Alright, I think I've spotted yet another issue with the Valkyrie. Hopefully you guys can explain why I'm wrong here. I didn't see this in any of the other Valk topics, nor did I find it when I scanned through the archives for a few pages. The search function doesn't wanna know at all.

OK, first of all the Valkyrie can carry twelve models. It makes no mention as to size nor does it mention Terminator suits, only Ogryns.

Next, no where in the Daemonhunters Codex could I find a mention that Grey Knight Terminators always take up two places on a transport. It says they take up two in a Land Raider, yes, but I can't find anywhere where it says this is always the case...only when on a Land Raider.

Finally, in a last desperate bid, I checked the big book. It specifically mentions that Space Marine Terminators take up two spaces on transports...but nothing about either Grey Knight or Chaos Marine ones.

So, as far as I can spot, there's no reason (other than stupid points cost) why you couldn't have a full squad of Terminators in a Valkyrie...assuming you can get the buggers on board which is a whole other can of worms.

Am I missing something here due to the hideous lack of sleep I'm currently experiencing?

Old news.

The RaW is Crystal clear. You can stick 12 Grey Knights Terminators into it.

Enjoy

...why am I not shocked? Ah well.

But as with most easter egg finds, good luck finding an opponent or TO who'll let you.

sourclams wrote:But as with most easter egg finds, good luck finding an opponent or TO who'll let you.

I would, because the rules let you. -Shrug- You're paying the points (and it is a lot of Points, for 10 GK Terminators with NFW, Storm Bolters and One Incinerator with an Attached Grey Knights Grandmaster with NFW and Psycannon with Valk is 765 points) for a very situational sub par unit and using it in a way that is 100% Legal by the letter of the rules. Why would I be annoyed?

Oh, I have no intention of doing it. For a start I only have five Grey Knights and no Valk...until I have some idea how to use them I won't touch the damned things. I just noticed it and thought, 'What, another rule problem with the damned thing? You gotta be kidding me.'

Page 6 of Daemonhunters codex does state that the Grey Knights are a chapter of Space Marines. It is not the only place on that page where it tells you specifically that Grey Knights are Space Marines, either.

Do not start buying Grey Knight Terminators to stick in Valkyries. The Ardboys pdf said that Grey Knight Terminators can not ride in Valkyries so expect the Imperial Guard FAQ to get updated to say the same.

Kaaihn wrote:Page 6 of Daemonhunters codex does state that the Grey Knights are a chapter of Space Marines.

So? The rulebook says "for example, each Space Marine Terminator counts as two models."

1) It is an Example, not a Rule in itself
2) It refers to "Space Marines", which is Codex: Space Marines (The same way that Eldar is not Dark Eldar, as shown in the Jetbike rules where they have to specifically include Dark Eldar ones)
3) Space Marine Terminators have such a rule, Grey Knights Terminators do not. Two Separate Units, Two Separate Codex's, two separate rules.
4) Codex trumps Rulebook unless the Rulebook says otherwise. The rulebook does not say otherwise in this case.

Recruits selected to join the Chapter are returned to Titan to begin the long and arduous process which weeds out those without the physical strength and immense mental fortitude to become a Grey Knight. Only the best of the potential recruits survive this selection procedure and are deemed worthy to begin the process of transformation from human to Space Marine.

It is a Space Marine Terminator of the Grey Knight chapter.

You will notice that it does not say in the Black Templars, Dark Angels, or Blood Angels codex under the terminator armour under wargear that it counts as two slots in a transport.

You have precedent in every Marine codex in their Land Raider entries that none of them reference terminator armour by specific chapter name. It is all generic "Models in terminator armor", or "Marines in terminator armor", etc. The rule (or example) in the main rulebook referencing Space Marine Terminators covers all models considered Marines wearing Terminator armor, which the Grey Knights Terminators are.

The problem is, you are now using Fluff as rules.
And using Other codexes as "Precedence" (especially since the DH Codex is older than all the other marine Codexes combined ) is almost as bad.

Big no-no. You can whine and cry all you want, but the fact is, that the RULES say that GKT do not take up 2 Slots and can Ride in Valks. If you don't like it, House rule it, but don't try and claim it is not legal.

We're talking about Valkries, and Grey Knights from the Daemonhunters codex.

In a question concerning Daemonhunters and IG, you do NOT go to the Space Marine dex any more than you would go to the Necron or Tyranid dex. The rules dont work that way.

Concerning this issue, there are three books to look rules up in....IG, Daemonhunters, and the rulebook. Any other rules you would find in other books are beside the point. In this way, Grey Knights are IN NO WAY, space marines. Grey Knights are space marines IN FLUFF ONLY, fluff does not directly translate into rules.

Deadshane1 wrote:We're talking about Valkries, and Grey Knights from the Daemonhunters codex.

In a question concerning Daemonhunters and IG, you do NOT go to the Space Marine dex any more than you would go to the Necron or Tyranid dex. The rules dont work that way.

Concerning this issue, there are three books to look rules up in....IG, Daemonhunters, and the rulebook. Any other rules you would find in other books are beside the point. In this way, Grey Knights are IN NO WAY, space marines. Grey Knights are space marines IN FLUFF ONLY, fluff does not directly translate into rules.

Put much better than I did. As you can see, it is clear that until GW decide to Errata it, GKT Can Ride just fine 10 Strong in a Valk.

To be exact, the unit would be Grandmaster, STERN, and 10 terminators (or 9 as a bodyguard for the GM would be better, so you cannot pick him out in CC).

-two str 6 Nemesis Weapons that slay eternal warriors outright. Goodnight.

(ridiculous unit though...dont expect it to get into HtH at full str...EVER.

Deadshane1 wrote:To be exact, the unit would be Grandmaster, STERN, and 10 terminators (or 9 as a bodyguard for the GM would be better, so you cannot pick him out in CC).

-two str 6 Nemesis Weapons that slay eternal warriors outright. Goodnight.

(ridiculous unit though...dont expect it to get into HtH at full str...EVER.

Not to mention all the Terminators can take NFW (which Ignore Armour and are S6). It's a sick unit, but it WILL be Primaried. You have to roll a 1 Sometime

I cannot imagine how sticking 800 or so points worth of troops in a flimsy valkrie would be a good idea...but anyone willing to try is certainly entitled to do it in my opinion.

Whoever trys this ludicrous "tactic" would definatly be someone more afraid of lascannons than melta insofaras tankbusting.

Deadshane1 wrote:I cannot imagine how sticking 800 or so points worth of troops in a flimsy valkrie would be a good idea...but anyone willing to try is certainly entitled to do it in my opinion.

Whoever trys this ludicrous "tactic" would definatly be someone more afraid of lascannons than melta insofaras tankbusting.

True. The way I see this being used is using the Valkarie to outflank. That way you avoid nasty Seize the Initiative deaths.

Of course the best way would be to Go First, Scout move 24", then Disembark, move 6" and charge 6". but you will always have that 1/6 chance of geting melta's up your arse (especialy since the Valk wont have the cover save)

Why wouldnt it have a cover save?

Deadshane1 wrote:Why wouldnt it have a cover save?

The way it is worded. For a Skimmer to get the cover save, it must have moved Flat out In its previous movement phase.

Turboboosters give a cover save "in the subsequent shooting phase"

In short: Bikes Turboboost Scout = 3+ Cover
Skimmers Scout Moving Flat out = No Save

Page 92 of the Apocalypse book says "...Terminators count as two..." when talking about how much space certain models take up in transports.

Not space marine terminators, chaos terminators, or grey knight terminators - "Terminators". All types.

I dont have my rulebook, BUT, scout move allows a movement phase before the game starts.

You might want to look that up. I think you'd have a hard time not allowing the valkrie a cover save after moving flat out during its scout MOVE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote:Page 92 of the Apocalypse book says "...Terminators count as two..." when talking about how much space certain models take up in transports.

Not space marine terminators, chaos terminators, or grey knight terminators - "Terminators". All types.

Shame we're playing 40k in this thread...not Apocolypse. I play 40k extensively, but I do NOT play Apoc...hence, I dont need the rulebook...nothing in the Apocalypse rulebook has any bearing in the game of 40k.

Deadshane1 wrote:I dont have my rulebook, BUT, scout move allows a movement phase before the game starts.

You might want to look that up. I think you'd have a hard time not allowing the valkrie a cover save after moving flat out during its scout MOVE.

That's just it. it is a Move, not a Movement Phase.

Page 71:
Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A Skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in Its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.

Page 76:
Scouts are used to reconnoitre ahead and are always in the vanguard of the army. To represent this, after both Sides have deployed (including infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, any scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase, except that during this move, scouts must remain more than 12· away from any enemy.

As you can see, though the Scout move follows the same rules as movement in the Movement Phase, it is not an additional Movement Phase.

Spellbound wrote:Page 92 of the Apocalypse book says "...Terminators count as two..." when talking about how much space certain models take up in transports.

Not space marine terminators, chaos terminators, or grey knight terminators - "Terminators". All types.

I roffled. This isn't Apoc we are talking about. Oh, and these Are not Terminators, these are Grey Knights Terminators. Subtle difference, but different.

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:I dont have my rulebook, BUT, scout move allows a movement phase before the game starts.

You might want to look that up. I think you'd have a hard time not allowing the valkrie a cover save after moving flat out during its scout MOVE.

That's just it. it is a Move, not a Movement Phase.

Page 71:
Skimmers moving at high speed are very difficult to hit. A Skimmer that is not immobilised and has moved flat out in Its last Movement phase counts as obscured (cover save of 4+) when fired at.

Page 76:
Scouts are used to reconnoitre ahead and are always in the vanguard of the army. To represent this, after both Sides have deployed (including infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, any scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase, except that during this move, scouts must remain more than 12· away from any enemy.

As you can see, though the Scout move follows the same rules as movement in the Movement Phase, it is not an additional Movement Phase.

"Normal move" in the Scout rule section seems to me that it indicates a "movement phase"...especially since the rule says that its done exacly AS a movement phase except for the one restriction.

I think you'd have a hard time having any tournement judge to agree with you on this one. Since a scout move is done exactly as in their movement phase you're on a rather slippery slope here.

