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.

For reference, the Ravenwing Strike Force in the new DA codex allows only HQ units with the Ravenwing special rule to be taken. Despite having 3 HQ slots (and allowing a re-roll for the warlord trait), only one HQ choice has the Ravenwing special rule; Sammael on jetbike or Sabreclaw, only one of which may be taken.

Most people are allowing other bike-mounted HQ units to be taken in the strike force, but I was wondering how people are fixing this as there are several ways to do so.

Also, as an additional point. Are you making Sammael a compulsory addition to the strike force? (i.e. Other bike-mounted characters are allowed, but Sammael must be taken and must be your warlord).

For me, I am generally replacing the Deathwing rule with the Ravenwing rule and allowing bike-mounted Chaplains, Librarians and Techmarines.

My thought is that they get the Ravenwing rule.
I said to not replace Deathwing but instead of both rules I'd give Biker characters Ravenwing, Fearless and Hatred (Chaos Space Marines) like Sammael. Same effect crunch-wise but this means it's not saying that this particular character is somehow in both the First AND Second Companies at the same time.

I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue? Is it points related? Do you not like the character or models he uses?

Thanks

SG

^They might want multiple HQs or like the other HQs.
But Sammael is definitely expensive.

ServiceGames wrote:
I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue?

The issue is that it's a detachment that allows 3 HQ choices, but also restricts you to just Sammael as an HQ choice.

People find this incongruous.

I'll wait till a FAQ is released.

I will wait until FAQ for my part.
Right now, I'm running Sammael as my HQ for Strike Force, and I run my other dude in a terminator Redemption force (libby of chaplain in termi armor)

If it ever get FAQ, I might run Chaplain on bike.

Curently I have Sammy on Sableclaw. Then again mostly because you can make Sableclaw out of the Dark Angels Battleforce box that I already wanted for Black Knights and an Attack Bike.

ServiceGames wrote:
I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue? Is it points related? Do you not like the character or models he uses?

Thanks

SG

There is no issue with using Sammael. I love the model and I quite like his rules too, a very solid character.

The issue with the rules at the moment is that technically Sammael is the only character allowed in the Ravenwing strike force formation. This is a problem is you want to run an all Ravenwing army and wish to include any other characters in it to add a bit more variety to your games.

DaPino wrote:
I'll wait till a FAQ is released.

Okay, don't hold your breath while waiting. Next FAQs come out maybe in 2017, quite likely later.

>>implying GW does FAQ's...

my sides...they hurt

GW hasn't released an FAQ in 10 months.

 Vaktathi wrote:
>>implying GW does FAQ's...

my sides...they hurt

GW hasn't released an FAQ in 10 months.

This.

I suppose there is a possibility of there being more RW characters being produced, but I am not counting on it. As it stands, there is only one character that can be run in the RWSF. At least he is a good one.

Apparently there are rumors that they're working on an FAQ (for the record, apparently the solutions is that they don't get the Ravenwing rule but they're allowed in anyway) but I didn't get that from any reliable source (just one person claiming to have heard that back from a GW email) so it really could just be bunk, take that as you will. Honestly that seems worse than giving them the rule but anything's better than the unfillable slots.

I really am a bit steamed that anyone voted for the first option. I seriously hope those people are jerky. Yeah that's what the rule says, THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIX IT! Anyone who would seriously go "no, you have to stick with the strict RAW, you don't get to fix it ever!" is a detriment to the hobby, that's just a royally screwed way to approach it and an expression of the true essence of TFG.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Apparently there are rumors that they're working on an FAQ (for the record, apparently the solutions is that they don't get the Ravenwing rule but they're allowed in anyway) but I didn't get that from any reliable source (just one person claiming to have heard that back from a GW email) so it really could just be bunk, take that as you will. Honestly that seems worse than giving them the rule but anything's better than the unfillable slots.

