Fun List of RAW Fun - or what happens when we Play By The Rules

This list was originally started to make a point in another thread, but has since grown way bigger. It's a list of all the silliness that can occur from a strict RAW reading of some sloppily-written rulebooks. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, and to Gwar for some lovely formatting (as well as some lovely rules contributions, of course!). I update this regularly with all the RAW issues i think are silly enough.

Please keep the suggestions coming.

Oh, and the golden rule is, if you want to argue about things for pages, start a new thread!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Rulebook
- Wobbly Model Rule means models can move in any direction, including onto the side of a building or the tip of a tree, and then be removed from the table as 'unstable', as long as both players know where they should be. Potentially, you can move ALL your models like this if you wish.
- Non-vehicle models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
- Any weapon which refers to a 'Large Blast Template' or 'Blast Template' cannot be used. There is no such thing. There ARE, however, Blast 'Markers'.
- 'Moves like Jump Infantry' does not mean 'uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry', so some models with Wings cannot Deep Strike, dependent on codex.
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)
- Vehicle Squadrons that are purchased as a Squadron of one (eg, a Single Leman Russ) remain Squadrons until the first time they are shot at by the enemy. Which means they can be wrecked by difficult terrain tests.
- There are no rules for deployment. You can therefore deploy wherever you like, including on the bookshelf in the next room.
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur when hitting enemy models. DS occurs in the Movement phase, which requires you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
- Independent Characters cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. This makes it very hard for them to embark/disembark - they must be EXACTLY 2" away.
- ICs who can repair vehicles cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. The vehicle must move to them or they must run to it.
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'
- A unit may move off the table, they are only removed from play if they touch the edge of the table if falling back. The following turn they would be able to move back on or around without any penalty. This was FAQ'd but we all know THAT doesn't count as RAW....
- ONLY Citadel Miniatures may be used to play 40k. Nothing else.

Black Templars
- Black Templar Terminators cannot sweeping advance, but other models in 'terminator armour' can

Blood Angels
- Reclusiarchs have Honour of the Chapter and Liturgies of Blood, but cannot use them, as these abilities only affect 'Chaplains'
- Blood Angel Vindicators have their weapon listed as just ordnance 1. Not ordnance blast 1.
- Blood Angel 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

Chaos Space Marines
- In various psychic powers, including Warptime, THE PSYKER ITSELF must roll the dice. (That's the model, not the player)
- Warptime requires you to reroll ALL hits and ALL wounds, not just unsuccessful hits/wounds.

Dæmonhunters/Witchhunters
- Grey Knight Terminators can always Sweeping Advance, apparently they cannot 'Advance' after combat. There is no such thing as 'Advancing' after combat.
- Only 'characters in terminator armour' are can move and fire with heavy weapons.
- Culexus Assassins are always Leadership 7 as they are affected by their own Soulless rule!

Dark Angels
- If you run bikers, no model in EITHER army may turbo-boost during it's Scout move.
- Dark Angel Terminators cannot sweeping advance, but other models in 'terminator armour' can

Dark Eldar
- Dark Eldar Jetbikers have T5. (The boost to T4 is clearly included in their stat line, however the entry never states this, and the BRB states that jetbikes get +1 toughness)

Eldar
- Eldrad has access to Farseer powers but cannot use them, as they refer to 'the Farseer'
- Harlequins have a USR called 'Furious Assault'. This does not exist. (There is a 'Furious Charge', though)
- Dire Avengers' Bladestorm doesn't have any drawbacks. You can't shoot in the "subsequent shooting phase" [Eldar Codex p.30] but that's your enemy's so no harm done.

Imperial Guard
- Leman Russ Battle Tanks do not have any main turret weapon (The Army List lists a turret weapon for a 'Leman Russ' but there's no unit called a 'Leman Russ')
- Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports, as well as getting the benefit of priest's rerolls.

Necrons
- Necron Monoliths GAIN shots each time they have a Weapon Destroyed (apparently it "reduces the number of shots by -1", which is the same as adding 1)
- The Monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)
- You are only denied WBB if the shot is 2x your toughness. Therefore, T4 models are only denied by S8 shots, not S9 or S10. Strength D does not deny WBB.

Orks
- Ork Trukks 'Ramshackle' never triggers as there are no 'Vehicle Destroyed!' or 'Vehicle Explodes!' results (There are 'Destroyed - Wrecked' and 'Destroyed - Explodes!' though..)
- Ork boarding planks cannot be used if the vehicle has moved more than 12" in THE ENTIRE GAME. (There's no qualification for 12" that TURN)
- Nothing in the game may ram, unless you model a ram or Deff Rolla on that's more than 1" long. (You have to stop 1" away from the enemy, and the ramming rules only work if you touch them)
- Nob Bikers and IC's on Warbikes are not the Bikes unit type (They change their 'troop type' to bike, but there's no such thing as 'troop type')
- The double 6 result on the Shokk Attack gun removes anything under the template, even vehicles. They suffer a hit in addition to being removed from the board.

Space Marines
- Shrike's unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators (since the unit only gets the rule after he joins them, and he can't join them until after deployment)
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.
- Master of the Forge cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Lysander cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Tellion is not 'Unique'
- Space Marine Characters who take a bike do not change their unit type to Bike. They are still Infantry, and can therefore embark on transport vehicles.