Essentially, the skimmer moved flat out exactly as if in a movement phase...how again does it not get a cover save?

Deadshane1 wrote:
I think you'd have a hard time having any tournement judge to agree with you on this one. Since a scout move is done exactly as in their movement phase you're on a rather slippery slope here.

I think you'r have a hard time having any tournament judge agree with you that GKT an ride in a Valk, but that is not important to the discussion.

Done "as if in the movement phase" does not make mean that there is a new movement phase.

Just because the move is done using the same rules, does not make it an additional Movement Phase, as defined by the Rules for The Turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
I think you'd have a hard time having any tournement judge to agree with you on this one. Since a scout move is done exactly as in their movement phase you're on a rather slippery slope here.

I think you'r have a hard time having any tournament judge agree with you that GKT an ride in a Valk, but that is not important to the discussion.

I thought Tournament Judges made sure people played by the rules?

RustyKnight wrote:
Done "as if in the movement phase" does not make mean that there is a new movement phase.

No, but the point is that you play it exactly as if there were.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Just because the move is done using the same rules, does not make it an additional Movement Phase, as defined by the Rules for The Turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
I think you'd have a hard time having any tournement judge to agree with you on this one. Since a scout move is done exactly as in their movement phase you're on a rather slippery slope here.

I think you'r have a hard time having any tournament judge agree with you that GKT an ride in a Valk, but that is not important to the discussion.

I thought Tournament Judges made sure people played by the rules?

C'mon now Gwar, I appreciate your grasp of hard RAW but surely you see I have a point with the "exactly as if in the movement phase" point.

I'll have to be done here however. I dont have a rulebook availiable at work so I cannot effectively argue the hard points of THIS debate.

Deadshane1 wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:
Done "as if in the movement phase" does not make mean that there is a new movement phase.

No, but the point is that you play it exactly as if there were.

No you don't, you just follow the same rules as if it were a movement phase, but it is NOT a movement phase.

Thats exactly my point. It Seems like it would be, but it is not, because of the wording. If they wanted it to be an Extra Movement Phase in all regards, they would have just said "There is an Extra Movement Phase" and be done with it, rather than use the wording that they have now, which lets them move using the movement phase rules outside of a Movement Phase

Oh and my "Judges = Rules" thing was directed at the GKT issue, not this. Well, maybe this a little bit, as it is what the rules tell you.

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:
Done "as if in the movement phase" does not make mean that there is a new movement phase.

No, but the point is that you play it exactly as if there were.

No you don't, you just follow the same rules as if it were a movement phase, but it is NOT a movement phase.

but "if it were a movement phase" you would get a cover save....that is the rule. You just talked yourself out of your point.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:
Done "as if in the movement phase" does not make mean that there is a new movement phase.

No, but the point is that you play it exactly as if there were.

No you don't, you just follow the same rules as if it were a movement phase, but it is NOT a movement phase.

but "if it were a movement phase" you would get a cover save....that is the rule. You just talked yourself out of your point.

-Sigh- The rules do not tell you to do it as if it were a movement phase anyway, they it says "any scouts may make a normal move. This is done exactly as in their Movement phase". All it means is that the movement rules apply, it does not create a whole new Movement Phase.

Gwar, if all movement rules apply, then you would get a cover save.

Your arguement is tenuous at best. You cannot pick and choose which movement rules or rules concerning movement that you use or dont use.

The valkrie either moved, or it didnt. If it didnt move, it wouldnt be 24" away from its previous location.

Deadshane1 wrote:Gwar, if all movement rules apply, then you would get a cover save.

Your arguement is tenuous at best. You cannot pick and choose which movement rules or rules concerning movement that you use or dont use.

The valkrie either moved, or it didnt. If it didnt move, it wouldnt be 24" away from its previous location.

That is not the point I am making. The rules for the Cover save do not give two gaks if you just "moved", they need to to have "Moved flat out in the Previous Movement Phase." The Movement Phase is a very Specific thing as defined in the BRB

The Scout move Is NOT a movement phase, you just use the rules from it. That is NOT cherry Picking anything, that is following the rules.

Is it Stupid? Yes, but that's the rules.

So RAW only matters when you want it to? Gotcha.

As far as the cover save goes, you don't get one. You go by how far a vehicle moved in its previous turn. You haven't had one yet. You get no bonus. That's fairly cut and dry. I'm sure the wording is "previous movement phase". The only time there's a Movement Phase is as part of the turns, which haven't started yet. I'm sure it's very very similar to one and units moving at that time follow a lot of the same rules such as how far they can go, etc. But there has been no Movement Phase yet because there has been no turn for one to take place during.

Certain instances overrule this. For a while I thought a drop pod would need 6's to be hit in close combat because it moved at cruising speed due to the deepstrike, only to find that immobilized vehicles are always hit automatically, ALWAYS, regardless of how far they moved prior to their newly damaged status.

As far as the Grey Knights bit is concerned, I think I'll fall back to my good old "slap you silly" defense. It's obvious what it's intended. Multiple sources cite terminators as taking up two spaces. And really, saying Grey Knight Terminators are not Terminators because the name is different? Come on. So you're saying only Necrons wearing Arnold skins take up two slots, and not Space Marine, Chaos, Grey Knight, or other types of "Terminator", because they all have types listed prior to the damning word, and poor Arnold doesn't?

Yeah, Slap You Silly is in effect. I'll concede Valks can carry terminators [of any type] as I see no reason why not. But it's stopping at 6 [of any type].

Gwar! wrote:That is not the point I am making. The rules for the Cover save do not give two gaks if you "moved", they need to to have "Moved flat out in the Previous Movement Phase."

You're still ignoring that the scout move is considered "exactly as if it had moved during the movement phase". According to that part of the scout move rules, it can be argued that while there may NOT have BEEN a movement phase, you are supposed to play it as if there were.

The Scout move Is NOT a movement phase, you just use the rules from it. That is NOT cherry Picking anything, that is following the rules.

Using rules from the movement phase...do not movement phases allow for cover saves in following shooting phases? Why wouldnt you use THOSE rules...it IS cherry picking.

Is it Stupid? Yes, but that's the rules.

....I beg to differ.

Deadshane1 wrote:....I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no "Previous Movement Phase" if your Opponent goes First after you have scouted.

@Spellbound.

The how many terminators in a valkrie debate is a much easier one...and not really the same.

In that debate we have to analyse the rules from several books. Some people in this thread are referancing too many rules sources, only 3 are needed, the codexes in question and the rulebook.

In the Scout move/cover save debate. Its an issue within the rulesbook itself.

So, it isnt so clear as "are you using raw or arent you?". The two debates are different on many levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:....I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no "Previous Movement Phase" if your Opponent goes First after you have scouted.

No it doesnt change the fact that there was no "previous movement phase". However, according to the Scout rules, it can be argued that "we are to play exactly as if there were".

...do you really still not see my point?

Deadshane1 wrote:No it doesnt change the fact that there was no "previous movement phase". However, according to the Scout rules, it can be argued that "we are to play exactly as if there were".

...do you really still not see my point?

I see your point, I've seen it from the start, but it is wrong. You move as though it were a Movement Phase, but it is NOT a Movement Phase.

"It can be argued that" applies to the terminators in valks, too, really.

I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Best argument you could really give aside from "lalala I cover my ears and do not listen!" [which is what 'I don't play apocalypse so don't care' essentially is] is that they take up 2 spaces in superheavy transports, but not necessarily in others. I couldn't really concede much else in that case except "really?" and resort once again to SYS defenses.

@Gwar

Well, I see your veiw as wrong, so I guess we're at an impasse.

d6 it.

....and thats in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote:

I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Deadshane1 wrote:@Gwar

Well, I see your veiw as wrong, so I guess we're at an impasse.

d6 it.

....and thats in the rules.

You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Spellbound wrote:I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Sod That, let me Crack out my Rouge trader Book! Or my 2nd Edition Space Wolf Codex (oh 2nd Edition Space Wolf Codex, no one must know of our Forbidden love)

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

I love you too hunnybuns

Deadshane1 wrote:
Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Bloodbowl is a different game, so no.

Tau? Hell yes. If there was a passage in the Tau codex that said something akin to "In certain situations terminators may end up riding in a devilfish, in which case they count as two models" I'd totally toss that in as yet another 40k related example that states terminators as taking up 2 slots.

Look, terminators take up 2 transport slots. It's all over 40k, in all kinds of different examples. Getting into "Well, SPACE MARINE terminators aren't CHAOS SPACE MARINE terminators nor GREY KNIGHT terminators so that thing in the SM codex doesn't apply!" is really, REALLY idiotic. I can't even SAY how idiotic it is. Do you really need every single nitty gritty advantage to win your games? Do you really need to deny your opponents every single possible avenue of creative tactics to win your games? If the answer is no to either of those, then are you arguing this point just for the sake of having an argument? Do you even plan to seriously try putting 12 terminators in a valkyrie and using them in a game? Is the headache of the rules argument and bad blood through the game/tournament really worth it when you could just put 6 termies or 10 regular GK in it and not have anyone bother you?

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

I love you too hunnybuns

You sure about that? We play it my way on a 4+ and I just rolled a "5".

...looks like you're screwed.

Spellbound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Bloodbowl is a different game, so no.

Apoc is a Different Game too.

Tau? Hell yes. If there was a passage in the Tau codex that said something akin to "In certain situations terminators may end up riding in a devilfish, in which case they count as two models" I'd totally toss that in as yet another 40k related example that states terminators as taking up 2 slots.

hate to Burst your bubble, but show me in the IG or DH codexes where it states "Grey Knight Terminators take up 2 Slots in a Valkarie" that is an Actual Rule and not Fluff.

Oh wait.... you can't.

BUT ROLLING A D6 TO DECIDE AN ARGUMENT IS BREAKING EVERY SINGLE RULE! And if its unclear that your valkyrie gets a cover save when moving then its also unclear that I win just by putting my models on the board, so lets D6 for that too.

I also think you should get over your bias against precedents. They are not Binding precedents, but they are Persuasive precedents and covering your ears to them does not make you a better interpreter of the rules. If you want to be a rules lawyer, use the same methods that lawyers do.
In most (all?) other reference to Terminators being transported, they take up 2 slots (if they can be transported at all). It is a bigger break from the rules for Valkyrie's to be the exception.

