i was playing a game against tyranid and he was running with the red terror and assulting after.....but i can't find any info saying he has "fleet of claw" USR..

i understand he is a mostrous creature and has "relentless"(move,shoot,assult) rule but can he substitue his shooting(he NO shooting weapons) for a run and assult after????i think not.????this is FLEET???

To the best of my knowledge Red Terror isn't in the latest codex so I figure one of three things has happened.

He is still using the old 3rd edition codex, which first off is an invalid codex given that a new one has been released, but also does not entitle Red Terror to fleet, and while he can move and assault 9" if he chose to run he could not assault.

He is using the old Red Terror rules but has manually updated them to reflect the modern ravener profile, and instead of moving and assaulting 9" he is treating the movement like a beast as per modern raveners. All Beasts and Cavalry have fleet.

He was using the Red Terror model to simply represent a normal Ravener from the currect rulebook rather than actually using the Red Terror profile at all.

The Red Terror is from the 4th edition Tyranid codex and therefore there will be some rules inconsistencies.

BTW, he did ask your permission to field him first? The Red Terror requires the opponent's permission to be fielded.

no he didn't ask...i looked in his online profile, and it just says that the game must be 1500pts or more....

If it's not in the codex, it requires your opponent's permission. That's doubly so since his online page was written for 4th edition, not 5th.

Actually Ghaz, I think it was written for3rd. the current codex came out for 4th.

No. The Red Terror was in the 3rd edition codex. It was written (or at least released) for 4th edition because everyone complained that they lost their special characters with the current codex.

I tend to agree with Ghaz that even if the online stuff doesn't say "ask your opponents permission" as it is content that is not within the errata or the codex it requires an agreement.

Looking at these rules which I was not aware of it seems he does not have fleet and therefore cannot assault after running, once again, it was probably confusion since normal raveners now do have fleet on your opponents part.

Just want to point out (yet another) misconseption about opponents permission only.

-clears throat-

THE WHOLE BLOODY GAME IS OPPONENTS PERMISSION ONLY!

That is all.

There is a difference between agreeing to a game and agreeing to use an out of date unit that's not in your opponent's codex.

Look you both make a valid point. Be good sports is what it comes down to. Ask if you can field old special characters before you drop them in the game and just agree on the general stuff before the game starts and then if something comes up dont go off and complaine about it. Man up and take the higher road.

Ok just to clear up being a long time nid player, chapter approved 2004 states that the tyranid "special" monstrous creatures are not special characters and therefore do not need opponents permission, Tyranid Q&A, page 98 first question. "Pertaining to old one eye and the red terror,the codex never refers to them as special characters, or even characters for that matter: Answer: Nope, they are tyranid monstrous creatures, you dont need your opponents permission to field them" Second, I sent a message a while back to GW asking if they can still be fielded in armies for a tournament type scenario, they replied that since they are not in the newest codex then technically no, but people have fielded them and there have been no reported problems. In this way I say wth, let him play with them, I mean every other race is getting mad rediculous characters that dont technically need permission, since most scenarios/lists allow/have them.

So what? They're not in the current codex, hence they need your opponent's permission. It's as simple as that. Or are you afraid that your opponent is going to say no? You're basing your entire answer on a Q&A from a five year old Chapter Approved book, from a different edition of the game and a totally different set of circumstances (they're talking about not needing your opponent's permission to use them because the codex they were in did not require it).

They do indeed require your opponent's permission.

Alright so by that logic, since Im normally not a fan of SP Char., then I would be perfectly within my rights to not accept every army that I play against if it uses spec Char., even in GT, and many people field them. I was simply quoting for the topic to answer one of the questions at hand, and if hes playing by those rules no he doesnt need permission. If you were following this edition to the letter he wouldnt be able to field them at all, without permission or not.

gameandwatch wrote:Alright so by that logic, since Im normally not a fan of SP Char., then I would be perfectly within my rights to not accept every army that I play against if it uses spec Char., even in GT, and many people field them. I was simply quoting for the topic to answer one of the questions at hand, and if hes playing by those rules no he doesnt need permission. If you were following this edition to the letter he wouldnt be able to field them at all, without permission or not.

You're logic is flawed, as the website itself said(when it was up) that those specific characters needed permission, IIRC.

which characters, the red terror? What website? References? New rulings?

As he said, the GW website. The ruling you're referring to is for the old codex which actually had the Red Terror and Old One Eye in the book and simply confirmed that they did not need your opponent's permission since all special characters at that time did.

Again, the reason they need your opponent's permission is because they're not in the codex. I have no idea what special characters have to do with anything being discussed.

Ghaz, you miss the point that if I decide I dont want to play your tyranids, nothing is stopping me from refusing, making "opponents permission only" utterly redundant.

No, he gets it. But it is a pedantic argument. The rules are the rules; of course you can decide you will not play at all, and you can decide you will not play by the rules.
But that is not the same thing as saying you will play, and play by the rules; so it makes it okay for me to break the rules by using a Red Terror.

Gwar! wrote:Ghaz, you miss the point that if I decide I dont want to play your tyranids, nothing is stopping me from refusing, making "opponents permission only" utterly redundant.