Space Wolves
- Wolf Scouts cannot make a Scout move - they have the Scout USR, but there is no such thing. There is, however, a Scouts USR.
- Bjorn the Fellhanded has 5+ inv save which he cannot use (since, if you pass it, the special rule doesn't list what happens next).
- Storm Caller gives vehicles a 5+ cover save, they they can only use against wounds because the power doesn't also obscure them.
- Tempest Wrath affects all Jump Infantry units, even if they didn't use their Jump Packs. It doesn't affect things that 'move as Jump Infantry' such as Mephiston or a DP, as these are still Infantry/MC.

Tau Empire
- Multitrackers do not work on Tau Fire Warriors and Pathfinders (The rules allow you to fire two Battlesuit Weapon Systems, and Tau infantry can't take any)
- Broadsides with Advanced Stabilisation System can choose to use it at ANY point in the movement phase, including after they've already moved 6", giving them all the benefits of Slow & Purposeful, but none of the drawbacks.
- Drones are removed when the model with the drone controller is removed in the "shooting or assault phase", so if a battlesuit dies in the movement phase (Tank Shock etc) the drones remain.
- Battlesuits may take up to 100pts from the 'Battlesuit Wargear List', but this is only a section of the Battlesuit Armoury. Weapons and support systems therefore don't count toward the total.
- Battlesuits do not require a drone controller to purchase drones from the 'Battlesuit Wargear List'. The drone controller does limit you to only two, though.
- Since drones are wargear, they don't have to modelled separately, and can be on the battlesuit model.
[The upshot of these last ones is that a Battlesuit may spend 100pts on wargear, including one of each type of Drone but no drone controller, and still take all it's normal weapon and support options. The Drones do not count as casualties for the purposes of morale, and will not be removed when the suit dies, as the suit does not have a drone controller, and as long as the drones are not actually separate models.]

Tyranids
- The Tyranid instinctive behavior Lurk doesn't work because you cannot check to see if you are out of range without declaring shooting, at which point it is too late to run.
- Doom of Malant'ai has access to Zoanthrope powers but cannot use them, as they refer to 'the Zoanthrope'
- The Doom of Malan'tai has no invulnerable save, for the same reason as given above.
- The above is also true for Old One Eye and Carnifex abilities, Swarmlord and Hive Tyrant abilities and Deathleaper and Lictor Abilities.
- Spore mines aren't removed when they explode, though they can damage themselves (meaning they would instantly explode twice in most cases).
- Spore mine movement doesn't replace 'normal' movement, so the mine can float d6", move the remainder up to 6" and still assault if it wants.
- Spore mines will instantly blow up if deployed in units larger than one. This is because the special rule for them says if they DRIFT into each other they do not detonate but one is removed from play.
- The Paroxysm power lasts until the Tyrant's next turn, so if the Tyrant is killed this power last indefinitely, possibly until the next game he is used in.
- Various psychic powers measure range 'from the Hive Tyrant' or last 'until the Tyrant's next turn', even if they're being used by the Swarmlord.
- "All Carnifexes in the brood must have the same options." Well, they ALL have the same list of options, as they're in the same unit, but you can still choose which ones to take.
- "All units of Termagants, spawned or otherwise, within 6" of a Tervigon can use the Tervigon's Leadership for any test they are required to make." That's ANY TEST, not just Ld tests.`


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


.

The Rage USR breaks the rulebook, because there is no way to check LOS in the movement phase.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Terminators in Terminator Armour cannot Sweeping Advance, but anyone else in Terminator Armour can.

Space wolves codex says "Models in Terminator armour cannot perform a sweeping advance." :O

Great list, it exposes the level of rules lawyering that some threads enshrine.

And of course there's the troll corollary:

* "Looks like GW fixed that odd clause in their errata, so your 'ruling' is wrong."
* (sneering) "No, GW is wrong."

Well done!

Broadsides, Advanced stabilization system.

may use the slow and purposeful USR if the player chooses.

Move 6'', yea im deciding to use that.. now i can still fire (instead of rolling 2d6'' for movement)

Inquis Force Weapons ignore Instant Death

Crushing Claws make Living Battering Ram useless

Old One Eye cannot use Living Battering Ram as it states "a Carnifex which charges". OOE isnt a Carni. (Same argument that DoM isn't a Zoanthrope.)

All the instances referring to a "Large Blast Template", whereas there are only "Large Blast Markers"

Turret flamers on vehicles are generally unusable because they overlap a friendly model.

Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn.

=][= chimeras that become open-topped when inquisitorial stormtroopers shoot out of them, but IG chimeras that are cheaper and aren't open topped ever.

Swarmlord is not a Hive Tyrant.

Lurk doesn't work because you cannot check to see if you are out of range without declaring shooting, at which point it is too late to run.

ghost11 wrote:

Great list, it exposes the level of rules lawyering that some threads enshrine.

And of course there's the troll corollary:

* "Looks like GW fixed that odd clause in their errata, so your 'ruling' is wrong."
* (sneering) "No, GW is wrong."

Well done!

I dont think anyone says that GW Erratas are wrong, GW FAQs however, have frequently incorrect clarifications.

ArbitorIan wrote:\

- 'Moves like Jump Infantry' does not mean 'uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry', so some models with Wings cannot Deep Strike.

Uh. . . care to explain your reasoning on that? As far as I can tell, "moves like Jump infantry" DOES, in fact, mean "uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry", and so all models with Wings can, in fact, Deep Strike.