I really am a bit steamed that anyone voted for the first option. I seriously hope those people are jerky. Yeah that's what the rule says, THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIX IT! Anyone who would seriously go "no, you have to stick with the strict RAW, you don't get to fix it ever!" is a detriment to the hobby, that's just a royally screwed way to approach it and an expression of the true essence of TFG.

I do get while some people might vote that way (I don't agree with it, but I get it). These are the rules as they are, you can house rule to fix them, but for tournaments/leagues or other competitions, you may just have to play the rules the way they are to keep things simpler or fairer. I'm sure there are lots of things in players armies they think are mistaken or should be fixed that others don't agree on.
A lot of groups modify 2+ re-rollable saves so that you have some chance to harm these units, while others think this should stand as it is obviously allowed within the rules.

This, however, IMO is an error which is quite obvious given the set up of the formation and rules it comes with, but then again, I play Ravenwing and want to field an all Ravenwing army a lot of the time.

...The Tourneys can house-rule too, and they often do, that's the whole point of those tournament FAQ packs.

I really am a bit steamed that anyone voted for the first option. I seriously hope those people are jerky. Yeah that's what the rule says, THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIX IT! Anyone who would seriously go "no, you have to stick with the strict RAW, you don't get to fix it ever!" is a detriment to the hobby, that's just a royally screwed way to approach it and an expression of the true essence of TFG

Ok well for my part, I answer the first option simply because: we don't know what the mistake was. Everybody seem to take for granted that the RSF should allowed HQ other than Sammy. But maybe the mistake was to actually create 3 slot and include the re-rolling of warlord trait (you know, copy pasting this portion because it's include in every detachment).

So ya, I prefer to follow the rule, because the rule don't need ''FIXING''. If you want a Librarian on a bike to lead your strikeforce, well run it unboud like I do. You will only lose the Turbo Boost jink thing, which I didn't have to use so far because Scout + Dawn of War deployment put me in rapid fire range turn 1 anyway (so I can jink, snap shoot + charge turn 2, effectively gaining an extra snapshooting compared to using the turboboost + jink rule)

We do know, the diagram also makes it clear, that's how all the detachments/Formations are like and so on. It absolutely DOES need fixing and I'm utterly revolted that you'd force someone to not fix broken rules.

I had actually expected a Ravenwing supplement to be released shortly afterwards that filled the gap, but nothing has materialized... which seems to confirm that this is just a mistake by GW.

The most conservative fix we can apply is that bike-mounted characters are allowed, but do not gain the Ravenwing rule. Beyond that, we can only speculate as to what GW's intention was.

Samael doesn't have the Deathwing rule, so there isn't a rules precedent for these characters to necissarily have it. But there is rules precedece for Company masters and librarians to all have the Deathwing rule. From a fluff perspective, it's possible that a Company Master might have served in Ravenwing at some point before moving on to the 1st company, but I'm not sure why a member of the Librarius would serve in Ravenwing - more likely, they would be attached to Ravenwing on a temporary basis if they needed some psychic oomph. So from a fluff perspective, I could see how you could justify a Company Master having Ravenwing, but not librarians.

From a fluff perspective, Chaplains are an interesting question - Ravenwing would have a chaplain, and he would certainly have the same training (and would NOT have the Deathwing rule, only Interogattor Chaplains have that).

 DanielBeaver wrote:
The most conservative fix we can apply is that bike-mounted characters are allowed, but do not gain the Ravenwing rule.

For the record there seems to be a rumor circulating that they've given this answer to emailing people and are planning to FAQ it this way.
I'd prefer if they DID get Ravenwing but this works and solves the problem.

We do know, the diagram also makes it clear,

How do you know that the diagram is correct? You jsut assume that the diagram and the re-roll trait are exact, hence why you think more HQ should have Ravenwing special rule or at least be taken in that detachment.

Just to be clear, I think that too, but there is NO way of knowing where the mistake lie, until they fix it or come forward and tell us what the mistak is. So Unless 1 of those thing have happen, we do NOT know.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:
The most conservative fix we can apply is that bike-mounted characters are allowed, but do not gain the Ravenwing rule.