As has been pointed out, I get it. It's you who's missing the point. Agreeing to a game is not agreeing to a game using anything your opponent wants to throw into his army list that he found on the internet, etc.

Not that some people won't try to pull that BS anyway. About four years back I had a friend who played FB and complained about how completely and utterly broken Lizardmen were, and absolutely no fun to play against.

Turns out his oppenent was using some homebrew army book he'd gotten off a forum somewhere, 'but it'd been made by the GW designers and so was totally legit!!' and convinced my friend it was totally allowable for him to use it, and he'd be a whiner if he refused.

ghaz, just to play devil's advocate for a minute.

There's nothing saying that you need to ask your opponents permission to use the Red Terror. The Red Terror rules say that you may use the Red Terror in a tyranid swarm above 1500 pts

There's no rule in the BRB that says he needs your permission.

Now I agree that the friendly thing to do is ask, but RAW there's nothing that says you have to ask.

And again, if it's not in the codex it requires your opponent's permission. What says that agreeing to a game means you can pull out anything from the internet that you want? RAW also doesn't say that agreeing to a game means you can use whatever you want either.

Raw doesnt say you have to agree to anything. You can decide "No I dont wanna play your 3 Monolith 1000 Point Necron army" even though the Necron coidex is "Legal"

Gwar! wrote:You can decide "No I dont wanna play your 3 Monolith 100 Point Necron army" even though the Necron coidex is "Legal"

Nice example of using an illegal list(it doesn't follow any FOC yet written) to attempt to beat home your extraneous point.

Seriously, Gwar, you're just being argumentative to be argumentative. Your entire argument is pedantic and irrelevant to every thread you've ranted about it. Why don't you try arguing logically for once?

I'm just saying where does it say if it's not in the codex you need your opponents permission?

40k being a permissive rules set you need a rule that says you can use a certain unit in an army. So you can't include a unit of space marines in a tyranid army.

But the rules for the red terror say it may be included in a tyranid swarm above 1500 pts. The rules permit this.

And where does it say that if it's not in the codex then it doesn't need your opponent's permission?

If it's not in the codex, it requires your opponent's permission because it is not a normal part of the army list. It's as simple as that. The rules do not say that it can be used without your opponent's permission.

The rules for the red terror mention nothing about your opponents permission. Thus I don't need your permission.

And how do you figure that? The rules don't say that I can't stomp on your miniatures and claim that I win automatically either, do they? No, but by your logic, it's perfectly fine. So once again, where do the rules say that I can use anything I happen to find on the internet without my opponet's permission?

Just for my own curiosity, where exactly are these rules for the Red Terror that everyone has found online? I can't find anything on GW's site besides the collector's models themselves.

And how do you figure that? The rules don't say that I can't stomp on your miniatures and claim that I win automatically either, do they? No, but by your logic, it's perfectly fine. So once again, where do the rules say that I can use anything I happen to find on the internet without my opponet's permission?

No by my logic it's not fine. The rules don't say that you can use anything you find on the internet without my opponents permission. I agree with you on that point. Pulling up someone's home brewed rules from a geocities site isn't legal.

What I'm saying is that the rules for the Red Terror, which are posted on a games workshop website, specifically say that the red terror may be used in tyranid swarms of 1500 pts or more.

I think this really sums things up.

Daggermaw wrote:The rules for the red terror mention nothing about your opponents permission. Thus I don't need your permission.

You should check out my website, I have rules there for some really cool stuff, and it also doesn't mention needing opponents permission.

The Red Terror rules are on a website, granted, a website of the company that makes the game; but that is *not* the same as being *part* of the game.
By that logic, I could use Red Terror in fantasy battles, or maybe LotR games. Or, use Nids and Eldar and Orks together....

I'm just saying where does it say if it's not in the codex you need your opponents permission?

It doesn't. but it says you can use the codex. Where does it say you can use things you find on the internet?

What I'm saying is that the rules for the Red Terror, which are posted on a games workshop website, specifically say that the red terror may be used in tyranid swarms of 1500 pts or more.

Fine. Now show me where it says that taking rules/models/whatever from a website, any website, is legal under the 40K rules.

You should check out my website, I have rules there for some really cool stuff, and it also doesn't mention needing opponents permission.

The Red Terror rules are on a website, granted, a website of the company that makes the game; but that is *not* the same as being *part* of the game.
By that logic, I could use Red Terror in fantasy battles, or maybe LotR games. Or, use Nids and Eldar and Orks together....

No you couldn't use the red terror or orks and nids together because there is no rule giving you permission to do so.

Fine. Now show me where it says that taking rules/models/whatever from a website, any website, is legal under the 40K rules.

It doesn't say it anywhere, but people seem to take FAQs and errata which are published exclusively online as legal changes to the rules.

The Blood Angels codex is online. Is that not legal then? Are they not part of the game? Or do I need my opponents permission to use the BA codex to play them?

Ghaz wrote:And how do you figure that? The rules don't say that I can't stomp on your miniatures and claim that I win automatically either, do they? No, but by your logic, it's perfectly fine. So once again, where do the rules say that I can use anything I happen to find on the internet without my opponet's permission?