It doesn't, but lets not go down that road please.

No arguements, just RAW inconsistencies.

I'm in YMDC, so I already know that I'm going to lose...

But don't you think we have a ridiculous standard for rules?

I imagine the guys at GW seeing stuff like this and saying 'Really? Do we have to spell it out that much?'

I know it's fun to argue RAW but considering half the RAW arguments end with 'Not that anyone would play that way anyways', why does it matter?

It seems like this trend is pretty close to the 'Caution: Do not place hand in blender' warning stickers or the 'Contents Hot' lawsuits. How much spelling out is required?

Valkyrie wrote:Inquis Force Weapons ignore Instant Death

Crushing Claws make Living Battering Ram useless

Old One Eye cannot use Living Battering Ram as it states "a Carnifex which charges". OOE isnt a Carni. (Same argument that DoM isn't a Zoanthrope.)

All the instances referring to a "Large Blast Template", whereas there are only "Large Blast Markers"

Why does it matter that OOe can't use Living Battering Ram? All his attacks are at I1, anyway.

Klawz wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:Inquis Force Weapons ignore Instant Death

Crushing Claws make Living Battering Ram useless

Old One Eye cannot use Living Battering Ram as it states "a Carnifex which charges". OOE isnt a Carni. (Same argument that DoM isn't a Zoanthrope.)

All the instances referring to a "Large Blast Template", whereas there are only "Large Blast Markers"

Why does it matter that OOe can't use Living Battering Ram? All his attacks are at I1, anyway.

Initiative Tests

As said, don't ruin the thread with arguing.

Bjorn the Fellhanded has 4+ inv save which he cannot use (which Gwar! cleverly pointed out).

nyyman wrote:As said, don't ruin the thread with arguing.

Bjorn the Fellhanded has 4+ inv save which he cannot use (which Gwar! cleverly pointed out).

Actually, it's a 5+, and yes, even though it says he may take the 5+ save against Glancing or Penetrating hits, there are no rules as to what passing the save actually does, unlike cover saves which clearly outline that the hit is discarded.

nyyman wrote:Bjorn the Fellhanded has 4+ inv save which he cannot use (which Gwar! cleverly pointed out).

This was wrong. Gwar's argument was based on a (supposedly) missing line in his codex. Bjorn's invulnerable save works just fine.

Thanks, have included a load of these in the list. Keep em coming. I've tried not to include ones that are just "two different-era codices have two different-era rules" unless they actually result in an absurd in-game situation...

TopC wrote:Broadsides, Advanced stabilization system.
may use the slow and purposeful USR if the player chooses.
Move 6'', yea im deciding to use that.. now i can still fire (instead of rolling 2d6'' for movement)

Not sure I understand why this is game-breaking, rather than just a bad choice. You can choose to equip Broadsides with Advanced SS. If you take it, they can move d6" and fire their railguns, otherwise they have to stay still to fire them. EDIT - Oh, no, now i understand. That really is stupid, so it's going in...

Valkyrie wrote:All the instances referring to a "Large Blast Template", whereas there are only "Large Blast Markers"

This is FANTASTIC. Any ideas which weapons these are?

insaniak wrote:

nyyman wrote:Bjorn the Fellhanded has 4+ inv save which he cannot use (which Gwar! cleverly pointed out).

This was wrong. Gwar's argument was based on a (supposedly) missing line in his codex. Bjorn's invulnerable save works just fine.

My Argument WAS based on a missing line.

However, my NEW argument based on the actual line from the codex, is that nowhere does it tell you what to do if you pass the save. For Wounds, it clearly states the wound is ignored. For Cover saves, it clearly states the hit is discarded. There is no such wording for Invulnerable saves on vehicles. So Bjorn can take the save, but it doesn't do anything even if it is passed.

ArbitorIan wrote:This is FANTASTIC. Any ideas which weapons these are?

Pretty much everything, from Dark Eldar to Tyranids. See the new INAT for some examples from the Nid Codex, I'll grab my DE codex and check there.

And before someone tries it, even in 3rd ed, the rulebook called them Blast Markers.

Edit: Well bugger me sideways the DE codex calls them Markers.

ArbitorIan wrote:Thanks, have included a load of these in the list. Keep em coming. I've tried not to include ones that are just "two different-era codices have two different-era rules" unless they actually result in an absurd in-game situation...

TopC wrote:Broadsides, Advanced stabilization system.
may use the slow and purposeful USR if the player chooses.
Move 6'', yea im deciding to use that.. now i can still fire (instead of rolling 2d6'' for movement)

Move 6''
Then declare use of ASS

You moved 6'' w/o having to roll a 6 ont he dice, and can still shoot..

Ramshackle for Ork Turks never triggers as there are no 'Vehicle Destroyed!' or 'Vehicle Explodes!' results on the damage chart, there is instead 'Destroyed - Wrecked' and 'Destroyed - Explodes!'

Vehicles that are purchased in Squadrons that are purchased as a Squadron of one (for example, a Single Leman Russ or a Single Vendetta) remain Squadrons (and follow the Squadron Rules) until the first time they are shot at by the enemy. The upshot is if the aforementioned vehicle fails a Dangerous Terrain test prior to being shot at by an enemy and becomes Immobilised, the Squadron rules kick in and it is Wrecked instead.

Spore mines aren't removed when they explode though they can damage themselves meaning they would instantly explode twice in most cases!