Spellbound wrote:
Look, terminators take up 2 transport slots. It's all over 40k, in all kinds of different examples. Getting into "Well, SPACE MARINE terminators aren't CHAOS SPACE MARINE terminators nor GREY KNIGHT terminators so that thing in the SM codex doesn't apply!" is really, REALLY idiotic. I can't even SAY how idiotic it is. Do you really need every single nitty gritty advantage to win your games? Do you really need to deny your opponents every single possible avenue of creative tactics to win your games? If the answer is no to either of those, then are you arguing this point just for the sake of having an argument? Do you even plan to seriously try putting 12 terminators in a valkyrie and using them in a game? Is the headache of the rules argument and bad blood through the game/tournament really worth it when you could just put 6 termies or 10 regular GK in it and not have anyone bother you?

Space Marine Assault Cannons-4 shots rending
Dark Angel Assault Cannons-4 shots rending
Blood Angel Assault Cannons-4 shots Rending
Black Templar Assault Cannons-4 shots Rending

Daemonhunter Assault Cannons (on GK Crusader)-3 shots no Rending....According to all rules and FAQ


Your arguement is a hopeless stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:BUT ROLLING A D6 TO DECIDE AN ARGUMENT IS BREAKING EVERY SINGLE RULE! And if its unclear that your valkyrie gets a cover save when moving then its also unclear that I win just by putting my models on the board, so lets D6 for that too.

I also think you should get over your bias against precedents. They are not Binding precedents, but they are Persuasive precedents and covering your ears to them does not make you a better interpreter of the rules. If you want to be a rules lawyer, use the same methods that lawyers do.
In most (all?) other reference to Terminators being transported, they take up 2 slots (if they can be transported at all). It is a bigger break from the rules for Valkyrie's to be the exception.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes yet they cannot see.

That is most definatly NOT how RAW works. Since the inception of RAW and no FAQ's the rules are indeed binding AND restrictive.

The point about this argument isn't 'does this rule make sense?'. It's not 'you are doing this for an advantage'. It's not 'Using logic and reason we can see that the rule is clearly meant to be X'

What it is, is 'The rules say X'.
In this case, from the BRB we know that infantry can ride in vehicles. We know that specific rules and rules from codexes can override this (specific > general, codex > RB).
We know that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry. We know that infantry can ride in transports unless specified otherwise (for example, in the rules for Obliterators it states that although they are infantry, they may not ride in transports.) We know there are no rules that state Grey Knight Terminators take up two slots in Valkyries in either Codex: Deamon Hunters or the RB. Finally, we know that Grey Knight Terminators are not the same as Space Marine Terminators are not the same as Tau Fire warriors.

You can argue that it makes sense that GKT's shouldn't take up only 1 slot in a Valkyrie, and you'd be right, it doesn't make sense. You could argue that it makes sense that GKT's are the same as any other terminators and should be treated as such ruleswise, and that'd be pretty reasonable. I can't imagine that many people would object if you asked to houserule it otherwise (and even if they did, I'm sure at the least they'd see your logic.)

However, and this is the important part: It is not the rules.
According to the rules, GKT's are not the same as any thing but GKT's, and they only take up one slot in Valkyries.

These are the rules, anything else is a houserule.

Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

Trasvi wrote:Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

I'll repeat:
The rulebook states that infantry can ride in transports.
The Grey Knights Codex states that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry.
Questions?

I would love someone to put 10 GKT in a Valkyrie, move flat-out, then deploy as deep-striking, scatter, then roll badly and watch the unit get destroyed. That would be funny! 800+ pts down the drain! I'd actually encourage that!

Crucius wrote:The point about this argument isn't 'does this rule make sense?'. It's not 'you are doing this for an advantage'. It's not 'Using logic and reason we can see that the rule is clearly meant to be X'

What it is, is 'The rules say X'.
In this case, from the BRB we know that infantry can ride in vehicles. We know that specific rules and rules from codexes can override this (specific > general, codex > RB).
We know that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry. We know that infantry can ride in transports unless specified otherwise (for example, in the rules for Obliterators it states that although they are infantry, they may not ride in transports.) We know there are no rules that state Grey Knight Terminators take up two slots in Valkyries in either Codex: Deamon Hunters or the RB. Finally, we know that Grey Knight Terminators are not the same as Space Marine Terminators are not the same as Tau Fire warriors.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges.
I'm comparing Pink Lady's to Royal Gala's.. A Pink Lady is not a Royal Gala is not an orbital battlestation... but the two apples do have a lot more in common with each other than either do with the battlestation, so you can apply the same rules to the apples.

You can argue that it makes sense that GKT's shouldn't take up only 1 slot in a Valkyrie, and you'd be right, it doesn't make sense. You could argue that it makes sense that GKT's are the same as any other terminators and should be treated as such ruleswise, and that'd be pretty reasonable. I can't imagine that many people would object if you asked to houserule it otherwise (and even if they did, I'm sure at the least they'd see your logic.)

However, and this is the important part: It is not the rules.
According to the rules, GKT's are not the same as any thing but GKT's, and they only take up one slot in Valkyries.

Fine. Following RAW to its logical conclusion, we reach the illogical conclusion that GKT's can ride 10 per Valkyrie. Again, I have yet to see evidence that RAW can be logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma.

These are the rules, anything else is a houserule.

See, around here, a house rule goes something like this:

"Models in terminator armour have the ability to run through walls. Place the flame template at the point that the terminator hits the wall, in the direction the terminator is running. Any models touched by the template take a S3, Ap- hit, cover/armor saves allowed. Roll a difficult terrain test: on a 1, the terminator / his unit become pinned"

Which I think is a lot different to applying rules precedents in a logical manner.

Trasvi wrote:Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

That arguement is used when people are attempting things like "what do you mean my Grots cannot voluntarily fall back, the rules dont state that I 'cant'!" It's not exactly the same thing we're talking about here.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

As a regular Tournement player, I'll tell you thats its actually quite easy. Many of the rules questions that we all argue dont normally come up on a regular basis. I'm here to tell you that I dont expect to EVER see a fully loaded Valkrie toting 11 grey knights into combat...its just not going to happen very often. The same can be said about MOST RAW debates that result in tons of posts and pages of threads.

GBF and I filled 5-6 pages debating on whether or not Nemesis FW's can outright slay Eternal Warriors. In the many many games that I've played with my Grey Knights featuring a grand master...the issue has come up once in a game.

This fundamentally flawed ruleset can be played seriously. It truly can. You just have to have two people agreeing to "play a game" as it were, and not trying to point out each others errors in rules. RAW actually provides a good foundation for this...what you build on that foundation is up to you. You can either be lenient with each other in order to have a great game....it which case you build a strong building....or you can point out every single rules issue even if it doenst have a bearing on the game...and wind up with a game that falls apart into arguements ...or a rickety shack....if you get my analogy.

At any rate, if both players are well versed in RAW to SOME extent, you should have a decent game so long as both are willing and prepared to compromise in some small way to accomodate their opponents, but RAW is where you start, and RAW is what we discuss in YMDC.

Trasvi wrote:
See, around here, a house rule goes something like this:

"Models in terminator armour have the ability to run through walls. Place the flame template at the point that the terminator hits the wall, in the direction the terminator is running. Any models touched by the template take a S3, Ap- hit, cover/armor saves allowed. Roll a difficult terrain test: on a 1, the terminator / his unit become pinned"

Which I think is a lot different to applying rules precedents in a logical manner.

That's a pretty funny houserule.
I think you'll find however, that the most common definition of a houserule is 'a rule which differs from the official GW ruleset'
Sometimes houserules are required to allow the game to work (disembarking from a Valkyrie as an example). This does not make them any less of a houserule.

Trasvi wrote:
Fine. Following RAW to its logical conclusion, we reach the illogical conclusion that GKT's can ride 10 per Valkyrie. Again, I have yet to see evidence that RAW can be logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma.

I agree with you 90%.
However, that's not the point. The argument is not 'does RAW make sense?'. The argument is 'What is RAW?'.
If there was a typo which said Chaos Space Marines had 100 attacks, instead of 1, then as RAW goes, they would have 100 until an errata was issued. It makes no sense. It is clearly illogical. No one is going to play it like that (except as a joke perhaps). RAW does not have to be 'logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma'. RAW is just that, Rules As Written, i.e. exactly what the rules say, word for word, regardless of meaning, logic, or sense.

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

Trasvi wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

What? It's inherently obvious that GW thinks GKT's shouldn't take up any slots at all, but had to make them take up at least one for balance (lol GW balance) purposes.
My point is, while you can hazard a fairly accurate guess what was intended, you can't know for certain (because for all we know, the GW rulemakers are some otherworldly beings on another plane of existence having a big joke at our expense, unlikely, but not impossible).

As far as a middle ground, the basic process you should use is:
1) RAW. If there is a disagreement or RAW is not clear, goto 2.
2) Discuss with your opponent. If an agreement cannot be reached, goto 3
3) Roll off.
At any point during this process feel free to pack up your stuff, although bear in mind there may be consequences outside the immediate game (tournament losses etc)

Trasvi wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

Nope.

d6ing would happen when interpretation of the rules differs between to people...such as in the cover save question that Gwar and I were debating a bit.

Concerning the number of Terminators riding in valkries, only in rulebooks that have nothing to do with the question at hand do you find rules stating that GK Terminators take up 2 spaces in a valkrie. This of course is in opposition to the rules within the main rulebook that state that rules can change from codex to codex (I.E. Smoke Launchers). This is why you can only refer to the IG and Daemonhunters codexes when trying to debate this rule. If you ONLY refer to those two books (which you should be doing) It's clear that there is no reason that Valkries should not be able to transport 10 GK terminators. You've read all rules that apply to the situation and the final ruling should be clear according to RAW. You confuse yourself when you go to other rulesources that are not to be reference in this situation....no d6ing is neccessary.

i have to say i see the point of both sides... but i really dislike the apple example, cause if one is a gala, the other another kind of apple, if it says anywheres that apples are not allowed, wouldnt that include all apples?

