichever side of the debate you find yourself on.

Yeah sorry about that, I meant it more as a figure of speech but didn't really clarify that so that's on me. I don't actually advocate violence over table-top miniatures (or in general!), it's more that I just think telling someone they can't attach a Hive Tyrant to Tyrant Guard would be a clear indication of a person being "that guy". This might be the clearest case of RAI vs RAW and it's obviously an oversight.

Carnikang wrote:

Davor wrote:
Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.

Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?

That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.

If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?

People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.

Davor wrote:

Carnikang wrote:

Davor wrote:
Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.

Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?

That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.

If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?

People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.

Was your latest post aimed at me or Carnikang. It is a bit hard to see as you haven't quoted me in this one.

I have several groups I play with, Those who I play 3rd edition with are of a like mindset, and play RAI, which is how I play and view the rules. Let me stress that again, I abhore the RAW mindset that has entered into the games, I think the tournament scene as a whole is to blame for this very narrow way of seeing the game and the rules, and it sucks the fun out of a game that should be about playing with plastic toy soldiers and making pew pew sounds at each other. That is how I enjoy playing, however not everyone gets the same enjoyment from the same thing, to some the rules are sacred a tome by which the interplay of the rules is where the fun is derived from.

Those who I play the current edition with can be very narrow minded when it comes to the rules and play a very strict RAW, as they argue that RAI is too vague and down to personal interpretation of rules. It isn't fun, and due to such I have been moulded to be on the look out for issues that can be levelled against me.

There was a time when the community had to endure the rather silly argument that a MC can not fire 2 weapons when it fires on overwatch, due to the way GW worded it. This has echoes of that. I don't want it to be true, as it is against the background.

However, RAW GW have just invalidated a Hive Tyrant from joining Tyrant Guard. Nowhere in Shieldwall does it remove or replace the MC unit type. Remember IC is not a unit type but a special rule, one that now prohibits Monstrous Creatures that have IC from joing units.

Edit, if you go and read what I have posted on The Tyranid Hive, you will see that I have refuted them. Also I could be wrong here, but from reading what others have said in that thread, they are also seeing it as sadly being the case when RAW is applied.

Apart from that specific Codex exception you keep ignoring in your quest to be 'right'...

The Codex offers no exception, nowhere in the wording does it say anything even remotely approaching the concept of exeption.

Can you please point out where it offers this exception that I seem to be missing?

It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"

So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.

RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags

 stonehorse wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

Carnikang wrote:

Davor wrote:
Wow, your player base or friends are real douches. This is the second forum now I see you freaking this over now. On The Tyranid Hive you said your friends or people you play with will go strictly by RAW. Wow you didn't play like this last week or yesterday but now you and they will know? Talk about needing to win with plastic toy soldiers and not having fun.

Maybe Mr Kirby was correct all along in laughing and mocking us as players when people behave like this. I feel bad about you. Why play with people who act like this then? Also why not wait for the Nid FAQ before freaking out?

That's a little uncalled for. Regardless of reaction, it's better to address the issue than to go on like you just did.

If I have offended, I am sorry that was not my intent. So I don't do it again, what did I say that was uncalled for?

People keep explaining things to you on Dakka and The Tyranid Hive and you keep telling them they are wrong without explanation as to why they are wrong. A lot of good points were made but you only refute one or two but then not the rest.

Was your latest post aimed at me or Carnikang. It is a bit hard to see as you haven't quoted me in this one.

I have several groups I play with, Those who I play 3rd edition with are of a like mindset, and play RAI, which is how I play and view the rules. Let me stress that again, I abhore the RAW mindset that has entered into the games, I think the tournament scene as a whole is to blame for this very narrow way of seeing the game and the rules, and it sucks the fun out of a game that should be about playing with plastic toy soldiers and making pew pew sounds at each other. That is how I enjoy playing, however not everyone gets the same enjoyment from the same thing, to some the rules are sacred a tome by which the interplay of the rules is where the fun is derived from.

Those who I play the current edition with can be very narrow minded when it comes to the rules and play a very strict RAW, as they argue that RAI is too vague and down to personal interpretation of rules. It isn't fun, and due to such I have been moulded to be on the look out for issues that can be levelled against me.

There was a time when the community had to endure the rather silly argument that a MC can not fire 2 weapons when it fires on overwatch, due to the way GW worded it. This has echoes of that. I don't want it to be true, as it is against the background.

However, RAW GW have just invalidated a Hive Tyrant from joining Tyrant Guard. Nowhere in Shieldwall does it remove or replace the MC unit type. Remember IC is not a unit type but a special rule, one that now prohibits Monstrous Creatures that have IC from joing units.

Edit, if you go and read what I have posted on The Tyranid Hive, you will see that I have refuted them. Also I could be wrong here, but from reading what others have said in that thread, they are also seeing it as sadly being the case when RAW is applied.