Spore mines can move and assault normally they just have a forced d6" movement at the start of the turn (nothing states that replaces their normal movement or that they cannot assault).

The Swarmlord can use his psychic powers they just function differently. He can't regain wounds from leech but Paroxysm last for ver (as it ends on the Hive Tyrants next turn which of course he isn't).

Shrike can't inflitrate with a unit that doesn't already have infiltrate because you can't join a unit until after it is deployed at which point infiltrate is somewhat useless to them.

Another one:
The monolith gains attacks as it gets weapon destroyed results,
"Each 'weapon destroyed' result inflicted on the Monolith reduces the number of shots at each target by -1"
Reducing by -1 is the same as adding +1.


Off-topic: Gwar! how do you have no title under your name? Too many posts?

Oh.

*twitch*

It's like a Who's Who of RAW madness.

...

I need a shower.

FlingitNow wrote:Spore mines can move and assault normally they just have a forced d6" movement at the start of the turn (nothing states that replaces their normal movement or that they cannot assault).

Actually, since the Living Bomb rule doesn't specifically state that this D6 is additional movement, they would still be bound by the rule restricting them to moving 6" in a phase. So the best you could do would be to move the D6", and then move however far you have left to make it up to 6" in total.

So, effectively, Spore Mines just have a 6" movement like any other infantry, but D6" of it will be in a random direction.

And due to the rule that says that after moving a unit you can not move on to a different unit and then come back to the first and change it, the 'normal' movement would have to be made immediately after the compulsory movement, before moving any other units.

Actually, since the Living Bomb rule doesn't specifically state that this D6 is additional movement, they would still be bound by the rule restricting them to moving 6" in a phase. So the best you could do would be to move the D6", and then move however far you have left to make it up to 6" in total.

So, effectively, Spore Mines just have a 6" movement like any other infantry, but D6" of it will be in a random direction.

And due to the rule that says that after moving a unit you can not move on to a different unit and then come back to the first and change it, the 'normal' movement would have to be made immediately after the compulsory movement, before moving any other units.

Nice catch they can still assault though .

Another one:
The monolith gains attacks as it gets weapon destroyed results,
"Each 'weapon destroyed' result inflicted on the Monolith reduces the number of shots at each target by -1"
Reducing by -1 is the same as adding +1.

This is a common one to many negative modifers through out the game.

ArbitorIan wrote:- Models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)

This is mostly silly on the part of people who claim it in relation to such things as wraithlords, if you are to say they do not have eyes, then you can just as easily say any model with a helmet that covers their face such as a space marine does not have eyes, or at the very least that they are blocked and a line can never be traced between them and the target. Just a pet peeve of mine that most people don't realise how far ranging this would actually be.

They're ALL mostly silly.....

But fantastic - keep them coming.

That one about starting the game is really bugging me. I'm sure someone had a reading of RAW which meant that there was no way to actually START a game.....

This thread, although funny, annoys me to no end. The fact that people will ACTUALLY try all these loads of BS moves on other gamers saddens me. But after saying that, they really are funny.

My favorite is rerolling rerolls. GW say you can never reroll a reroll correct? So when you roll to see who goes first, and it's a tie, you have to reroll. If it becomes a tie again, techiquely, the game should be over because you can'r reroll a reroll

ArbitorIan wrote:They're ALL mostly silly.....

But fantastic - keep them coming.

That one about starting the game is really bugging me. I'm sure someone had a reading of RAW which meant that there was no way to actually START a game.....

How you deploy is not in the rulebook.

KingCracker wrote:This thread, although funny, annoys me to no end. The fact that people will ACTUALLY try all these loads of BS moves on other gamers saddens me. But after saying that, they really are funny.

It would definitely annoy me to no end also, but I haven't seen ANY of these things used in a game. Have you? I'm under the impression we feel people do actually do these things, because of the method we see them 'ruled' here.

This thread is hilarious and awesome.

My vote for silly is that vehicles with cover saves cannot use them unless they are also obscured, as somewhat recently discussed. (I'm still not convinced but I'm outvoted.) Hooray for having a save you can't roll!

Harlequins do not benefit from Furious Charge, as their rules list them as getting "Furious Assault", which of course has no rules as to what it does.

Only Independent characters need to be WYSIWYG/Only optional weapons need to be WYSIWYG.

Imperial Guards Frag Grenades don't do anything.

Why not Gwar?

Pika_power wrote:Why not Gwar?

The IG codex says:
Frag Grenades: See the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

There are no rules for "Frag Grenades" in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, only "Assault Grenades".

In the Ork codex, Stikkbombs count as frag grenades in all respects.

Do they work?

Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on.

Just because you cannot look up the word Frag Grenade or a rules section called "Frag Grenades" doesn't exist, doesn't mean they aren't addressed in the rules.

No model in codex Tyranids can use Bone Swords. Bone Swords only give a bonus to Tyranids that use them. There is no unit in the codex called a Tyranid.

Steelmage99 wrote:Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on

No, Frag Grenades are given as an Example. There are no rules for Frag Grenades, only Assault Grenades.

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on

No, Frag Grenades are given as an Example. There are no rules for Frag Grenades, only Assault Grenades.

Does any unit have "assault grenades"?

Chaos Daemons do; under aura of acquiescence.

Davor wrote:My favorite is rerolling rerolls. GW say you can never reroll a reroll correct? So when you roll to see who goes first, and it's a tie, you have to reroll. If it becomes a tie again, techiquely, the game should be over because you can'r reroll a reroll

In that case, you start a new game.