It is perfectly fine, however thats also criminal damage, and I think the local ploice will love to have a word with you.

@Platuan4th: That was meant to be 1000 points. If you feel my argument is invalid, please present your evidence as to why that is. You say it is pedantic, I say its mearly being consice.

@Bookwrak: That is exactly my point. The entire game is permission only!

@Daggermaw: Yes you do need your opponents permission, just as I need my opponents permission to play my Space Wolves, or my Orks, or a Necron Army I borrowed 10 mins ago etc etc

Yeah, gawrl, your whole argument that the whole game is permission based is getting old. We all get it. We all get that you need your opponents permission to do anything.

Just like you need permission to do just about anything involving interacting with another human being. It's just that most times no one asks permission. I don't ask permission of someone on the street if I can ask them for directions. I don't ask permission when I want to give my gf a hug.

That's not the type of permission we're talking about, we're talking about what rules you NEED to ask your opponent to use.

If your opponent agrees to play you or argees to play in a tournanment there are certain rules you don't need to ask permission to use. That's what this debate is about.

Daggermaw wrote:
That's not the type of permission we're talking about, we're talking about what rules you NEED to ask your opponent to use.

That is my exact point. Everything NEEDS to be ok with your opponent, even if its just "We gonna use the rules in this book?" Even for pick up games.

Having something as "Opponents permission only" is overly redundant

frameshift wrote:Just for my own curiosity, where exactly are these rules for the Red Terror that everyone has found online? I can't find anything on GW's site besides the collector's models themselves.

Google Search

Having something as "Opponents permission only" is overly redundant

Not at all, especially in older codex, where this all stems from. Special charcters needed express permission from an opponent to be used.

If an opponent agrees to play your necrons they must be willing to accept all the rules that are in the codex. If they don't want you taking 3 monoliths they need your permission to limit the amount of monotliths.

Oh gee, what a revelation! I can use a search engine to look for material online? I never thought of that before.

That's great if I'm in Australia, I guess.

No it works all over the planet.

Funny enough, I can't get to the Oz GW page from that search listing that supopsedly has the red terror info on it.

So no, it doesn't.

really? where are you located?

Daggermaw wrote:

Having something as "Opponents permission only" is overly redundant

Not at all, especially in older codex, where this all stems from. Special charcters needed express permission from an opponent to be used.

If an opponent agrees to play your necrons they must be willing to accept all the rules that are in the codex. If they don't want you taking 3 monoliths they need your permission to limit the amount of monotliths.

Or they could just not play me and play someone else...

Also, Google ftw

That's true in friendly games, tournaments not so much.

Do you chuckleheads really believe I didn't try a google search with the input "site:http://www.games-workshop.com red terror rules "?

And I'm just in CA, I don't see any good reason why I can't access the Oz GW page. But I still can't find anything on the US GW page.

edit: I just want to see some rules for this beast ;_;

Sure I can, I just take the game loss.

Tourniments are also permission only, though this time it is you give permission to the tourniment orginisers to set whatever rules they want to use.

The oz site is down atm, and no the rules arnt on the GW US site.

Do you chuckleheads really believe I didn't try a google search with the input "site:http://www.games-workshop.com red terror rules "?

And I'm just in CA, I don't see any good reason why I can't access the Oz GW page. But I still can't find anything on the US GW page.

edit: I just want to see some rules for this beast ;_;

Hey sometimes you never know.

It's weird you can't access the page. Send me a PM with your email address and I'll try and send them over to you.

Sure I can, I just take the game loss.

Tourniments are also permission only, though this time it is you give permission to the tourniment orginisers to set whatever rules they want to use.

Or is it the tournament organizers that give you permission to play in it?

Daggermaw wrote:

Sure I can, I just take the game loss.

Tourniments are also permission only, though this time it is you give permission to the tourniment orginisers to set whatever rules they want to use.

Or is it the tournament organizers that give you permission to play in it?

You could say that

You could say that

So then you can't not play a game in a tournament as you most likely would be DQ'd and not given permission to play any other games.

Daggermaw wrote:

You could say that

So then you can't not play a game in a tournament as you most likely would be DQ'd and not given permission to play any other games.

Again if the TO wants to do that, so be it.

You must live in a strange world.

Daggermaw wrote:What I'm saying is that the rules for the Red Terror, which are posted on a games workshop website, specifically say that the red terror may be used in tyranid swarms of 1500 pts or more.

And how does 'may only be used in a 1,500 point game or greater' mean the same as 'may be used without your opponent's permission'? They don't mean the same thing. Sure you can only field the Red Terror in a 1,500 point game or greater, but only after you've gotten your opponent's permission to do so.

So once again, where does it say that you can use them without your opponent's permission? So far, you've not provided any support for your arguments.

Gwar! wrote:

Ghaz wrote:And how do you figure that? The rules don't say that I can't stomp on your miniatures and claim that I win automatically either, do they? No, but by your logic, it's perfectly fine. So once again, where do the rules say that I can use anything I happen to find on the internet without my opponet's permission?

It is perfectly fine, however thats also criminal damage, and I think the local ploice will love to have a word with you.