SonofTerra wrote:i have to say i see the point of both sides... but i really dislike the apple example, cause if one is a gala, the other another kind of apple, if it says anywheres that apples are not allowed, wouldnt that include all apples?

Lets pretend that it says in the Big Red Fruity Rulebook that Fruit take up one slot in a hamper unless otherwise specified, and in the Codex: Apples it says galas take up two slots in a hamper, but in the Codex: Gala, which is quite an old codex, it says makes no mention of how many slots galas take up.
Then if you are using a gala army from Codex: Gala, they only take up one hamper slot. If you are using Codex: Apples, your galas take up two gala slots.

I must say I find this analogy a little too fruity for my liking.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Concerning the number of Terminators riding in valkries, only in rulebooks that have nothing to do with the question at hand do you find rules stating that GK Terminators take up 2 spaces in a valkrie. This of course is in opposition to the rules within the main rulebook that state that rules can change from codex to codex (I.E. Smoke Launchers). This is why you can only refer to the IG and Daemonhunters codexes when trying to debate this rule. If you ONLY refer to those two books (which you should be doing) It's clear that there is no reason that Valkries should not be able to transport 10 GK terminators. You've read all rules that apply to the situation and the final ruling should be clear according to RAW. You confuse yourself when you go to other rulesources that are not to be reference in this situation....no d6ing is neccessary.

No, a d6 IS required, because I AM using those books and regardless of whether you THINK I shouldn't or not, I see the other MANY instances of terminators of various types all taking 2 slots as VERY important to the discussion and VERY valid and I will NOT be told that they "don't count".

And how can anyone say Apocalypse is a different game? It's the same game with certain adaptations to make bigger battles more interesting and more fun. Is Starcraft: Broodwar NOT Starcraft? Of course it's Starcraft, it's just got additional things added to it. We could play a 10,000 point game using 5 detachments and setup as per "pitched battle" if we wanted, but I think it's cool that my four vindicators can actually team up to do something special, or that my reserves can perform a dramatic flanking maneouver so I add more to the game with the expansion. In no way is the game NO LONGER Warhammer 40,000, it's just got additional rules for the scenario. That's like saying that when you play a unique mission at a tournament [Battle in the Eye of Terror for example] with special victory conditions or rules that you're no longer playing 40k, or that when you and a friend decide to play your own home-grown mission that it's no longer 40k. It's 40k armies, 40k rules....and a bit more for FUN.

Here's when you roll a d6: When you can't agree on rules. It doesn't matter if I'm pulling my reasoning from a 10 year old WD article or voices in my head. If we don't agree, we roll a d6. Your style of play differs from mine. In your style of play, Slaanesh combat drugs would make any character ABSOLUTELY INVINCIBLE FOREVER in the old chaos codex, because that's what the RAW said. Mine differs, and thus we would have to roll a d6.

It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

I distinctly remember a thread a few weeks ago where people came to an agreement on them not getting a save because it's not a movement phase.

I'm having deja-vu reading this and thinking "did no one read the that last thread"

does anyone remember the name so we can search and link it?



Also, the game hasn't started. The movement phases only exist once the game's begun. The scout moves happen before this don't they? How can you have a movement phase when there's no game to have a phase in yet?

Spellbound wrote:
No, a d6 IS required, because I AM using those books and regardless of whether you THINK I shouldn't or not, I see the other MANY instances of terminators of various types all taking 2 slots as VERY important to the discussion and VERY valid and I will NOT be told that they "don't count".

Its not whether or not 'I' think you should...the main rulebook specifically states that you refer only to the codex in question when applying rules such as the one in question...not other codexes.

And how can anyone say Apocalypse is a different game? It's the same game with certain adaptations to make bigger battles more interesting and more fun. Is Starcraft: Broodwar NOT Starcraft? Of course it's Starcraft, it's just got additional things added to it. We could play a 10,000 point game using 5 detachments and setup as per "pitched battle" if we wanted, but I think it's cool that my four vindicators can actually team up to do something special, or that my reserves can perform a dramatic flanking maneouver so I add more to the game with the expansion. In no way is the game NO LONGER Warhammer 40,000, it's just got additional rules for the scenario. That's like saying that when you play a unique mission at a tournament [Battle in the Eye of Terror for example] with special victory conditions or rules that you're no longer playing 40k, or that when you and a friend decide to play your own home-grown mission that it's no longer 40k. It's 40k armies, 40k rules....and a bit more for FUN.

Apocolypse IS a different game. I dont understand how you cannot see that. Try going to a RTT or Grand tournement and use "Apoc" only rules, like deployment, no point values, superheavies or whatever other craziness that is Apoc...you wont be able to do it. Why? It's a different game.

Here's when you roll a d6: When you can't agree on rules. It doesn't matter if I'm pulling my reasoning from a 10 year old WD article or voices in my head. If we don't agree, we roll a d6. Your style of play differs from mine. In your style of play, Slaanesh combat drugs would make any character ABSOLUTELY INVINCIBLE FOREVER in the old chaos codex, because that's what the RAW said. Mine differs, and thus we would have to roll a d6.

You roll a d6 when a rules dispute is within reason. What if I insist up and down that your eldar army cannot shoot guns at space marines? Your codex doesnt specifically say that you can shoot at space marines. Do we roll a d6 now?

Other game systems aside (which Apoc surely is), I'm telling you that you're looking up rules in the wrong manner and taking rules from codexes that need not be referanced...and I can show you specifically in the main rulebook where I'm correct...in english. This isnt a rules dispute, this is you being unreasonable and closing your eyes to the actual rules that are in question. Yes, I'm closing my eyes to YOUR point, because YOUR point is in direct dispute with the main rulebook in particular.

It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

What is a 'decent' organiser? One that rules in your favor? Tournement organisers, ones that are generallyl considered good ones, decides rules issues based on RAW first, not RAI. So, if you want the money back that you put down, I'm hoping you put it down on the option that the organiser would allow the huge termie squad to ride. Thats probably the way they would go. Why? Because its RAW when referanced in the codexes that are in question, thats IG and Daemonhunters specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gandair wrote:I distinctly remember a thread a few weeks ago where people came to an agreement on them not getting a save because it's not a movement phase.

I'm having deja-vu reading this and thinking "did no one read the that last thread"

does anyone remember the name so we can search and link it?

yea, I'd like to see that one as well.

Also, the game hasn't started. The movement phases only exist once the game's begun. The scout moves happen before this don't they? How can you have a movement phase when there's no game to have a phase in yet?

If you back up in this thread you can clearly see my point. There may not have been a movement phase, but according to the scouting rules, we should play exactly as if there was one.

"If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to roll-off and let the dice decided who is right..."

The examples of what a dispute might be are examples, not an inclusive list. I have a completely valid TMIR dispute to say that the example in the rule book is referencing anything that is a Marine in Terminator armour, not specifically Codex: Space Marines. You think it means C:SM exclusive, I don't. D6 it.

As was pointed out, this is typically a forum of "What does the RAW say", not "how do you think this should be played". The answer to the question of "By the current RAW (ignoring RAI), how many Grey Knight Terminators can fit in a Valkyrie?" would be:

It hinges on whether or not the reference in the main rulebook of Space Marine Terminators is exclusive to Codex: Space Marine, or if that example is inclusive of anything that is a Marine in Terminator armour.

If exclusive, 12.
If inclusive, 6.

Most rules lawyers will tell you that any words that have a specific definition within the rules are taken as that definition. Space Marine Terminators would be Codex: Space Marine Terminators. Marines in Terminator armour would be any Marine in Terminator armour, not specific to one codex. The key here though is, you have to accept their belief in how the game works for them to be correct. There is no RAW of how the overall game works, and you would be amazed at how different some peoples methods actually are, both producing a completely playable game that is correct by every bit of printed RAW.

In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

My experience with TO's has been different to Deadshanes. The ones I know will rule by RAI if it seems obvious to them, such as terminator armor taking two slots in a transport, Valkyries being able to embark/disembark to ground level, etc.

I think we all agree Specific out ranks general rules.

Space Marine terminators are Specifically restricted in a transport.

GKTs are Specifically restricted in a Landraider.

GKTs are not Specifically restricted in a valyrie but are generally allowed to ride in them as a transport.

There are no Specific rules that say GTKs take up 2 slots in every transport.

Oversight by GW? Maybe, maybe not - after all they cost a LOT more than their SM brothers.


Just because a unit shares the same terminology as another unit does not make the units the same or even the rules the same. Chaos Terminators vs. SM Terminators vs. Inquisitors in terminator armor vs. GK Terminators all have different rules, allowances, and specific directions. We have to read the general rules and the specific rules for all the units - we can't make these assumptions based off of other units that really are nothing like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

Spellbound wrote:It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

Actually, I'd just walk away and find someone else to play. If it was a tournament it wouldn't be an issues because 99% of TO's follow the rules.

Flexen wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

That was my opinion as well, it never even occurred to me that the reason Ogryns can't ride in a Valkyrie is it being to small for large models, like Rhinos and Razorbacks and such. I was surprised to see others felt that way and that supposedly 'Ard Boyz are disallowing Terminators to ride in this years tournament.

Kaaihn wrote:

Flexen wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
In the interest of completeness, I think it is also worth noting that there is a belief that Terminators can't ride in Valkyries at all. Ogryn's, which take up two slots each, can't, so why would Terminators be able to? That isn't a RAW argument, but I'm hearing that 'Ard Boyz will be enforcing that. It will be interesting to see if the Errata/FAQ addresses it.

To be honest - I look at the Ogryn rule as fluff written into rule - mainly because they have to be tricked or corralled into a transport - I would guess it would be too dangerous to fly them if they were to get out of hand.

Once again, however, Ogryns are not terminators and only share 1 commonality and that is a handful of specific transport rules. Common sense would justify the comparison, however, common sense has no place in 40k (I dare someone to argue against that )

That was my opinion as well, it never even occurred to me that the reason Ogryns can't ride in a Valkyrie is it being to small for large models, like Rhinos and Razorbacks and such. I was surprised to see others felt that way and that supposedly 'Ard Boyz are disallowing Terminators to ride in this years tournament.