Klawz wrote:

Davor wrote:My favorite is rerolling rerolls. GW say you can never reroll a reroll correct? So when you roll to see who goes first, and it's a tie, you have to reroll. If it becomes a tie again, techiquely, the game should be over because you can'r reroll a reroll

In that case, you start a new game.

Of course, but in a RAW Tourney situation, you'd instantly draw, right?

Dark Eldar have jetbikers with the toughness boost clearly included in their stat line, however it never states this, and the BRB states that jetbikes get +1 toughness. So DE have T4+1 toughness bikers.

Culler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on

No, Frag Grenades are given as an Example. There are no rules for Frag Grenades, only Assault Grenades.

Does any unit have "assault grenades"?

Page 75 Chaos Dæmons
Page 100 Space Marines
Page 57 Space Wolves

Bjorn's useless invulnerable save or has that already been mentioned?

Shrike unable to actually give infiltrate to anyone.

If you have any spec character with chapter tactics he automatically overrides Calgar's rules...

FlingitNow wrote:Shrike unable to actually give infiltrate to anyone.

Incorrect. He grants Infiltrate to the unit he is with just fine, it's just that the unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators. They can outflank though, because they have the Infiltrate USR.

If you have any spec character with chapter tactics he automatically overrides Calgar's rules...

Again, incorrect. It does not "override" anything. What happens is that Calgars "God of War" only applies to units with "Combat Tactics", which is lost or exchanged when a Model with Chapter Tactics is also included in the army,

Incorrect. He grants Infiltrate to the unit he is with just fine, it's just that the unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators. They can outflank though, because they have the Infiltrate USR.

Ok my wording was imprecise, but the point still remains

Again, incorrect. It does not "override" anything. What happens is that Calgars "God of War" only applies to units with "Combat Tactics", which is lost or exchanged when a Model with Chapter Tactics is also included in the army,

Please see above. I'm not writing a rule it was obvious what I was talking about...

FlingitNow wrote:Please see above. I'm not writing a rule it was obvious what I was talking about...

It was not obvious to me, mainly because it was completely wrong.

It was not obvious to me, mainly because it was completely wrong.

It in fact was correct as you pointed out. The wording may have been imprecise but the point was still correct...

I am starting to wonder if you have a severe problem with the english language or at least with interacting with other human beings as you seem to fail to understand the simplest things...

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on

No, Frag Grenades are given as an Example. There are no rules for Frag Grenades, only Assault Grenades.

So as Frag Grenades are given as an example of an Assault Grenade, it really isn't an Assault Grenade? That is completely illogical.

Assault Grenades are a category of grenades, which includes Frag Grenades. Hence Frag Grenades follow the rules for the category they belong to, which is Assault Grenades.

You see Assault Grenades as being different from Frag Grenades. The rest of us sees Frag Grenades as a sub-category of Assault Grenades, just like Plasma Grenades for example.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Assault grenades includes frag grenades, plasma grenades, and so on

No, Frag Grenades are given as an Example. There are no rules for Frag Grenades, only Assault Grenades.

So as Frag Grenades are given as an example of an Assault Grenade, it really isn't an Assault Grenade? That is completely illogical.

Assault Grenades are a category of grenades, which includes Frag Grenades. Hence Frag Grenades follow the rules for the category they belong to, which is Assault Grenades.

You see Assault Grenades as being different from Frag Grenades. The rest of us sees Frag Grenades as a sub-category of Assault Grenades, just like Plasma Grenades for example.

Completely accurate. Pg 36 of the Warhammer 40k rulebook.
Assault Grenades (e.g. frag grenades, plasma grenades and so on)

so it would appear your completely wrong gwar, sorry

No, I am not. Just because some frag grenades are given as an example, not all frag grenades are.

Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. Just because some frag grenades are given as an example, not all frag grenades are.

umm define all frag grenades. I assuming everything called a frag grenade is a frag grenade so please explain...

Joetaco wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. Just because some frag grenades are given as an example, not all frag grenades are.

umm define all frag grenades. I assuming everything called a frag grenade is a frag grenade so please explain...

So all storm shields have the same rules then?

one problem with that. You would refer to your codex to check your wargear. ( i will be using the space marine codex for this example)
( Pg 98 of the 5th edition Space Marine Codex) there it says Frag Grenades are assault grenades, as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

so theres my point if you need more codex examples i'll provide as many as i can. Now please make a point other than " Gwar is right, Joetaco is wrong "

FlingitNow wrote:

It was not obvious to me, mainly because it was completely wrong.

It in fact was correct as you pointed out. The wording may have been imprecise but the point was still correct...

I am starting to wonder if you have a severe problem with the english language or at least with interacting with other human beings as you seem to fail to understand the simplest things...

Watch it, FlingitNow. This violates Rule #1. If you have a problem with a user, use the Moderator Alert button in the upper right-hand corner of the post.

Gwar! wrote:

Joetaco wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. Just because some frag grenades are given as an example, not all frag grenades are.

umm define all frag grenades. I assuming everything called a frag grenade is a frag grenade so please explain...

So all storm shields have the same rules then?

New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!!

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Joetaco wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am not. Just because some frag grenades are given as an example, not all frag grenades are.

umm define all frag grenades. I assuming everything called a frag grenade is a frag grenade so please explain...