More proof you don't have a clue about what's being discussed here. The point is that agreeing to a game is not the same as agreeing to allow your opponent to use whatever he wants.

And how does 'may only be used in a 1,500 point game or greater' mean the same as 'may be used without your opponent's permission'? They don't mean the same thing. Sure you can only field the Red Terror in a 1,500 point game or greater, but only after you've gotten your opponent's permission to do so.

So once again, where does it say that you can use them without your opponent's permission? So far, you've not provided any support for your arguments.

Where does it say you can't use them without permission?

The necron special characters specifically say you need permission. These do not.

Here in YMTC, RAW is the basis for all arguments. I say that RAW there is nothing preventing me from using the red terror rules in my tyranid army.

-There is nothing in the BRB that specifically says that all the rules I use have to come from the actual printed codex.
-The rules for the Red Terror are published on a GW website, other rules published on the same website are considered viable ie. FAQs, errata, Blood Angels Codex.
-The rules for the Red Terror say I may use him in any tyranid swarm 1500 pts or more.

Why would I need to point somewhere that says I can use him, alot of people use FAQs, errata and codices.

If you told me that a certain part of the BRB was wrong but this thing you downloaded off the games workshop website corrects that I wouldn't tell "you show me where in the main rules it says this is ok"

And yet again, where does it say that you CAN use them without permission? GW's games are permissive. Unless they specifically allow something, then you can't do it. Since they don't say that you can use anything you find on the internet without opponent's permission, then you can not.

There is nothing in the BRB that specifically says that all the rules I use have to come from the actual printed codex.

Nor is there anything that says that you can either. Therefore with GW's permissive rules set, you can't.

The rules for the Red Terror are published on a GW website, other rules published on the same website are considered viable ie. FAQs, errata, Blood Angels Codex.

So what? That still does not mean you don't need your opponent's permission. Show us where they ever once say that because something is printed on their website you can pull it out on your opponent without their consent.

The rules for the Red Terror say I may use him in any tyranid swarm 1500 pts or more.

And yet again, just because the rules say that you must have a 1,500 point force to field the Red Terror does not mean that you don't need your opponent's permission. They're two totally unrelated statements. It does NOT give you permission to use him, just how he must be used if permitted. When it says he's a Fast Attack choice, does that give you permission to field him? No. This is no different.

So far, you've not shown us a single passage or rule from GW allowing you to use whatever you want when you agree to a game. None whatsoever. All you've done is give us meaningless drivel.

Ghaz by your logic, that even though it doesnt say you need your opponents permission (as redundant as that is) you still do, wouldnt that mean using the Dark Angels codex also requires special permission from the opponet? Please "Show us where they ever once say that because something is printed (in a codex) you can pull it out on your opponent without their consent."

And again, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves that there is a difference between agreeing to a game and agreeing to use something somebody pulled off of the internet? No ones questioning that the two people agreed to a game. It's what that agreement entails and that is the main rules and the codices ONLY. Even Forgeworld sees that as Warwick Kinrade recently posted in the foreward of Imperila Armour Apocalypse:

As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use and ignore at will. Want to play on a ruined city board using the City of Death rules variant? Fine. Want to play on a ruined city board without using the rules variants, just using the rules as published in the 40K rulebook? Also fine. The only thing that matters is that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that's the way they want to play the game. So is City of Deat official? You can't use it in a tournament! The Imperial Armour rules are just the same...

So what? That still does not mean you don't need your opponent's permission. Show us where they ever once say that because something is printed on their website you can pull it out on your opponent without their consent.

So by that logic I would need my opponents permission to use the FAQs and errata?

The erratas in the FAQs are official changes to the rulebook and codices. They are a part of the rulebook and codices. GW's current stance on the FAQs are indeed that both players agree to their usage.

So are you done trying to change the subject, or do you actually have something to back up your claims?

I'm not trying to change the subject.

It's obvious that we have two differing opinions as to what is official and not. Your opinion, correct me if i'm wrong, is that only printed material ie. the rule book and codices are official and that FAQs, Errata and any other rules found on the games workshop website are by permission only.

I am of the opinion that FAQs, Errata, codices, and rules found on the games workshop website are official.

Yes, you are trying to change the subject. You want everyone to believe you when you say that you can take whatever you want off of the internet just because you agreed to a game, yet you can't provide any evidence to support your claims.

As for your 'opinion' on the FAQs, if you were to read the preface to the FAQs, you would see that GW clearly states that the Erratas are official and the FAQs are not.

Boy ghaz you really are trying to put words in my mouth and are trying hard. Nowhere did I say one could take whatever they want off the internet, in fact I clearly said a few posts ago that you cannot pull something off a homebrewed website and use it. I'm merely saying that in my opinion and with no specific rules to prevent it, rules published on a games workshop website are legit.

I clearly listed my evidence to support my claims. In case you missed it here it is again.

-There is nothing in the BRB that specifically says that all the rules I use have to come from the actual printed codex.
-The rules for the Red Terror are published on a GW website, other rules published on the same website are considered viable ie. FAQs, errata, Blood Angels Codex.
-The rules for the Red Terror say I may use him in any tyranid swarm 1500 pts or more.