For the record there seems to be a rumor circulating that they've given this answer to emailing people and are planning to FAQ it this way.
I'd prefer if they DID get Ravenwing but this works and solves the problem.

I emailed them about this. The answer I got back was basically: Thanks for your email, your thoughts have been passed on, but we don't reply to rules queries.

If you ignore bias and rules lawering, just take the book to local gw or flgs and show it to people, see what they think and go with the consensus, everyone I've been to thus far has just given the bike hq's ravenwing, so that's hiwpi.

PandaHero wrote:How do you know that the diagram is correct? You jsut assume that the diagram and the re-roll trait are exact, hence why you think more HQ should have Ravenwing special rule or at least be taken in that detachment.

Because that's something you don't just typo. Forgetting to tack on a rule to an item/upgrade or put an addendum is really easy to typo, and even miss when proofreading.

PandaHero wrote:
Just to be clear, I think that too, but there is NO way of knowing where the mistake lie, until they fix it or come forward and tell us what the mistak is. So Unless 1 of those thing have happen, we do NOT know.

There is absolutely a way of knowing, it's called using your bloody brain and having common sense, refusing to do these things is more harmful to the hobby than anything GW could do because as long as you don't even the tiniest hurdle is insurmountable and as long as you do almost anything can ultimately be fixed given enough thought. Do you honestly think being all like "Well that's what the rule says, we aren't allowed to fix it her derp!" is in any way beneficial to anyone at all?

corrm wrote:I emailed them about this. The answer I got back was basically: Thanks for your email, your thoughts have been passed on, but we don't reply to rules queries.

Not surprised, really.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

PandaHero wrote:How do you know that the diagram is correct? You jsut assume that the diagram and the re-roll trait are exact, hence why you think more HQ should have Ravenwing special rule or at least be taken in that detachment.

Because that's something you don't just typo. Forgetting to tack on a rule to an item/upgrade or put an addendum is really easy to typo, and even miss when proofreading.

PandaHero wrote:
Just to be clear, I think that too, but there is NO way of knowing where the mistake lie, until they fix it or come forward and tell us what the mistak is. So Unless 1 of those thing have happen, we do NOT know.

There is absolutely a way of knowing, it's called using your bloody brain and having common sense, refusing to do these things is more harmful to the hobby than anything GW could do because as long as you don't even the tiniest hurdle is insurmountable and as long as you do almost anything can ultimately be fixed given enough thought. Do you honestly think being all like "Well that's what the rule says, we aren't allowed to fix it her derp!" is in any way beneficial to anyone at all?

corrm wrote:I emailed them about this. The answer I got back was basically: Thanks for your email, your thoughts have been passed on, but we don't reply to rules queries.

Not surprised, really.

Hahahahahahahahhahaha......so so bloody true , have an exalt

 corrm wrote:
, but for tournaments/leagues or other competitions,

I've never even heard of a tournament that wasn't using massive amounts of house rules.

ITC currently rewrites entire sections of the rules.

BAO, which just happened, declared legal army construction illegal, and illegal ones legal, not as a specific case, but to shape the entire scene.

There is absolutely a way of knowing, it's called using your bloody brain and having common sense, refusing to do these things is more harmful to the hobby than anything GW could do because as long as you don't even the tiniest hurdle is insurmountable and as long as you do almost anything can ultimately be fixed given enough thought. Do you honestly think being all like "Well that's what the rule says, we aren't allowed to fix it her derp!" is in any way beneficial to anyone at all?

I'm sorry I expressed my opinion, as requested per the thread, and became toxic to your community of 40k players/forum poster. I do use my bloody brain, and I see no reason to hurry up and re-write an entry of the codex when it does not impact negatively on the game itself. Can you 'not bring a Librarian or Chaplain on biike' ? yes you can. Does following the current rule as written does give you a big enough advantage or disadvantage? not it does not. Do I think it need absolute fixing right now? I do not think. Do I deserve to get bashed on in a thread that ask me to express my opinion on the matter? No I don't think so.