So all storm shields have the same rules then?

New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!! New thread to discuss!!!

This!!! This!!! This!!! This!!! This!!! This!!!

Updated again!

Woo, we'll NEVER be able to complete a game at this rate. With the new additions, we can't even start one!

Gwar! wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Shrike unable to actually give infiltrate to anyone.

Incorrect. He grants Infiltrate to the unit he is with just fine, it's just that the unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators. They can outflank though, because they have the Infiltrate USR.

Don't get it - briefly, why can't they deploy as Infiltrators if they have they USR?

Timing

Shrike only gives Infiltrate to "his unit", and you are not joined to a unit until you deploy in coherency with that unit.

WHen you deploy the unit you want shrike to join you CANNOT deploy this unit outside of the normal deployment step as the unit does not have Infiltrate - they dont until Shrike has joined them. At that pint they have Infiltrate but have already deployed normally, and therefore CANNOT actually use infiltrate. What you can do is declare them in reserve, and join Shrike to them at that point, at which point they can Outflank.

Doesn't a command squad count as a retinue? Or is it a completely different squad? Cos a retinue would instantly get the USR.

Oshova

There are no retinues in the SM codex

ArbitorIan wrote:Don't get it - briefly, why can't they deploy as Infiltrators if they have they USR?

In order to join the a unit pre game he must deploy within coherency with them. As a unit without the Infiltrate USR (obviously) do not have the Infiltrate USR, the only way this can be done is if he joins them before infiltrators are deployed, at which point they are already deployed and cannot then Infiltrate. He can, of course, opt to join them in reserve, where he confers the ability for the unit to arrive via Outflank.

@Oshova: No, there are no retinues in the SM codex.

Fair enough. I don't use command squads so wasn't sure. =p

In that case there deffinetly is no way of infiltrating a squad lol.

Unless you join him to scouts for some reason . . . lol

Oshova

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Don't get it - briefly, why can't they deploy as Infiltrators if they have they USR?

In order to join the a unit pre game he must deploy within coherency with them. As a unit without the Infiltrate USR (obviously) do not have the Infiltrate USR, the only way this can be done is if he joins them before infiltrators are deployed, at which point they are already deployed and cannot then Infiltrate. He can, of course, opt to join them in reserve, where he confers the ability for the unit to arrive via Outflank.

@Oshova: No, there are no retinues in the SM codex.

This makes me wonder - what would happen if you have a Tyranid Prime joined up with a Lictor squad before the game starts? The warrior prime doesn't have Chameleonic Skin, but Chameleonic Skin isn't a USR. Do the Lictors lose it? How do you deploy the squad -- are you still forced to keep them in reserves but they must come in as a normal unit, do they lose the restriction on being forced to start in reserves?

Burger Rage wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Don't get it - briefly, why can't they deploy as Infiltrators if they have they USR?

In order to join the a unit pre game he must deploy within coherency with them. As a unit without the Infiltrate USR (obviously) do not have the Infiltrate USR, the only way this can be done is if he joins them before infiltrators are deployed, at which point they are already deployed and cannot then Infiltrate. He can, of course, opt to join them in reserve, where he confers the ability for the unit to arrive via Outflank.

@Oshova: No, there are no retinues in the SM codex.

This makes me wonder - what would happen if you have a Tyranid Prime joined up with a Lictor squad before the game starts? The warrior prime doesn't have Chameleonic Skin, but Chameleonic Skin isn't a USR. Do the Lictors lose it? How do you deploy the squad -- are you still forced to keep them in reserves but they must come in as a normal unit, do they lose the restriction on being forced to start in reserves?

the prime would deploy separately, and they would be out of coherency (unless they deployed 2" from each other)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/279149.page

Many thanks to Grey Templar for Pointing This one out.

DH Modesl in Terminator armour can Sweeping Advance

Do the Shrike one - everyone loves Shrike. Let's see - something about he grants his unit "See, but remain unseen" but he has not unit other then himself. People just seem to drool all over themselves on that one. The their is the crazy deal that if shrike takes a command squad, they can't take jump packs...

I can't believe I play this game. Even worse I can't believe all the money I have spent on it.

The command squad isnt a retinue. Seriously, can people please read their new codex? Its been out for a year or so now....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The command squad isnt a retinue. Seriously, can people please read their new codex? Its been out for a year or so now....

That is so dakka!

Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

Gwar! wrote:Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

You also can't embark/disembark units out of Blood Angels transports, as they have no Access Points listed. (That I remember, anyway)

nosferatu1001 wrote:The command squad isnt a retinue. Seriously, can people please read their new codex? Its been out for a year or so now....

I love the fact that In 5th having retinues would be massively advantageous for SM/SW yet they no longer get the option.

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The command squad isnt a retinue. Seriously, can people please read their new codex? Its been out for a year or so now....

I love the fact that In 5th having retinues would be massively advantageous for SM/SW yet they no longer get the option.

SW do and one unit also has a psudo-Retinue as well

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The command squad isnt a retinue. Seriously, can people please read their new codex? Its been out for a year or so now....

I love the fact that In 5th having retinues would be massively advantageous for SM/SW yet they no longer get the option.

SW do and one unit also has a psudo-Retinue as well

Are we talking about f.wolves?

Tri wrote:Are we talking about f.wolves?