Ghaz wrote:So are you done trying to change the subject, or do you actually have something to back up your claims?

Do you? -Looks- I havent seen any from you tbh

But I'll have to reverse myself if GW says the FAQs aren't official then neither are the rules for the red terror.

Yes, you are saying you can take whatever you want off of the internet. You've not provided a single shred of evidence that you can take ANYTHING beyond the main rulebook and the codices simply by agreeing to a game with your opponent, yet you want us to believe that just because they're on GW's website that they can be used without your opponent's consent when GW themselves say that's not the case with their FAQs? Stop giving us your 'opinion' because it's worthless. Try backing up your position with actual FACTS because so far all of the tripe you posted does NOT support your claims.

There is nothing in the BRB that specifically says that all the rules I use have to come from the actual printed codex.

Again, it doesn't say that you can use wnatever you find on the internet without your opponent's permission either. Try reading "How To Have An Intelligent Rules Debate" to see why this position is so ludicrous as to be pitiful.

The rules for the Red Terror are published on a GW website, other rules published on the same website are considered viable ie. FAQs, errata, Blood Angels Codex.

And again, so what? Just being on GW's website does NOT mean you can use it without your opponent's consent. Where does it say that it does?

The rules for the Red Terror say I may use him in any tyranid swarm 1500 pts or more.

And again, HOW you use him is not the same as giving you permission.

Come back when you actually have some FACTS to support your position instead of avoiding it and posting the same drivel I've clearly shown does NOT provide you permission to field whatever you want just because you happened to find it on the internet. Until such time, I'm done wasting my time with your 'non-arguments' that don't support your claims.

I'm tired of your ad hominem remarks. I've already reversed myself by saying that if the FAQs aren't considered official then neither are the rules for the red terror.

wholly frickin firetruck......this is rediculous....

all in good fun though.....

got another question about the red terror.........

is swallowing whole considered instant death????or better than instant death????

Does the Red Terror have to painted red to be WYSIWYG?

Does it have to look terrifying?

Okay, first off, it is my OPINION that one should tell your opponent if you're using some special character from the website. Just as I would want to be told if my opponent was actually playing a variant Blood Angels chapter.

Based off of the wordings of the Red Terror entry, no opponent permission is needed. Do you need an opponent's permission to utilize something that has been errata'd? No. The Red Terror entry specifically states how it is to be used; in Tyranid armies of 1500+ points.

Ghaz, your "it's not in the rulebook argument" doesn't make sense. The errata are not in a rule book. The Blood Angels chapter is not in a rulebook (...okay, older editions are). By the way, why do you keep falling back on a "you say you can pull anything you want from anywhere on the interwebs" argument? Noone is saying that. We're saying that you can pull things, that say they can be used, from the game's official website.


Swallowing Whole is not Instant Death. If it was, it would have capitalized instant death somewhere in its description.

It doesn't have to be red, but it does have to be scary. Otherwise, Gav Thorpe creeps into your room at night and places a pube on
your tongue while you're asleep.

Edit- Okay, can't get to the Aussie site, but the rules here, http://www.borsoft.net/ilbastione/download/documenti/TheRedTerror.pdf, seem to look the same as I remember. Now based off the fact it says "These rules are no longer official, but there is no reason they can't be used in friendly games", I'd think you would need an opponent's permission. Since, according to this, they are not official.

I'm sorry, but GW has stated numerous times that only the main rulebook and the codices are official and EVERYTHING ELSE requires both opponent's permission. Do you have something that actually says otherwise?

And yes, the Blood Angels are an online CODEX. It is indeed official. It is a codex.

Right. In case anyone is interested in what the rules are instead of shouting back and forth about precendents, those are on pages 86 and 87 of the rulebook. Some excerpts:

Page 86, "The army lists included in the Warhammer 40,000 Codex books specify the precise characteristics and abilities of each troop type, detail the maximum and minimum size of each unit and provide a points value for each model."

"Once [the players] have agreed to a points limit, the players will pick their forces. The best way to do this is to use the full army lists in the relevant Codex books for each army, but players just starting out can use any models that they have in their collection."

So, if the book says that the best way to play is to use the army lists and units in the codices, one might reasonably conclude that using a unit not in a codex would require permission above "Want to play a game?"

Or do we really need to keep discussing "Some random guy at the game store wouldn't let me use my favorite model and I moral support from the Internet."

Ghaz wrote:I'm sorry, but GW has stated numerous times that only the main rulebook and the codices are official and EVERYTHING ELSE requires both opponent's permission. Do you have something that actually says otherwise?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat1300034&categoryId=900006&aId=3400020
Apoc Datasheets?

Ghaz wrote:I'm sorry, but GW has stated numerous times that only the main rulebook and the codices are official and THE ENTIRE GAME requires both opponent's permission. Do you have something that actually says otherwise?

And yes, the Blood Angels are an online CODEX. It is indeed official. It is a codex.

Hey Ghaz, I fixed it for you!

you didn't fix anything, you are attempting to be a one-man viral internet spam.

Your argument is just and ridiculous and pedantic as it has always been.