I did go back and I see where you have made your point now. That is sad though you have to play with people like that just because the day before yesterday you didn't play it like that and now all of a sudden you have to play it like that now. Let's hope the Tyranid codex FAQ addresses this issue since it's a Tyrnaid issue and not a General issue for everyone. Question is, has GW changed and become smart enough to address this or is it just smoke and mirriors and same old GW? Time will tell.

So on top of the nerf to MCs (the "toe in cover" issue) and the nerf to Skyblight (the newly spawned Gargoyles can not deepstrike in), does the same ruling also mean that the Mawloc can not use his Terror from the deep again after going into Ongoing Reserves?

The wording is just about the same as the Skyswarm rules.

Was there a separate question about intervening models and monstrous creatures? The one in this thread was about terrain. Intervening models have never cared about 25%.

One noticable change is that, while Reroll Ones now works on Gets Hot blasts, it does not work on rerolling scatter dice.

Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"

So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.

RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags

The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'

Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.

Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,

So this is confusing:

So you can kill "models" with Tank shock, but it is "impossible" to kill entire units, which means single model units cannot be removed as casualties as that would remove the entire unit, which is "impossible". Did I read that right?

-

Necronmaniac05 wrote:GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'.

If only there were some supplementary document in which they could clarify the rules that they have written, which amazingly enough as a paying customer I do expect to be clear and concise. If only there was such an arcane tome of words in which the writers could make clear any confusion that their player base may run into. If only such a document existed.

 Galef wrote:
So this is confusing:

Spoiler:

"Q: How does Tank Shock work when you stop on a unit? The rules state that the models ‘must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance’ – but what does this mean? The shortest distance that allows you to be in unit coherency? Or the shortest distance to just be out from under the vehicle, with models dying if not in unit coherency and at least 1" away from enemy units? What happens if a Gargantuan Creature or Monstrous Creature or any other non-vehicle unit gets Tank Shocked, but cannot move to another place in the shortest way? Are they destroyed or just moved further away?

A: Pick up only those models actively displaced by the Tank Shock, and place them on the battlefield with all models within unit coherency, as close as possible to their starting location and with no models within 1" of an enemy unit. Any models that cannot be placed in this way will be removed as casualties. If the whole unit is displaced, it will be moved together as above, and because of this it is impossible to remove an entire unit from play with a Tank Shock, unless the unit is unable to move; units that have Gone to Ground return to normal immediately, as it counts as being forced to move."

So you can kill "models" with Tank shock, but it is "impossible" to kill entire units, which means single model units cannot be removed as casualties as that would remove the entire unit, which is "impossible". Did I read that right?

-

Yes, unless they are unable to move like the stormsurge with it's feet planted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:

SemperAlius wrote:
So it seems like Battle Brothers are allowed to deploy in Allied transports again? I don't see anything that would prevent them in this, and I figured it would be in the Core FAQ?

BB's cannot. It's in there. The only way to deploy in a transport from a different detachment is if you share the same faction (i.e. SM's can cross deploy in faction pods but SW's can't deploy in SM pods).

It is important to note in this example that SM's that share the same chapter tactics can. Ultramarines could not deploy in an Iron Hand drop pod anymore than the Space Wolves can.

 stonehorse wrote:

Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"

So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.

RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags

The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'

Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.

Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,

No.

Exactly as if it were an independent character. Imagine an independent character... You can join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if you were him (or her).

Anything else is added by imagination.

RAW, RAI and common sense all agree.

We have a specific rule in the Tyranid codex allowing a hive tyrant to join Tyrant guard.
We have a blanket rule in the FAQ dissallowing MC IC from joining units.
This is a case of specific overriding nonspecific. Read as written, we are told to follow the Tranid codex over the FAQ.
This is irrefutable evidence of both the RAW argument and the RAI argument, as well as a clear statement of how the rule should be played.
At the risk of Ad Hominem, if you believe otherwise, you may be the problem.
Remember to play by the rules; All of them. Includung the ones that tells us in cases of specific conflicts, codex overrides BRB and FAQ.
You are delivered children.




XD

ERJAK wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.

And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?

Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.

Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 Tamereth wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.

And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?

Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.

Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If my enemy is a Tervigon or a Dreadnought, yes, because he smashes through the wall. That or a Jump Pack Marine who jumps the wall.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
The grenades thing doesn't make sense when some units pay for grenades' per model.

And walking through solid walls in ruins. WTF, I just can't process that level of stupidity. Why did they change that from the draft?

Trying to play with solid walls is hugely inconvienient, easily exploitable, and leads to rules arguments about what the word 'solid' means.

Think of it this way. If your sat in a ruin with a solid wall between you and your enemy they can't shoot you, because the wall is blocking line of sight (and the game does still use true line of sight). Your enemy can however magically appear through the wall and assault you. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If my enemy is a Tervigon or a Dreadnought, yes, because he smashes through the wall. That or a Jump Pack Marine who jumps the wall.