Damn right we are
Also Iron Priests are the ones with the Pseudo Retinue. Pseudo in that he is not a IC any more, a Retinue because he can't leave it

Black Templar still do as well since they have a rule similiar to Iron Priests. The character becomes part of the unit, counts as a single hq choice, and cannot leave the unit.

Brother Ramses wrote:Black Templar still do as well since they have a rule similiar to Iron Priests. The character becomes part of the unit, counts as a single hq choice, and cannot leave the unit.

They also have a rule saying they do not stop counting as IC's in Close Combat, making the whole "Retinue" part pointless. All the bad with none of the good.

Gwar! wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Black Templar still do as well since they have a rule similiar to Iron Priests. The character becomes part of the unit, counts as a single hq choice, and cannot leave the unit.

They also have a rule saying they do not stop counting as IC's in Close Combat, making the whole "Retinue" part pointless. All the bad with none of the good.

meh one good thing is they can still have 4 HQ just a shame that its only an option of having a chaplin and commander.

I seem to recall the Nightbringer has a few of these. Can't he blow units out of transports if they are nearby in the assault phase and have low strength? Additionally, the C'tan have a power (devour soul I think) that doesn't actually have an effect on anything in the game.

Nurglings are the only things that are infinitely recycled when you fight Daemons vs. Daemonhunters.

I bet you could find a few with things that effect "Necrons", rather than "Models with the Necron USR", and consequently wouldn't work as no unit exists called "Necrons".

The Monolith can't teleport a Necron Lord through, but can teleport one joined to another Necron Lord. (two by two the come...)

The monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)

Monoliths and Mawlocs shove each other out of the way on Deep Strikes.

I think there was a printing where Wraiths had no armor save whatsoever.

Necron Destroyers + Heavy Destroyers would be T6 under RaW.

RobPro wrote:Necron Destroyers + Heavy Destroyers would be T6 under RaW.

No, they aren't. They "Move as" Jetbikes but remain Infantry, so they don't get the T bonus for being a Jetbike, mainly because they are not one.

UPDATED AGAIN. Monoliths get their own section now...!

Gwar! wrote:Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

Wonderful, but why?

ArbitorIan wrote:UPDATED AGAIN. Monoliths get their own section now...!

Gwar! wrote:Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

Wonderful, but why?

great wall of drop pods? blocking key areas of the board could be useful ... ok they have to be in your deployment area but still

I rather think he meant; "how?", but I can't be sure.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

Wonderful, but why?

The Blood Angels PDF doesn't include the 'Drop Pod Assault' rule. Instead, the Inertial Guidance system gives the pod permission (but does not require) to be kept in Reserve and deploy by Deep Strike.

So you can choose instead to just deploy the pod on the table at the start of the game.

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms.)

Uhm, so you have to see the rider's head, torso, legs, or arms in order to shoot at a bike?

Holy hell, I need to convert my Bikers then!

ArbitorIan wrote:UPDATED AGAIN. Monoliths get their own section now...!

Gwar! wrote:Blood Angels Drop Pods do not have to be placed in Reserve, and can in fact begin the game deployed

Wonderful, but why?

Notice any rule stating they have to be placed in reserve?

Nope.

No Tyranids gain any benefit from their CC weapons. On pg 33 of the codex is states they do not use/wield any CC weapons. Then there are a list of biomorphs called CC weapons and as per page 42 of the rulebook you have to be the wielder in order to gain any benefits from special close combat weapons.

"No model in codex Tyranids can use Bone Swords. Bone Swords only give a bonus to Tyranids that use them. There is no unit in the codex called a Tyranid."

Tyranid Warrior,
Tyranid Prime
Tyranid Shrike

All have the word tyranid is their name so yes they can use them. In addition since BS come as standard on a HT i would go as to say they can use them too, since this thread is nasty RAW.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Davor wrote:My favorite is rerolling rerolls. GW say you can never reroll a reroll correct? So when you roll to see who goes first, and it's a tie, you have to reroll. If it becomes a tie again, techiquely, the game should be over because you can'r reroll a reroll

In that case, you start a new game.

Of course, but in a RAW Tourney situation, you'd instantly draw, right?

No, because it is not rerolling rerolls, it is a roll off, which according to the rule on page 2 continues until one player is the winner.

Phish Skills wrote:"No model in codex Tyranids can use Bone Swords. Bone Swords only give a bonus to Tyranids that use them. There is no unit in the codex called a Tyranid."

Tyranid Warrior,
Tyranid Prime
Tyranid Shrike

All have the word tyranid is their name so yes they can use them. In addition since BS come as standard on a HT i would go as to say they can use them too, since this thread is nasty RAW.

Of course, this is a silly ruling but the RAW would be that since the unit is called a 'Tyranid Warrior' and not a 'Tyranid' it doesn't count. These are two different things....

It's the same as the Leman Russ one. There is a unit called the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' and a unit called the 'Leman Russ Exterminator' but no unit called the 'Leman Russ'. Since only the 'Leman Russ' is listed a having a battlecannon, we have to assume that either NO variant has a battlecannon (there is no 'Leman Russ') or EVERYTHING called a 'Leman Russ' has one (so a Leman Russ Exterminatot has two autocannons AND a battlecannon in it's turret).

Exact spelling of unit names is important.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

time wizard wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Davor wrote:My favorite is rerolling rerolls. GW say you can never reroll a reroll correct? So when you roll to see who goes first, and it's a tie, you have to reroll. If it becomes a tie again, techiquely, the game should be over because you can'r reroll a reroll

In that case, you start a new game.