If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and you tell me or I see you playing your chaplain on bike as a leader of your ravenwing force, I would say: ''yes I see you have a chaplain. Hopefully we will see a FAQ right? haha. I personally don't do it, but I guess it's ok for now.''
If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and ask me how do I (you know, the question asked in the thread) play the Ravenwing Strike Force, I would say: ''With Sammael or Sableclaw until it's fix. Until then, I play unbound when I want to bring the Chaplain, because it's not really a big disavantage. Btw, you want a beer?''

Hopefully in the future, we will have a FAQ, and hopefully, you will be more receptive to people opinion when they are ask to provide one. Cheers and enjoy 40k the way you like it!

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Do you honestly think being all like "Well that's what the rule says, we aren't allowed to fix it her derp!" is in any way beneficial to anyone at all?

There's your disconnect right there, though. You're seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed. Others are seeing it as an oversight that just isn't a big deal. We've had armies before that only had access to a single HQ choice, while having more than one slot open for HQ, and that's been entirely deliberate on GW's part.

You're assuming that you're supposed to be able to take other characters in a Ravenwing force because the FOC has extra slots.
Others are assuming that you're supposed to be limited to Sammael because characters in a Ravenwing force have to have the Ravenwing rule.


Neither of those assumption is any more 'toxic' than the other. What is 'toxic' is insulting others because they don't interpret a perceived issue with the rules in the same way that you do.

Nobody is saying that you're not allowed to 'fix' the rules to suit yourself. They're just giving an opinion as to how they think this should work, because that was what was asked for.

 insaniak wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Do you honestly think being all like "Well that's what the rule says, we aren't allowed to fix it her derp!" is in any way beneficial to anyone at all?

There's your disconnect right there, though. You're seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed. Others are seeing it as an oversight that just isn't a big deal. We've had armies before that only had access to a single HQ choice, while having more than one slot open for HQ, and that's been entirely deliberate on GW's part.

You're assuming that you're supposed to be able to take other characters in a Ravenwing force because the FOC has extra slots.
Others are assuming that you're supposed to be limited to Sammael because characters in a Ravenwing force have to have the Ravenwing rule.


Neither of those assumption is any more 'toxic' than the other. What is 'toxic' is insulting others because they don't interpret a perceived issue with the rules in the same way that you do.

Nobody is saying that you're not allowed to 'fix' the rules to suit yourself. They're just giving an opinion as to how they think this should work, because that was what was asked for.

I understand his annoyance, he wants the issue to be gone and sorted, but for whatever reason there are some people out there who shrug there shoulders and can't be arsed, or simply don't care, and that is toxic to the game, as those people should WANT a ruleset that doesn't have these issues, but sadly it's not really their fault, it's GW's, they just don't want to do anything about it, even as simple as something like this, gw are far too lazy to put out a very simple faq, and thus arguments like this crop up, and that IS toxic.

 corrm wrote:

ServiceGames wrote:
I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue? Is it points related? Do you not like the character or models he uses?

Thanks

SG

There is no issue with using Sammael. I love the model and I quite like his rules too, a very solid character.

The issue with the rules at the moment is that technically Sammael is the only character allowed in the Ravenwing strike force formation. This is a problem is you want to run an all Ravenwing army and wish to include any other characters in it to add a bit more variety to your games.

Yeah I don't really get the Sammael hate in general. He's pretty nasty for his points, with the plasma cannon and AP2 sword (at iniative) on the jetbike. His only downside is 4++ instead of 3++ but I find my smashfether tends to loose more wounds from shooting (which is pointless against Sam with his 2+ rerollable jink) than combat.

PandaHero wrote:I'm sorry I expressed my opinion

-Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1

PandaHero wrote:I do use my bloody brain, and I see no reason to hurry up and re-write an entry of the codex when it does not impact negatively on the game itself.

Clearly you don't, because it DOES negatively impact the game by taking a way an option that's clearly supposed to be there and should be there.