Or as was mentioned in the past, they bust their way in with grenades or weapons. Its an abstraction - best to accept it and move on.
After having played it both ways, I can firmly state that it was not a good decision to not allow movement through walls. It only made ranged armiesstronger - the opposite of what needs to happen.

 insaniak wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I'm pleased that the FAQs seem to have been positively received on the whole, however this discussion around Hive Tyrants not being able to join tyrant guard is a classic example of why we, as players, need to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of the game. GW must read discussions like this and hold their heads in their hands whilst repeatedly saying 'do we REALLY have to spell that out explicitly in the rules?!'. The bottom line is, in a game as complicated as Warhammer 40,000 it is simply not possible for rules writers to address every single possible specific interaction. A degree of common sense is ALWAYS going to be required and suggesting that Hive Tyrants can now no longer join a unit that in both the fluff and in the rules (the shieldwall rule specifically says 'A hive Tyrant CAN JOIN A UNIT OF TYRANT GUARD...') is simply not using common sense regardless of how you want to read the rules.

Magic the Gathering currently includes more than sixteen thousand cards. Rules issues are plugged as they arise, and it is extremely uncommon for a rules debate to crop up mid-game that can't be resolved just by looking at the specific wording of the rules involved.

The 'It's a complicated game' defense doesn't actually hold any water, and never has.

And yes, players expect GW's rules writers to spell out exactly how the rules work. That's, you know, kind of their job.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Wich is completly true, but by this logic, a MC who's several time larger then a foot soldier, even if it would "kneel" or "try" to hide, it still be pretty darn visible, like a NBA player trying to hide behind a trafic pole, i'd be hilarious to see, but not effective in the sligthest.

Being big doesn't make it impossible for something to hide behind other things that are also big.

MTG is one of the best tabletop games ever created, and it's maintained and produced by a real game company (as opposed to a modelling company). I also spend much more on MTG than I do on GW. The clear and concise rules writing is one of my favorite parts in the game. It's a good (albeit extreme) example of how things could be done.

GW has historically been at the opposite end of the spectrum (no contact with community, bad or nonexistent FAQs and rulings, weak or nonexistent tournament circuit, bad or outright laughable rules writing) but it seems like it's slowly getting better.

A FAQ should never be final. How would they know that no more issues will arise?

Vorian wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Vorian wrote:It says "as if it were an IC", not "as if you add the IC rule"

So you don't have to consider anything to do with being a MCIC.

RAW does not stop the explicit permission granted even if people want to be RAW douchebags

The full wording of that sentence is important, not just a little bit. It says 'A single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.'

Exactly, which means we follow all the rules for Independent Character, including all restrictions, nowhere does it replace or remove the MC unit type, or even say to ignore it. So it still stands. The FAQ is very clear on Monstrous Creatures that are also Independent Characters, they can't join units.

Sorry to sound like TFG, but this is the sort of thing that they will pull during games, so it is best to bring this to people's attention. Then again, we all know that Hive Tyrants on the ground are a very rare thing, so it could amount to nothing. I know I field mine as such, so the additional wounds the Tyrant Guard are quite important. It may seem odd that I am defending a rule that has a negeative effect upon my chosen army, I just believe in fair play,

Anything else is added by imagination.

RAW, RAI and common sense all agree.

I need to tell my group that Hive Tyrants aren't MC's. I can't believe we all missed that.

Who said anything about what a Tyrant is?

He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.

Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.

Vorian wrote:
Who said anything about what a Tyrant is?

He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.

Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.

One of the rules for Independent Characters is that they can't join units if they are MCs. Nothing about pretending that the Tyrant is an IC changes the fact that he is an MC.

If I pretend that my blue car is red, it's still a car as well as being 'red'.

But the rule doesn't say as if he were a MCIC. It says IC.

If the rule said MCIC then you'd have a point. It doesn't.

It comes back to my original point, it's not adding IC to the Tyrant, You are treating him as if he were an IC (without any imagined additions to that sentence).

Vorian wrote:
But the rule doesn't say as if he were a MCIC. It says IC.

If the rule said MCIC then you'd have a point. It doesn't.

It comes back to my original point, it's not adding IC to the Tyrant, You are treating him as if he were an IC (without any imagined additions to that sentence).

If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an IC, then it is a Monstrous Creature that is an IC.

There is nothing inherent in the requirement to treat him as an IC that would remove any other rules that he already possesses.

Nope, you're talking about him gaining the IC rule, that's not what it says.

He just joins the unit as if he were an IC.

If it helps you to imagine it - Take that Tyrant off the board and replace him with an IC, join it to the unit, then swap back for the Tyrant.

Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"

Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?