Grey Knight Terminators may not travel in Valkyries
or Vendetta Gunships

From the Ard Boyz rule pack. While this is GW sanctioned event and while they are pretty clear on it, I would not say this is a precedence as to how to play it. You can look to it as to what might eventually come down the line as a GW FAQ or errata, but unless you are playing by the Ard Boyz rules each and every game you play all the time, then this ruling doesn't mean jack.

Brother Ramses wrote:From the Ard Boyz rule pack. While this is GW sanctioned event and while they are pretty clear on it, I would not say this is a precedence as to how to play it. You can look to it as to what might eventually come down the line as a GW FAQ or errata, but unless you are playing by the Ard Boyz rules each and every game you play all the time, then this ruling doesn't mean jack.

QFT. If GW want it to be law, they can release an Errata. Until then that does not mean anything outside of a 'Ard Boyz Tournament.

I never said it did. It seemed interesting and related to this thread, so I included it as a factoid with the disclaimer that it's not RAW.

I would think that the errata is going to be seen after the ard boys is over. If it was me I would wait and see what people abuse and fix it after the nastiest players use the loop holes to the maximum benefit, smart actually if that is one of the intents of ardboys. . Then clear up some of the issues in the errata. Its like retro actively play testing your game.

It seems to me that they recognized how brutal a Valkyrie carrying a ton of greyknights assaulting 1st turn would be and put that in the ard boys rules. If you can't use it in the hardest tourny, it stands to reason that it will be disallowed in the standard game as well. Basically don't expect it to be that way, count on it to be that way. I think we can all agree that it is not RAI on this one. However as stated above RAW would support it, except in ard boys, for now. If you use this in a RTT you will get terrible comp and sportsman ship IMHO. Many players will refuse that game, as is their right. The writing is on the wall on this one, I think and will make it harder to pull given the ard boys example of it being a No NO. If you use this tatic enjoy your 5 min of fame because it will be gone with the next faq / erratta.

I'm curious Gwar, and you can feel free not to answer seeing as this is the RAW forum: But could you list some rules where you think the RAI is blatantly clear but the RAW is completely the opposite?

And I don't have the codex, but are Space Marines listed in their book in the rules section under the heading "Space Marine Terminators" ?

Trasvi wrote:I'm curious Gwar, and you can feel free not to answer seeing as this is the RAW forum: But could you list some rules where you think the RAI is blatantly clear but the RAW is completely the opposite?

There is not a Single rule that I have found with a Clear RaW interpretation that I feel needs to be changed under the Guise of RaI. The developers know full well how to write (as amazing as that sounds). Whatever they write the rule to do, that is their intent, unless an Errata (and begrudgingly an FAQ) says otherwise. Rules without a Clear RaW interpretation boil down to whatever the two players/TO say is right, until GW release an Errata (or begrudgingly an FAQ)

And I don't have the codex, but are Space Marines listed in their book in the rules section under the heading "Space Marine Terminators" ?

Contents Page: Terminator Squad
Unit Entry: Terminator Squad
Unit Entry Profile: Terminator / Terminator Sergeant
Army List Entries: Terminator Squad / Terminator Assault Squad
Army List Profile: Terminator / Terminator Sergeant

My take on it is that GKTs cannot ride in a Valkyrie. There is no rule that I am aware of that states they can. Lack of a rule does not necessarily mean you can just because there is nothing written saying you can't. I think there is a lot of valid rules that indicate terminators in general can't ride in a Valkyrie but it is by no means and open and shut airtight case. If it was me I wouldn't put my terminators inside a Valkyrie. In a friendly game if my opponent wanted to do so I would probably be okay with it but in a tournament I'd probably ask a TO for a ruling... You can't really say what the TO would rule ahead of time unless you knew them well enough to know what are their preferences for this type of situation.

We do know that you won't you be able to do this at the ard Boyz this year and it's spelled out in black and white. It's not official though by any means... Just look at an i -house FAQ written for the UK GTs.

G

Errrr...what? The rules are crystal Clear. The Valkyrie lets any Infantry Ride in it, as per the BRB on Transports. Grey Knights Terminators are Infantry. Therefore they can ride in it. It is THAT simple.

Are the other chapters still called marines in thier own codices? I do not thinkGK termies are.

I have yet to meet a TO that would rule with GKT not taking 2 slots in anything, valkyrie included.

I'll ask at the Memphis GT.

Until then, we WOULD be d6ing as to whether "Terminator" means "Space Marine Terminator" or any terminator, period.

A terminator is a terminator.

G

smart_alex wrote:Are the other chapters still called marines in thier own codices? I do not thinkGK termies are.

They are on multiple places on Page 6 of the Daemonhunters codex, I quoted the passages earlier in the thread. A Grey Knight is a Space Marine, absolutely.

The methodology I use for the game tells me that where the rulebook says "Space Marine Terminator", that would be Codex:Space Marines. The common sense filter that gets applied to the RAW in actual play tells me that any unit that is a Marine in Terminator armour takes up two slots in a transport.

By the RAW of using that passage as SM codex specific, you could use inducted Space Marines (if you can induct terminators) from Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Black Templars as taking one space in a Valkyrie. Only the Terminator entry in C:SM says they count as two for transport. The other four codexes that deal with Marines don't say in the wargear section, they say it in the transport section of the vehicles Terminators are allowed to ride in.

Green Blow Fly wrote:A terminator is a terminator.

G

Ah, but can't an Inquisitor Lord take terminator armor? Does that make him a Terminator? If so then his stats should would become those of a Terminator... and wouldn't he then also lose his psychic ability since terminators don't have psychic powers? I'm not advocating one pov over another, just throwing it out there for discussion.

But I do think that you have to refer to the codex you are using- along with the rulebook- and not other sources (other codeci). Your army must operate within the limits and permissions of its codex and the rulebook, not within the limits and permissions of other codeci- no matter how similar they are in the 40k fluff-world.

Don't be cute.

G

Beast wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:A terminator is a terminator.

G

Ah, but can't an Inquisitor Lord take terminator armor? Does that make him a Terminator? If so then his stats should would become those of a Terminator... and wouldn't he then also lose his psychic ability since terminators don't have psychic powers? I'm not advocating one pov over another, just throwing it out there for discussion.

But I do think that you have to refer to the codex you are using- along with the rulebook- and not other sources (other codeci). Your army must operate within the limits and permissions of its codex and the rulebook, not within the limits and permissions of other codeci- no matter how similar they are in the 40k fluff-world.

Actually, an Inquisitor that takes a suit of Terminator armour does gain all of the stats and abilities associate with anyone wearing a suit of TDA: armour save 2+, Invul save 5+, can move and shoot heavy weapons as if remaining stationary, may deep strike via teleportation, and can only consolidate after winning a close combat. This also means that Inquisitors in TDA may not embark in a Rhino, which they can take as a dedicated transport if they have a retinue. All other stat bonuses seen in other TDA units are from Terminator Honours, which while no longer referenced in 5th Ed were still referenced in 3rd Ed and was never available to Inquisitors.

On another note, I see people seem to missing the fact that the entry in the BRB that advises a Space Marine Terminator takes up two spaces is providing an example of a large model taking up more space on a transport than a regular sized model. Not that that means anything to a the RAW advocates on this thread, but it does support the concept that all larger infantry models take up more space that regular sized models in regards to transport capacity. Unfortunately, GW has seem fit to advise that any special restriction will be listed under each vehicles data sheet entry, and then promptly leave said special restrictions out of a codex that does not include large sized infantry models that can ride in a transport without issues. And since no one wants to compare Ogryns to Terminators, the issue will remain unsolved.

SJ

An Inquisitor wearing tactical dreadnaught armor is a human inside a suit of terminator armour. Obviously a Space Marine would not fit inside this particular suit. The Inquisitor is not S4 or T4 either which are state reserved fir Space Marines.

G

The problem with simply arguing, 'a Terminator is a Terminator' is, of course, that Games Workshop aren't so good at this stuff. Otherwise an Assassin is an Assassin, and Smoke Launchers are Smoke Launchers. But a Vindicare is not the same as a Cullexus, even though they share many of the same stats, and we'd all have Smoke Launchers that work in the same way.

Same thing happens with Terminators. There are at least three different type, Space Marine Terminators (which could be further devided into Deathwing, Assault Terminators, etc) Chaos Terminators and Grey Knight Terminators. None of these three Terminators have the same rules or wargear. Therefore, you can't simply consider a Terminator to be a Terminator. The specific type is very much relevent.

Of course, in this case, I wholeheartedly agree...how the blue hell are you gonna fit twelve Terminators in a Valkyrie? Even six is pushing things futher than I, personally, would wanna go. And clearly they intended to have a Terminator take up two slots, if they could ride at all. But what Games Workshop intended and what the rules say...

When it comes to using a Valk as a taxi for any terminator, a terminator is a terminator for all practical purposes and you have said as much yourself. Sure there are a plethora of various types such as the ones you mentioned but they are still terminators regardless of the various differences.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:When it comes to using a Valk as a taxi for any terminator, a terminator is a terminator for all practical purposes and you have said as much yourself. Sure there are a plethora of various types such as the ones you mentioned but they are still terminators regardless of the various differences.

G

The odd thing is, nowhere does it state that the Valkyrie Cannot transport Terminators The default for all transports is that they can carry any infantry unless prohibited (like the Rhino and razorbacks rule saying no terminators)

If you do assume that all Terminators are Terminators for this purpose (which I can certainly see) then that still leaves up to six Grey Knights in a Valkyrie. Which still strikes me as very odd.

UPDATE:

After getting home and actually studying the full rulebook...I think I'm forced to relent on the Flat-out scouting cover save. After looking more through the full movement and cover rules...well....

Touche Gwar....seems I was arguing intent. I think it could be interpreted my way...but its more of a "stretch" than simply interpreting it the way you described. This will have to be something I discuss at the beginning of the game against anyone with a Valk.

I personally have no problem playing it with cover saves, as I personally think its intent. But, its a stretch to grant the cover save on RAW.

Deadshane1 wrote:UPDATE:

After getting home and actually studying the full rulebook...I think I'm forced to relent on the Flat-out scouting cover save. After looking more through the full movement and cover rules...well....