That is like saying that when you play chess, using a queen is 'opponents permission'.
Or that a rook can move diagonally, 'with opponents permission'.

IOW, get over it.

Gwar! wrote:

Ghaz wrote:I'm sorry, but GW has stated numerous times that only the main rulebook and the codices are official and THE ENTIRE GAME requires both opponent's permission. Do you have something that actually says otherwise?

And yes, the Blood Angels are an online CODEX. It is indeed official. It is a codex.

Hey Ghaz, I fixed it for you!

Listen troll, how many times do we have to tell you that's not what's being asked here, so please try to keep on subject.

And davidson, what does the Apocalypse datasheets have to do with anything? The Apocalyse rules themselves are completely 'opponent's agreement' already.

They are GW online pdf's with additional rules for more units that do not require your opponents permission.

Not to mention, the Red Terror's latest rules are not from the 3rd ed codex but from PDF's released by GW CA after the 4th ed codex came out that included Old One Eye and a special lictor.

Yes, they DO require your opponents permission. It's for an Apocalypse game which by it's very nature means it requires your opponents permission. That's how Apocalypse games work.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, they DO require your opponents permission. It's for an Apocalypse game which by it's very nature means it requires your opponents permission. That's how Apocalypse games work.

Also, the Apocalypse book itself says that they would be putting more Datasheets both online and in WD for use with Apocalypse(in effect, shoehorning in their legality). Neither the BGB nor any Codex says the same about new Characters for use with any army.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, they DO require your opponents permission. It's for an Apocalypse game which by it's very nature means it requires your opponents permission. That's how Apocalypse games work.

And via an interesting feat of prestidigitation, Ghaz becomes Gwar.
A satisfying end for all.

Is the flame war over?

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:Is the flame war over?

NOTHING IS OVER!

[/Stallone]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

davidson wrote:They are GW online pdf's with additional rules for more units that do not require your opponents permission.

Not to mention, the Red Terror's latest rules are not from the 3rd ed codex but from PDF's released by GW CA after the 4th ed codex came out that included Old One Eye and a special lictor.

As I remember, the online rules for the special Lictor specifically stated that it needed your opponent's permission to use, whereas the online rules for the Red Terror and Old One Eye did not have such a rule.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

Ghaz wrote:Yes, they DO require your opponents permission. It's for an Apocalypse game which by it's very nature means it requires your opponents permission. That's how Apocalypse games work.

And via an interesting feat of prestidigitation, Ghaz becomes Gwar.
A satisfying end for all.

Good God, you're correct!

For a fellow dakkatite, I just rummaged in my pile of codices and White Dwarfs and pulled out the old tyranid codex.

The Red Terror: 104 pts:

Ws 6/ Bs - /S 5/ T 5/ W 3 / I 3/ A 5/ Ld 10/ Sv 3+

Armed with two sets of scything talons, the bonus attacks are already included.

It can deepstrike and is a monstrous creature.
If it hits with four or more of its attacks it the assault phase it can choose a model in base-to-base contact and swallow it hole. This causes instant death to the model
Models that can't be swallowed: models with strength and/or toughness value of 5 or more, Bikes and Calvary, and anything with an armour value ( dreadnoughts/tanks/grav-tanks.. etc).

Fast: The red terror moves 9" in the movement phase and can make an assault move of up to 9". When rolling for distance moved through difficult terrain add +3 to the highest roll. The red terror also rolls 3D6 for fall back and pursuit distances.

he seems somewhat over powered for 104 points

but i have to agree with ghaz mostly here, codex - official.
random PDF's from GW's site do not mean they are fine to use, hence why alot of tournies ban rhinox cav.
most of the time you will see it says you need permission to use that model / unit.

Gwar, dont even think of saying everything is permission only, thats really starting to piss everyone off now to the point there will soon be an angry mob.

quick example: you get matched against someone you dont want to fight in adept.
dont want to fight them? piss off then
thats something that does not require permission, you cannot turn down a fight.

I actually do see the point in apocalypse games of asking someone's permission to use something that isn't in the regular, official codex. Apoc is the place for custom things, and for me, anything that isn't in the codex is custom. But in this case, if the creature has official rules there shouldn't be a 'permission granted', right? It's an official entry with official rules, so how can you argue?

because its outdated
i wouldnt have a problem with someone using one (they look like gak though)

Well of course it's outdated, but so is the space wolves codex! Have you played against them lately? To me, outdated has very little to do with anything. GW has no idea how to keep things up and keep things consistent. If they can't release a new codex for every army at the beginning of the new edition, all bets are off.

I'm willing to wager that my friend Chris & I could write every codex (minus fluss), playtest every combination, and make initial rewrites in 6 months. That would be our full time job, but I think we could do it and have a solid foundation upon which to build a game system. And I say this because we've crunched the numbers and we want to send GW a letter and tell them to let us do that...

I would add though, in regards to the red terror, that it would have to be used according to the rules that are laid out with it (i.e. in games over 1,500, yadda yadda yadda).

by outdated i mean they have a new codex, which does not include the terror or old one eye.