PandaHero wrote:Do I deserve to get bashed on in a thread that ask me to express my opinion on the matter? No I don't think so.

Incorrect again, the toxic attitude of preventing rules from getting fixed, shutting down fixes and refusing to use common sense must be called out.

PandaHero wrote:Hopefully in the future, we will have a FAQ, and hopefully, you will be more receptive to people opinion when they are ask to provide one.

I am receptive to opinions.
I am not however receptive to willful ignorance, lacking common sense or refusing to use it and other such things because they're toxic to the hobby.
If you're a RAW-hound who refuses to let the rules get changed because the rules are the rules and/or you lack or refuse to use common sense then everything is basically doomed as even the smallest rules mistake or misunderstanding will be insurmountable.
However if you're not, pretty much everything can be solved with enough thought and a lot of the time it won't even take much, plus some things might not even BE a problem to start with when they otherwise would've been!

insaniak wrote:You're seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Because it is

insaniak wrote:Others are seeing it as an oversight that just isn't a big deal.

Yes I know some people are completely wrong about this, baffling when it's this obvious but I've repeatedly run into them over the past few days and I'm hardly the type to deny what's in front of my eyes in plain view (unlike those who reject a blatantly clear intention because of insane conspiracy nonsense or an agenda).

insaniak wrote:You're assuming that you're supposed to be able to take other characters in a Ravenwing force because the FOC has extra slots.

No, I know that because it's blatantly obvious.
Look at it this way:
Giving the wrong number of slots, putting together a completely incorrect diagram (which would take more effort than just typing up a few words, in which case there'd be no doubt that if it weren't intended to be this way it wouldn't be this way) AND stuffing in a completely useless and irrelevant tidbit? When this would be the ONLY Formation set up this special particular way? No, just doesn't happen, not even for GW. They might bugger up spectacularly sometimes but even they have their limits, don't let your hatred blind you.
HOWEVER, missing out a rule on an upgrade/piece of equipment or forgetting a tidbit on a rule? Happens to the best of the best, very very easily. When it's in the midst of a whole load of complicated stuff, you're not the best rules writers around and it's basically legalese to turn the "spirit of the law" into the "letter of the law" and might not really stand out if you know the meaning AND the meaning is still communicated? Well, no wonder it happened, shame they didn't catch it and are taking their sweet time to fix it.

insaniak wrote:Neither of those assumption is any more 'toxic' than the other.

Actually refusing to use common sense, refusing to fix an issue/refusing to recognize a blatant issue and expecting people to just suck it up is EXTREMELY toxic.
More than even GW's rules screwups. Those at least can be fixed or worked around most of the time, this basically kills any game dead. It makes molehills into Mount Doom as even the most blatant problems with the most blatant solutions can't be fixed and even a game without issues becomes a headache as common sense is thrown out of the window.
Probably one of the most dangerous things to the hobby overall, right up there with WAAC TFG antics. Even then, at least there are some circumstances where wanting to win at all costs is considered legit and that won't be an issue if there's no cheating and both players are in on it. There is simply never a time to give up common sense, the ability to USE reason and common sense to fix things, fudge things and make exceptions as necessary is key to miniature wargaming and tabletop games and one of the big draws for them over video games and throwing it out is anathema to the very core of the hobby.

insaniak wrote:What is 'toxic' is insulting others because they don't interpret a perceived issue with the rules in the same way that you do.

Yeah, which is why I've been nothing but accepting towards those saying they should be let in without Ravenwing when I'd prefer they got Ravenwing (fluffier and it seems bad to have them with gimped Jinking compared to generic bikers).
Calling someone out on BS like refusing to fix an issue and standing in the way of it getting fixed is going against far more than just interpreting something differently, it's going against someone interpreting it wrong, refusing to interpret it or so on.

insaniak wrote:Nobody is saying that you're not allowed to 'fix' the rules to suit yourself.

Those picking the first option certainly are...

insaniak wrote:They're just giving an opinion as to how they think this should work, because that was what was asked for.

Those picking the second, third or fourth options certainly are...