Touche Gwar....seems I was arguing intent. I think it could be interpreted my way...but its more of a "stretch" than simply interpreting it the way you described. This will have to be something I discuss at the beginning of the game against anyone with a Valk.

I personally have no problem playing it with cover saves, as I personally think its intent. But, its a stretch to grant the cover save on RAW.

Don't worry Shane, I was like that at first. We still love you I also agree it is intent, just not RaW. It's kind of odd that a Bike can turboboost in scout, move and shoot normally T1, and then get their cover save but a skimmer can't :(

Chimeras used to be able to transport terminators. Was this because it was or wasn't specifically stated?

G

It was specifically mentioned that Chimeras could transport terminators.

It's not specifically stated that you can start a unit in a non-dedicated transport. Does anyone actually play this way?

I don't have a problem with it but I have seen people get into big arguments about it.

I think the fact that the Chimera had rules stating terminators or models waering tactical dreadnaught armor could ride in them answers this question.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't have a problem with it but I have seen people get into big arguments about it.

I think the fact that the Chimera had rules stating terminators or models waering tactical dreadnaught armor could ride in them answers this question.

G

No, it doesn't. Would you kindly tell me in Codex: Imperial Guard where it says that, please? I cannot seem to find that rule. Same for Valkyrie where it forbids terminators please, in Codex: Imperial Guard. My codex doesn't have that rule either

Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Agreed...playing pure RAW and this game do not mix. A certain 'leeway' is both intended (page 2 RB) and exercised by the rule writers themselves (read any battle report from a WD and you will see 'how much' they actually follow the rules). The creators of this game 'intend' for us to play with a loose rule set (page 2 again), and their rules reflect that attitude. This game was never meant and never designed to be a 'tournament' game, as written by JJ on several occasions.

Wait, are you saying that Termis take up two spaces in a Valk, or that they can't ride in a Valk at all?

Until GW FAQ/Erratas it otherwise, GK Terminators can indeed hop into a Valkyrie and fly around making 'SHWOOOM' noises if the controlling player so wishes.

There's a good argument for taking up two spaces, but 'Ard Boyz rules aside, it is a HUGE leap to assume that GKTs can't enter a Valkyrie/Vendetta at all.

Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

I would never play you Gwar... sorted.



G

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

And no one is saying you can't play the game your way. Have fun at your store/club and I wish you the best. And I am not objecting the RAW, it is pretty clear what RAW says, and I for one disagree with it. I like to play with the spirit of a rule if a rule seems questionable, and I mean 'rule' by an obscure rule that would rarely come up and just doesn't make sense (like this one).

Personally I would 'say' that all terminators take up 2 model spaces in a transport (any transport) as this seems to make the most sense. However, RAW only points to them taking up 2 slots only in a Land Raider....because that was the only vehicle they were allowed to go in at the time of the codex writing...The intent is crystal clear however, RAW is you may stack them in a Valkyrie and have your fun.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

He's making a point, and a good one at that.

If someone pulls the "most important rule" bs at a game when they don't like a rule that hurts their army then you can throw it right back at them with the same reasoning. Any time someone brings up the "most important rule" in a discussion about rules it's generally a red flag that their argument is bunk (or that they don't have one at all).

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

Because I derive enjoyment from playing without having to memorise Ninety Seven Million, Four Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Two House rules to do so.

How is objecting to me playing by Strict RaW stopping you having fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

He's making a point, and a good one at that.

If someone pulls the "most important rule" bs at a game when they don't like a rule that hurts their army then you can throw it right back at them with the same reasoning. Any time someone brings up the "most important rule" in a discussion about rules it's generally a red flag that their argument is bunk (or that they don't have one at all).

Which is EXACTLY my point, and is EXACTLY what everyone who uses it in a rules debate is doing WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Also CAPSLOCK IS AWESOME.

And if you move your pinky 7/16" to the left, you can turn it off, too!

sourclams wrote:And if you move your pinky 7/16" to the left, you can turn it off, too!

Really? I never knew that!

So... Umm... What were we talking about again?

Chicks.

sourclams wrote:Chicks.

Baby chickens are adorable.

Seriously though, saying "that's not RAW because that's not the intent" is silly. RAW is whatever is written. I don't play strict no exception RAW, but I want to understand what is actually written before playing it some other way, whether that other way is based on my opinion of intent, or based on some arbitrary whim to my opponent and I feel like doing for no particular reason whatsoever.

But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

See? When people quote page 2 Against me, it is all fine and dandy, but as soon as I make a point to show how those people are just abusing the rule, I get accused of trying to abuse it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

QFT. This is a RaW forum, if you wanna play RaI, go the proposed rules forum and spam away to your hearts content

Gwar I never brought up TMIR in this conversation... you did and I called you on it. Stop waffling.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

See? When people quote page 2 Against me, it is all fine and dandy, but as soon as I make a point to show how those people are just abusing the rule, I get accused of trying to abuse it.



Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

QFT. This is a RaW forum, if you wanna play RaI, go the proposed rules forum and spam away to your hearts content

Did I say you did? No, I didn't. Also, read the thread again. Paxidon brought it up first, not me.

To bring it back to basics:

RAW 12 Terminators can ride in a Valkyrie.

RAI 0, 6, or 12 Terminators can ride in a Valkyrie.

The most common interpretation will probably be 6 Terminators, as nothing disallows Terminators from riding in a Valkyrie, however bulky models almost always take up 2 spaces in a transport.

Looking at 'Ard Boyz rules (I'm getting this secondhand as I have not seen them personally) it may be that GW intended 0 Termies to ride in a Valkyrie, in the same way that chimeras and rhinos are off-limits.

'Ard Boyz rules are not the baseline for the regular rulset, however. Last 'Ard Boyz had very, very favorable kill point interpretations for Imperial Guard. It was possible to make an IG army with 40 separate squads/vehicles/transports that only gave up 7 Kill Points under last year's system. That rule set didn't carry over to the new IG codex, so it wouldn't stand to reason that this rule set will either [yet].

Should we always just blindly follow a RAW interpretation? There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Should we always just blindly follow a RAW interpretation? There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

RaI I belive I should autowin on a 1+. Wait? You don't agree? Omg you're breaking TMIR YOU TFG! - Typical RaI Game

With RaW that can't happen.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

You said nothing actually, you have not a single post in that entire seven page thread. I just pulled it up and looked. And, interestingly enough, when GW FAQ'ed it they said no "for simplicity’s sake". They did not in any way say that by RAW you couldn't do it. You are completely making it up to say that GW FAQ'ed that by RAW you could not do it.

For those with no clue what GBF brought up here, there was an intellectual exercise on my local gaming store forums that he occasionally trolls on whether, by RAW, certain powers could target units in a transport. The consensus was that by RAW they could, but by RAI they couldn't. GW shortly thereafter, in a bout of nicely convenient timing, added to the rulebook FAQ that "For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’."

What exactly was the point of inserting this into post to Gwar! that you didn't bring up TMIR to him?

And whether or not you believe you should blindly follow RAW is a personal choice. The point of this forum is to explore and answer what the outcome of a given situation by pure RAW is. Do with it what you want in game, the point here is to discuss just what it is. Nobody is then forcing you to play your games with it. Change it as you see fit.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Unfortunately, Warhammer 40,000 is not the real world, and yes, it is quite Black and White. Either something is allowed by the rules or it isn't.

In this case, you can put 12 Grey Knight Terminators in a Valkyrie until they tell you that you can't. It doesn't make sense with the fluff, but that's too bad.

As much as Gwar may piss you off, his insights are generally helpful. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:With RaW that can't happen.

Yes it can. There's often cases where it's not clear what the 'right' RAW answer is. Quick, how many points do Grey Hunters pay for a Rhino, and what does it come with? 50? 35? Smoke Launchers and Searchlight or No? And I'm using the english language FAQ, not the German one! Here's another on a similar thread. Can Space Wolves take a Land Raider Redeemer? In the FAQ, it says they can take any Land Raider variants. Nowhere is the LRR defined as a variant.

This issue of GKT in a Valkyrie is different. By RAW, they can. They probably shouldn't be able to, and if they could, they should probably take up 2 transport spaces. That doesn't mean you'll make any friends by playing with 12 terminators in a valkyrie, and at least one major tournament has disallowed it.

There's playing RAW and then there's playing a game. A game. Supposed to be fun.

Arguing RAW on an internet forum has nothing to do with enjoying a game. Most of the time, these debates quickly spiral downwards, and it's just an issue of chest thumping and trying to prove who is the manlier man. Next time, just get out the rulers and settle it that way.

Why is the INAT FAQ there? To let people know what to expect at the tourney. Are you bound to it? No. Heck, if I was playing a Grey Knight army, I'd let them use the Heavy 4 Rending assault cannon. Yes, it's not RAW, but it just seems like that is the way the game should be played to me.

Can models disembark from the Valkyrie even though it sits 5 inches off the deck? Maybe. I don't know what the intent was, and no one besides the games dev team does. Would I let some disembark onto the deck? Yes, because it seems like the way it should be played to me.

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

As I've already mentioned, 'Ard Boyz is not the best source for rulings because there's no evidence that GW consistently adopts them.

The IG Kill Points issue was a massive change in the favor of IG players, and nothing similar to that change was implemented in the current codex.

If GW does FAQ it, then that would be good "evidence". Until then, we have no idea whether or not they will.

I spoke about this very subject ad naseum on the SciFi City forums.

G

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

You said nothing actually, you have not a single post in that entire seven page thread. I just pulled it up and looked. And, interestingly enough, when GW FAQ'ed it they said no "for simplicity’s sake". They did not in any way say that by RAW you couldn't do it. You are completely making it up to say that GW FAQ'ed that by RAW you could not do it.

For those with no clue what GBF brought up here, there was an intellectual exercise on my local gaming store forums that he occasionally trolls on whether, by RAW, certain powers could target units in a transport. The consensus was that by RAW they could, but by RAI they couldn't. GW shortly thereafter, in a bout of nicely convenient timing, added to the rulebook FAQ that "For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’."

What exactly was the point of inserting this into post to Gwar! that you didn't bring up TMIR to him?

And whether or not you believe you should blindly follow RAW is a personal choice. The point of this forum is to explore and answer what the outcome of a given situation by pure RAW is. Do with it what you want in game, the point here is to discuss just what it is. Nobody is then forcing you to play your games with it. Change it as you see fit.