I see what you mean now... I agree with you on that, but say it's an apoc game for example, would you require permission? I don't think I would as long as it's more recent than 2nd ed.

thanks
if we could pull things from an old dex i would be playing 2nd ED eldar


in a normal game it would, but apoc is a different story
allmost everything in apoc is custom as such rather than official.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I see what you mean now... I agree with you on that, but say it's an apoc game for example, would you require permission? I don't think I would as long as it's more recent than 2nd ed.

The Whole game is....

Ok I'll be good, I promise.

And yes I would agree with the "Official" codex being the latest one printed, otherwise I would use the 2nd ed SW codex.

Good point with eldar....

I really do think apoc is a different story. It's the home of custom stuff. My point is that I have no problem things that are no longer offical but haven't been replaced by anything else. If something has been replaced, too bad, you have to use the new stuff.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:But in this case, if the creature has official rules there shouldn't be a 'permission granted', right? It's an official entry with official rules, so how can you argue?

Because it's not in the main rulebook or a codex, that's why. The rules never give stuff found on their website the same level of officiality. Solkan already listed what the rulebook says, and it does not include the website.

Then why do we have custom apocalypse sheets for stuff people make up? Bear in mind the post that's right above yours... I don't know if I made it clear but everything I'm talking about is in regards to apoc games, not regular games. That's the reason I think it's different.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:Then why do we have custom apocalypse sheets for stuff people make up?

Because the Apocalypse book(page 63) says to go ahead and make custom sheets if you feel like it?

Yes, and page 2 of the BRB, under the heading THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!:

Page 2, BRB wrote:You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule').

So page 2 of the BRB says you can change or ignore whatever you want!

Edit: Spelling

So p63 and p2 should have a deathmatch then?

Ghaz wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:But in this case, if the creature has official rules there shouldn't be a 'permission granted', right? It's an official entry with official rules, so how can you argue?

Because it's not in the main rulebook or a codex, that's why. The rules never give stuff found on their website the same level of officiality. Solkan already listed what the rulebook says, and it does not include the website.

That would mean you dont think the BA codex is allowed either.

You are making alot of of made up "this is how it is" in this thread but not once have you backed up anything you written with a printed rule. If you want to prove something, show the rule. If there isnt a rule printed, it isnt there. There is nothing writting about asking premission to use red terror, so you dont have to. If people think stuff on the GW website isnt real rules and illegal they cant play vs. BA either. (there is nothing about asking for permission for them either, so you dont. If you belive they are official rules)

So if you want there to be a rule about "GW website rules" demanding permission, please show people what you are talking about instead of making it up. (Hint: you cant, since that rule isnt in print)

Well put.

-golf clap-

Modquisition on
Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. Several posters are violating the primary Dakka rule #1: Be polite.

This thread will be reviewed to see if displinary actions are required. In the interim, it is imperative that the posters in this thread return to civility or the thread will be closed and disciplinary action WILL be taken.

This will be the only general warning given.

This might be a bit off topic, but are regular users allowed to report things? There are a few other threads that are kind of beginning to look like this one.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:This might be a bit off topic, but are regular users allowed to report things? There are a few other threads that are kind of beginning to look like this one.

Yes. On the Right hand side of every post you should see a symbol. Clicking that and filling out the box will alert a Member of the Modqusition with l33t haxxor to come and Declare Exterminatus or Quarantine upon a Tainted Thread.

The Emperor Protects!

I see now... My connection is screwy as that doesn't appear on mine. Damned office network.

Note: Caps & Bold were used to emphasize the words for clarity. I'm not yelling.

Ok ... this thread has really gotten out of hand, I've found the "UNOFFICIAL RULES" Posted by Games-Workshop. And this is the First Sentence it says:

"THESE RULES AND BACKGROUND FOR THE RED TERROR ARE REPRINTED HERE FROM THE OLD TYRANID CODEX FOR YOUR USE. THESE RULES ARE NO LONGER OFFICIAL, BUT THERE IS NO REASON THEY CAN'T BE USED IN FRIENDLY GAMES OF WARHAMMER 40,000." -Games-Workshop 2006 Internet Red Terror Rules Reprint

So, that being said a Tyranid player with an army 1500+ "AND" approval from his/her opponent, in a FRIEDNLY game CAN use the Red Terror.

Now, to answer the other question the OP had. The Red Terror, moves 9" in the movement phase AND can assault 9". He is incredibly fast and an MC, also has Deep Strike and has a special attack. His movement is a special rule held only by the Red Terror, for as far as I know.

So if your opponent, was moving him 9" in movement and assualting you in 9" he was perfectly legal in following the characters rules. However, IF you did NOT agree to him using that model then yes HE DOES HAVE TO REMOVE IT.
Edit: He does not have fleet and can not exchange a shoot phase with movement, that is illegal. He can only move 9" in movement, stand for the shooting phase and then Assault 9", "if" a model is in range.

That is the is the simplest I can put it, with out trying to brow beat anyone with just how silly this thread "arguement" has become. Its supposed to be a fun game, if you want to use something that isn't in the current rules or is something off the net that may or may not come from Games-Workshop, ask your opponent. And if he says no, so be it, that's his right, and you should not be so reliant on one model to make your army work. He should only enhance it when he's there and not brake it when he's not.

Caps are not needed, you can use bold for emphasis.

Also, you can ask your opponent to remove any unit you do not want him to use. You can ask him to remove his Flyrant. You can ask him to remove his dakkafex.

he doesnt HAVE to do anything, even when using the Red Terror. You should, before any game of Warhammer 40k tell your opponent what the deal is:
Player 1: "Yo, I'm using the Tyranid Codex"
Player 2: "I'm playing Necrons!"
Player 1: "Ohh, I dont like playing Necrons, I'll pass"

or in the Case of the Red Terror:
Player 1: "Yo dude, I got my Tyranids here, but I'd like to use the Red Terror Rules from the 3rd Codex. That cool?
Player 2: "Ya thats cool buddy. Say, mind if I use the Kroot Merc List? I know its not an "Official Codex"...
Player 1: "Naw man thats cool."

Or of course it could be:
Player 1: "Yo dude, I got my Tyranids here, but I'd like to use the Red Terror Rules from the 3rd Codex. That cool?
Player 2: "Hmmm, I'd rather not mate. You mind if we just stick to whats in the Current Codex's?"
Player 1: "Ya sure no problems" or "No thats ok, I'll look for a different Opponent"

So, as Much as I hate to keep reiterating this, whether the red terror is "Official" or not has no bearing on if it can be used. Even in Tournaments, if the TO says you may, you may. If a TO or club wants to Ban Necrons, or anything Painted Blue, then they can.

Gwar that's quite simplified, but I understand what you're saying. And I agree, I think alot of the confusion was coming from the old 4th Edition rules where all special characters required permission to be fielded in an army list.

Now, since they're written in the codex as available at all times no matter what, that rule was pretty much obliterated. However, with the case of some Special characters being taken out due to story plot or whatever, then a model being used should be agreed upon if you're looking to play vanilla Warhammer 40k. Or like pg.2 of the BRB says make a house rule. Its simple and easy and really doesn't warrant this much discussion, honestly.

The reason I say your response is over simplified, is because normally when this comes up both players have already agreed to playing the game, now they're deciding what other variables are they going to or not going to use, ie. in this situation the Red Terror. If the Tyranid player asks and his opponent says I'd rather not, then guess what at that point you're right the Tyranid player can either pack up and go home (which to me seems a little childish, but that's my opinion) or he can say, thats cool and drive on with the rest of his army.

Well no, what I was describing was a Pick Up game at a local store say, where you just walk in and see who is there.

If it were a pre Arranged game, then yes, it would be silly, as the Tyranid Player Should have Asked the week before or whatever if it was all kosher.

But yeah, the whole concept of 40k is Opponents permission only, down to even using an official codex. Even back in 3rd/4th edition where special Characters were "opponents permission only".

If your opponent doesn't want to play you, for whatever reason, what are you really in all honesty gonna do about it?

I dunno
but last time I checked the gw site rules for old one eye and red terror (you might be able to find them if you search for them on the main uk or us sight, cuz i no you can find the erratas and stuff)

It clearly stated that you can use the rules for them (and the death leaper, if you so wished) as long as your opponent(s) say its not a problem.

Ive used them in the past and I cant honestly say any of the "special" nid characters are not overly powerful, in fact i would take a lictor instead of a leaper XD, I cant see y anyone wouldnt let them field it...

anyways thats all i no...

If you use army builder which I do because it is required to have a army print out for the tourn's. You can still field them under 5th edition rules but you have to find there special rules. If you have army builder then go to roster then go to roster options and check special characters. It really shouldn't make a difference if you ask me because how many nacron armies do you see with out a night bringer? It's a special character so is most of you chaplins.

the1_2blike wrote:If you use army builder which I do because it is required to have a army print out for the tourn's. You can still field them under 5th edition rules but you have to find there special rules. If you have army builder then go to roster then go to roster options and check special characters. It really shouldn't make a difference if you ask me because how many nacron armies do you see with out a night bringer? It's a special character so is most of you chaplins.

Did you really have to drag up a month old thread? And did you really have to bring it back up with such a badly written post that doesn't add to the discussion?

wow gwar, you dont need to diss his post just because he wanted to say somthing, and making comments about the quality isnt your concern.

if its not applicable to the discussion then ignore it, dont pound him cuz he said somthing he thought was important.

manners people.... manners

Just be careful you don't get into a habit of thread necromancy...

oh I have no conflict with not posting on super old forums, its just the way people post about people, I have concerns about

I have the same concerns as you... Being respectful doesn't change whether you're online, in person, over the phone, or anywhere else. I completely agree, but it's GWAR. Gwar is, well, a very 'special' one. Read through the forums and you'll see how he works. He's just trying to get people thinking and spark people to emotional outbursts. We need those people around to shake things up sometimes. Note the emphasis on sometimes, however.

My Mummy Says I am Very Speshul!

You bet you are... And don't let anyone tell you differently!

Locking this thread as it is over a month old and none of the recent posts have added anything new to the discussion.

Please do not post in threads in the YMDC forum that are more than a few weeks old unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation that has not already been discussed in the thread.

Locking now. . .