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

Debate aside, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that.

Ragewind wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

Debate aside, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that.

I am glad to see others as concerned as I!

Dont know how much it matters, but it could be what is in the IG FAQ if it ever gets released. according to the Ard Boyz rules for this year. you cant take GK termies in a Valkyrie/Vendetta.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9500009

Quick side question: Is there anywhere that specifically states that space marine ASSAULT terminators are to be treated identical to regular terminators? if not, this whole debate could apply to that aswell. (not near a rulebook right now so i cant check)

If I can translate here, Gwar is an Inquistor. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. While it used to supremely rub me the wrong way, he might have earned a point of respect or two from me. Everyone else here is a space marine. Some adhere strictly to the code; some break a rule here or there; others are like the Blood Angels and are so far off in RaI land that they're considered damned. If life is anything like DnD (which it is exactly, there are obviously no differences), we all have an alignment and tend to work better with people close to our alignment. All of that to say, the Inquisitor wouldn't be an Inquisitor if he didn't try to burn people at the stake, just like the Blood Angel wouldn't be a Blood Angel if he weren't giving into his Black Rage. The best thing we can try to do is understand what we are, be what we are and accept that. There is no definite right or wrong here, but people will disagree and it will not end the world. There's also no point in arguing on two different levels (RaI will not disprove RaW or otherwise) because then you're just fighting on the internet, and that doesn't impress anyone. Hopefully I came off slightly deeper than the "everyone plays their own game" comments tend to.

dashrendar wrote:Dont know how much it matters

It doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SonofTerra wrote:Quick side question: Is there anywhere that specifically states that space marine ASSAULT terminators are to be treated identical to regular terminators? if not, this whole debate could apply to that aswell. (not near a rulebook right now so i cant check)

In Codex: Space Marines, the rule that they take up 2 slots is an Inherent Rule of Terminator Armour. Codex: Daemonhunters Terminator Armour has no such rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If I can translate here, Gwar is an Inquistor. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. While it used to supremely rub me the wrong way, he might have earned a point of respect or two from me. Everyone else here is a space marine. Some adhere strictly to the code; some break a rule here or there; others are like the Blood Angels and are so far off in RaI land that they're considered damned. If life is anything like DnD (which it is exactly, there are obviously no differences), we all have an alignment and tend to work better with people close to our alignment. All of that to say, the Inquisitor wouldn't be an Inquisitor if he didn't try to burn people at the stake, just like the Blood Angel wouldn't be a Blood Angel if he weren't giving into his Black Rage. The best thing we can try to do is understand what we are, be what we are and accept that. There is no definite right or wrong here, but people will disagree and it will not end the world. There's also no point in arguing on two different levels (RaI will not disprove RaW or otherwise) because then you're just fighting on the internet, and that doesn't impress anyone. Hopefully I came off slightly deeper than the "everyone plays their own game" comments tend to.

A splended speech I must say so!

And for the record, I am a Lawful Neutral Ordo Herectus Inqusitor of the Monodominance sect

The thing with RAI vs. RAW in times like this is that it goes against, to an extent, our human nature. The brain seeks out patterns. It wants to make sense of data, to make it easier to remember, to predict what will come next, to avoid getting eaten by a lion.

When most players see a rules situation that's virtually the same as previous ones, they simply play the same way. Terminators can't ride in transports, and when they can, they take two slots. It doesn't matter where those rules came from (note: not the terminators themselves), but rather that the rules work that way.

So, you're first order RAW vs. RAI debate is showing that, yes, the rules actually say soemthing different than you thought. That's usually pretty easy. The hard part is the second order RAW, which goes a step further and seems to hold each individual rule inviolate, even in the fact of counter-precedent. The community has more or less lined up for this, because it's often the only fair way to do things. Termies can't ride in a rhino, but this rule is different, so we play it different.

Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write. At best, Robin figured that there's not a valid reason to make it clear that the new Valk can't hold a unit that's not in the IG codex. Most likely, the issue never even came up.

The problem with highly discrete RAW analysis, picking each phrase apart in a vacuum, is that context is a way to appraise the intent of the writers. In fact, RAW does that all the time. The phrase "Space Marine terminators count as two models" sounds sweeping until placed in it's appropriate context. The scout move/cover save debate hinged more or less on which of two phrases to interpret literally: "as if in a movement phase" or "in the previous movement phase." Interpreting either literally leads to some interesting results. I think that going with no save is better RAW, but that leads to the question of "why wouldn't IG players move every valk 24" on the last turn of games, so that in the next game they start with a cover save?"

Green Blow Fly wrote:I spoke about this very subject ad naseum on the SciFi City forums.

You know my local gaming store(group) is Coliseum of Comics in Kissimmee, not SciFi city. Give it a rest. I still don't even see the point of you bringing it up in this thread in the first place. If you want to gloat to someone at SciFi city that you said something in one of their forums, you should go find one of the people from that gaming group.

No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

augustus5 wrote:No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

Protip: You cannot abuse RaW. RaW is just That, RaW. You can no more claim that 12 GKT in a Valkyrie is Abusing RaW in 40k than you can claim moving your Queen Diagonaly is abusing the RaW of Chess.

You can abuse RaI/TMIR however. I have yet in over 10 years of Wargaming met a person arguing "RaI" who was not trying to eek out an advantage for themselves.

Polonius wrote:Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write.

...which we know for a fact isn't true. See my Assassins/Inquisitors example in the Valkyrie thread.

insaniak wrote:

Polonius wrote:Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write.

...which we know for a fact isn't true. See my Assassins/Inquisitors example in the Valkyrie thread.

Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

Which in turn gets abused 8 ways to Sunday. We pay an extensive premium for the game, the very least that we should get out of common courtesy is ONE FREAKING GUY WITH A SHARPIE FIXING STUFF

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

Last I checked, option 3 is RaW per the BRB.

SJ

Gwar doesn't listen to option 3. Option 3 caused the holocaust or slept with his sister or some other incredibly hyperbolic statement.

I would happily proofread each codex in exchange for a single blister pack. I regularly proof-read my friend's uni assignments for a single bottle of beer, so...

And every single rule that i wrote/edited would have "The intent of this rule is to represent xxx, and if a dispute arises, choose the resolution that most closely follows this intent." written after it. Take that.

People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

GW doesn't want to produce perfect rules. They've gotten better, but still not there. The only way they're going to produce better rules is if people leave the game because of them. PP writes very tight rules, but it also has a 80+ page FAQ online to cover everything in Mk I. Which is fine for the competitive hardcore gamer. GW doesn't see that as their market audience. They know that they're there, but you don't think they comprise a big enough segment to cater to them.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

The reason the rules are not better is because they just don't try. They don't have an incentive too. Because they don't think it hurts their sales to have shoddy rules. Oh, sure, they know they should be and could be better, but they don't need to be.

Plus, there's a mindset that a tight rules set somehow punishes the casual gamer. I don't understand that. The casual gamer either: 1) doesn't care what the rules are, they're going to play how they want anyway; or 2) won't notice. But, the perception is that a tight rules set hurts the casual gamer.

So, in summary, if you want GW to write better rules - stop buying GW product.

dietrich wrote:GW doesn't want to produce perfect rules. They've gotten better, but still not there.

Yes, yes.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

I think we're going to see a change in this mentality. Remember, GW loses money every year, and is a publicly traded company. Public companies don't lose money without the people in charge getting fired.

More and more I think GW is beginning to realize that the game is their primary demand driver, after their background material. In other words, people don't give a gak about owning 500 Space Marines unless it lets them act out a Black Crusade in their very own space opera. The game sells the miniatures, which have no intrinsic value beyond the cost of the pewter/plastic that they contain. There is no way GW miniatures would command a high premium without the game.

I think the younger employees know this (tighter 5th ed rules, new codices with over the top rules to sell new models) and it's the senior grognards that need to get kicked out on their ass so that GW can become a successful company again.

I know that Jervis isn't the most popular person, but I think they've gotten a lot better since he took over. I think GW suffered a bit from their own success and took the market for granted. Now, they have some real competition in other popular games, and the economy has dropped as well.

Jervis admitted at Adepticon a few years ago that letting a codex go 10+ years without an update (such as Orks) is unacceptable. And that they won't make 'appendix' army lists or even army lists without model support.

Whilte I don't always agree with the direction of the game and company, I think they've at least improved. It's like there were a ship, with no navigator, compass, or maps. Now, the at least have a map and navigator, but still don't have a compass.

The story that I always remember about the dev team comes from Bloodbowl (the last boxset edition, version 3 maybe?, with the Deathzone supplement). Those of us that played a lot of BB 'in the real world' had the constant threat of Dirty Players. Fouls at +2/+2 to armor and injury. Dirty Players could decimate a team in a single match. The GW Studio didn't have this experience, because they were all sporting chaps and didnt' Foul much. Then they hired a new guy, who played a lot of BB outside the Studio. And his Dirty Player(s) decimated the Studio league. At which point, the Dev Team realized they had a problem and started modifying the rule, first with I've Got My Eye On You.

I hope the IG faq comes up soon, cuz I'm sure it will nerf the GKT ridng in valks..until then enjoy this loophole...

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

This is a prime example. Rogue Trader was released at the October 87 games day. Stuff of legends lists at least space marines as being released in Spring 87. By the 1988 catalog, there was a pretty decent range. http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/index.htm Couple this with the well known statements by GW officers are being a miniatures company, your post is both factually incorrect and nitpicky.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Funny how the people who seem to frequently throw out personal attacks often seem to be the ones who comment about posting etiquette...

There's a big difference between being abrasive/arrogant and attacking someone personally. The former does not warrant the latter.

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

I think that we all dislike ambiguous rules, some clearly more than others. The very nature of their ambiguity, however, I think starts to cause a break down in RAW. Most of those debates eventually became entrenched in interpretations of the RAW, not the usage or not of the RAW itself. the problem is that RAW quickly becomes an academic exercise. In practice, RAW is the barest of guides in those truly ambiguous cases.

In a way, reliance on RAW at the exclusion of all else is self defeating. GW's rules are not airtight. Interpreting them as if they were, is, in itself, a violation of the rules. yes, TMIR is horribly fuzzy. No, it does not provide clear answers. But when RAW doesn't either, the rules become a program that can't compile. You can keep the code as is, or you can make the most sensible modification and move on.

there is also this notion that RAW is crystal clear and RAI impossible to determine. RAW is generally clear and RAI is almost always expressed directly through RAW, but there are times when it's far more interesting.

Here, of course, the RAW is pretty clear. Terminators can ride and don't take up two spots. Reading anything more into that isn't RAW, or even RAI, but becomes a "balance" decision. Compare that to say, ruling the Valks can embark/disembark as if on the ground. Disagrees with the strictest reading of RAW (even if contested), but there is strong RAI evidence to support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Funny how the people who seem to frequently throw out personal attacks often seem to be the ones who comment about posting etiquette...

There's a big difference between being abrasive/arrogant and attacking someone personally. The former does not warrant the latter.

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

it's not a personal attack to call a persona or a pattern of posting behavior what it is. If you read my post, you'll see that I point out that it's improper.

My point is that there is an amusing irony in people posting like Big Dogs, but they cry every time somebody is mean to them.

At the end of the day, a party that is himself violating rules of politeness has less cause to expect scrupulous protection from other violations. If you regularly treat the posters around you poorly, what kind of reception do you really expect?

In addition, posting in such a manner is going to aggravate/annoy people. It's either an intentional affectation (which is itself rude) or a reckless disregard for others (which is also rude).

Gwar! wrote:

augustus5 wrote:No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

Protip: You cannot abuse RaW. RaW is just That, RaW. You can no more claim that 12 GKT in a Valkyrie is Abusing RaW in 40k than you can claim moving your Queen Diagonaly is abusing the RaW of Chess.

You can abuse RaI/TMIR however. I have yet in over 10 years of Wargaming met a person arguing "RaI" who was not trying to eek out an advantage for themselves.

Protip: It is my opinion that one can ABUSE RAW, when one fails to throw in RAI for balance when considering a ruling for something that does not appear correct in the rules set. Chess has an easy to follow simple set of rules that really are not open to interpretation. 40k uses rules coming from several different rulebooks authored by several different authors, some from previous editions of the game, and as such runs into problems. It is our job as the players to resolve these conflicting rules in the fairest way possible until a official ruling comes down from GW. Since we know that the rulebooks have flaws (these are not to be followed to the word like a holy book), we must explore the RAW and the RAI of the given situation.

In this case it seems to me that logically the size of tactical dreadnaught armor takes up two seats for a GK just as it does for a SM. Whether the DH codex mentions that or not is a moot point to me.

@Polonius I agree with your points in general.

Polonius wrote:Terminators can ride and don't take up two spots. Reading anything more into that isn't RAW, or even RAI, but becomes a "balance" decision.

This is where I have problems, with the game and with debates regarding the game, when people decide 'X' is unbalanced. We saw a lot of this sort of screaming regarding Lash and Deffrollas, where people decided that some aspect of the rule was imbalanced and therefore the most literal interpretation can't possibly be correct.

Then as the metagame evolves, it turns out that those things aren't really that overpowered, and in fact may be necessary if the above wants to be considered "competitive".

Lash Chaos (and the codex in general) is underwhelming, especially in the face of new IG armored walls and air cav.

Orks have a huge problem killing armor without being vulnerable to shooting, especially transports (Lootas in BW aside).

I'm not saying that strict RAW fixes this (although in these two instances it helps), but having this living rule set created around finding balance only works if "balance" is a fixed quantity.

Is 10 GKTs in a Valkyrie even unbalanced? That's 480 points right there, plus 100 for the transport. 500 points for a first-turn alpha strike seems like a terrible investment, especially considering that they can do absolutely nothing to crack transports before they run in.

I'd be delighted fighting an opponent with this setup, because it's *terrible*.

Polonius wrote: You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that.

Not on Dakka you don't. Rule #1 is always in effect.

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

"You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that."

How does calling someone an arrogant jerk NOT register as a personal attack? Did this thread just stumble into Bizarro world?

You're free to harbor the personal opinion and perspective on someone's pattern of behavior, but to bring it into the discussion is entirely irrelevant and, in this case, abusive. You may not like Gwar or how he makes his points, but he's not breaking any rules by doing so. Put the mud-slinging in PM if you can't help yourself.

Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Danny Internets wrote:Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Perfectly Legal to Stick a 10 Man Unit Plus a Grand Master, all In Terminator Armour. You could even Stick in an Elite Inquisitor from the Witch Hunters Codex with them

Oddly enough people think this needs discussion at all.

Danny Internets wrote:

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

"You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that."

How does calling someone an arrogant jerk NOT register as a personal attack? Did this thread just stumble into Bizarro world?

You're free to harbor the personal opinion and perspective on someone's pattern of behavior, but to bring it into the discussion is entirely irrelevant and, in this case, abusive. You may not like Gwar or how he makes his points, but he's not breaking any rules by doing so. Put the mud-slinging in PM if you can't help yourself.

Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Except, you know, see above where Iorek says it does break rules. The rule is not to be nice, but to be polite.

You can politely point out that somebody is posting like a jerk. As I've offered before, I can avoid the word jerk and say something wordier like "when a person posts in a manner that is self aggrandizing and often limited in it's respect for fellow posters", or we can all agree that "posting like a jerk" is less wordy.

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

No, i'm saying that because you seem to delight in being rude and disrespectful to other posters, it's ok for me to point out, using the parlance of our time, the characteristics of your behavior. I've said nothing about you as a person, but rather I've defined the manner of your posting.

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

I am not rude, I am just blunt. People mistake that as rudeness and then issue personal attacks against me. Polonius' Assertion that it is then acceptable to make personal attacks because of my bluntness is in itself a personal attack.

Just to derail this thread a little more.

The 'Ard Boyz doesn't allow GKT in a Valkyrie. Says nothing about GKPA. Not as heavy hitting, but still an unpleasant surprise.

Gwar! wrote:

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

I am not rude, I am just blunt. People mistake that as rudeness and then issue personal attacks against me. Polonius' Assertion that it is then acceptable to make personal attacks because of my bluntness is in itself a personal attack.

Read what I wrote. I did not say it was acceptable, I said it was funny. Bluntness, when it offends people, becomes rudeness. Etiquette is situational, and here a certain decorum is generally seen as a good thing. I'd also assert that you find your "bluntness" to be useful as a tactic, simply because people find it rude. The standard for offense is not subjective, it is objective. I think a reasonable person would find many of your posts to be rude, and not just blunt.

And you can keep repeating that my non-existent assertion is a personal attack, but that's not going to make it true. In addition, putting words in my mouth is simply not polite either.

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know!

Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Danny Internets wrote:

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know!

Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Knock yourself out, champ.

Polonius wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know! Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Knock yourself out, champ.

Are you inciting someone to self harm?

sourclams wrote:All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

We can dislike ambiguous rules all we want... but if GW have no interest in writing a seamless, tournament-ready ruleset, then it's not going to happen.

That's really all that I was getting at with option 3. They're going to write the ruleset that they want to write, and no amount of bitching on forums will change that, because GW have a very low opinion of the value of internet discussion.

insaniak wrote:
That's really all that I was getting at with option 3. They're going to write the ruleset that they want to write, and no amount of bitching on forums will change that, because GW have a very low opinion of the value of internet discussion.

Hmmm, I wonder why.

Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

Polonius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

This is a prime example. Rogue Trader was released at the October 87 games day. Stuff of legends lists at least space marines as being released in Spring 87. By the 1988 catalog, there was a pretty decent range. http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/index.htm Couple this with the well known statements by GW officers are being a miniatures company, your post is both factually incorrect and nitpicky.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

And Cheaters Justify themselves by waving page 2 About.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

They do write bad rules. Everyone knows this except JohnHwangDD.

The unfortunate thing is, the rules are the only thing that sell their models. The assumption that a tiny pewter man is intrinsically worth $20.00 without Space Opera is so wrong that I can't even comprehend the thought process that gets one to that conclusion.

sourclams wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

They do write bad rules. Everyone knows this except JohnHwangDD.

The unfortunate thing is, the rules are the only thing that sell their models. The assumption that a tiny pewter man is intrinsically worth $20.00 without Space Opera is so wrong that I can't even comprehend the thought process that gets one to that conclusion.

Personally I think it a combination of fluff, cool models, availability of opponents, and relativly simple play mechanics that sell the game IN SPITE of the sometimes unclear rules. Overall I think 5th ed rocks, but I do wish these constant niggly little issues were not so common.

IMHO of course, and now I have to go give myself 20 lashes for letting myself read a YMDC thread.

The fifth edition rules are the tighest yet. My only gripe with GW is their FAQs and errata... They completely missed the boat on Space Marines.

I have heard people say that the rules should be as tight as chess. I don't think that is possible seeing that GW is run strictly for profit... New edition roughly every five years and new codices. Things just constantly keep changing.

There are two approaches to rules that come into question and both methods can become clouded by bias, either interpreting a rule in favor of what races you play or not in favor against races you don't play. The first approach is basically to say if the rules don't say you can't then it's okay. This is the liberal approach. The second method is conservative... If you feel uncomfortable about something then play it safe and don't do it. No one I know has yet to strictly apply only one of these two methods for every issue that crops up. I tend to take the latter approach but there are certainly times when I'll opt for the liberal tact. We can play the rules to our best advantage when it helps us and be more consevative when a rule appears to hurt us. In the end I think it all just evens out. If a lot of people abuse a rule it will eventually be taken away by the game developers when a new set of rules are introduced. Then the cycle starts all over again.

G

I remember when Games Workshop produced only game rules and no miniatures. Back then, both Citadel Miniatures and Marauder Miniatures produced the entire Fantasy and 40k line between the two companies. Then Citadel bought Marauder, followed by Games Works purchasing Citadel; which was tragic since Citadel was founded by HG Wells to produce miniatures for historical and fantasy dioramic battles as well as some of the battles in his “future history” novels. GW's purchase of plastic injection production machines was quite recent.

So, yes, they can say that they are currently a miniatures company that writes rules, but that is a more modern spin on their own company history.

SJ