Of course, but in a RAW Tourney situation, you'd instantly draw, right?

No, because it is not rerolling rerolls, it is a roll off, which according to the rule on page 2 continues until one player is the winner.

Ah, well done, i shall remove this one.

Coming from a question about the Ork Boarding Plank, I noticed that it can not be used if either vehicle has moved more than 12". Not 'more than 12" that turn...' So that 12" would be the total distance the vehicle has moved that game.

So on a regular table, the plank is rarely going to see any use, since unless they set up directly opposite each other and move towards each other in a more or less straight line, no two vehicles are going to wind up close enough together to use the plank without having moved more than 12" in total.

Flat out scout moves work like this with RAW:

Skimmer moves flat out in the scout move gains no cover save as it is not done in a movement phase.

Bike turbo boosts in scout move gains cover save in "opponent's next shooting phase", so does get the benefit. And in fact even gets the benefit is the biker is going first and then doesn't turbo boost in his movement phase. Mean he could turbo boost in the scout move. Move normally in the movement phase. Shoot a unit assault it sweeping advance and still claim the 3+ cover save in your opponents next shooting phase...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironclad dreadnoughts strike at I1 with a chainfist but I4 with anything else...

Ironclad dreds never get a bonus attack, as they are always armed with 2 different special close combat weapons, and the rule for 2 different special close combat weapons is that you can never claim the bonus for having multiple close combat weapons.

daedalus wrote:Turret flamers on vehicles are generally unusable because they overlap a friendly model.

Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn.

=][= chimeras that become open-topped when inquisitorial stormtroopers shoot out of them, but IG chimeras that are cheaper and aren't open topped ever.

To pose a potential answer. Although older, they have not been completely retconned, one of the Chapter Approved books had a nice clarification open-topped vehicles. Although, it didn't clear it up completely. It stated that transports with troops in power-armour do not become oper-topped when you pop the hatches to fire out of them (Tac Space Marines in Rhinos), but troops not in power-armour (IG in chimeras) become open-topped. This was justified because power-armour is strong enough to take the hit. However, the Chimera has 6 Lasguns mounted on the top/sides for the embarked passengers to use...

Possibly an oversight in the current IG codex. Some rules just don't make sense, the daemonhunters codex, in my opinion, was not well thought out. I think GW had a cool idea and ran with it.

Another instance is that DH Assault Cannons do not have rending. Every other Assault Cannon in game does, of course rending Assault Cannons were after DH Codex came out. I have heard different explanations, but nothing from an official source. Not a DH player and I usually tell my opponent to use rending as it only seems fair. Merely a point of order.

"No model in codex Tyranids can use Bone Swords. Bone Swords only give a bonus to Tyranids that use them. There is no unit in the codex called a Tyranid."

Hmm...isn't the name of the book Codex: Tyranids? Isn't everything in the book therefore a Tyranid? If not, then I guess Fortune doesn't work, since it can only target Eldar units.

Of course, not every model in Codex: Necrons is a Necron...

The master of the forge can't bolster deffences bacause the rule refers to a Techmarine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The summary execution rule for the commisar says that if the re-roll is failed the unit falls back, which means that no matter what kind of test was re-rolled, a pinning test for example, the unit must fall back.

Ironclad dreds never get a bonus attack, as they are always armed with 2 different special close combat weapons, and the rule for 2 different special close combat weapons is that you can never claim the bonus for having multiple close combat weapons.

If you look at the section of Dreadnought Close combat weapons it states the Dread gets a bonus attack for each CCW it has regardless of whether they are different or the same.

In theory for dreads if the Ironclad could take a chainfist and Siesmic hammer iot would roll 2d6 on the damage chart and +1 to the damage table though... Dreads are essentially a special case.

Actually in order to get a chainfist the ironclad must replace his s.hammer, he could however have any of the two with an additional DCCW for the extra attack.

Hesperus wrote:"No model in codex Tyranids can use Bone Swords. Bone Swords only give a bonus to Tyranids that use them. There is no unit in the codex called a Tyranid."

Hmm...isn't the name of the book Codex: Tyranids? Isn't everything in the book therefore a Tyranid? If not, then I guess Fortune doesn't work, since it can only target Eldar units.

Of course, not every model in Codex: Necrons is a Necron...

Boink!

Actually in order to get a chainfist the ironclad must replace his s.hammer, he could however have any of the two with an additional DCCW for the extra attack.

I know that's why I said in theory and "if the Ironclad could"...

He still gains the extra attack with either weapon and a DCCW. He can't take a 2nd DCCW that is not an option.

FlingitNow wrote:If you look at the section of Dreadnought Close combat weapons it states the Dread gets a bonus attack for each CCW it has regardless of whether they are different or the same.

It actually DOESNT say any of that bolded stuff at all, last time I checked.. It says that you get '+1 attack for each CCW after the first'. This is unlike normal ccw which cap out at +1 attack only for having more than 1 ccw. However, dreads still follow the rules for close combat weapons. For example, your DCCW is also power weapon, and thus you use the special weapon rules for powerweapons; if you have 2 different special combat weapons, the special weapon rules disalow the bonus attacks in exchange for granting 2 different special weapon rules. You cant take some of the special ccw weapon rules and not others.

As for the chainfist example, like a power weapon DCCW you follow the rules for a powerfist. The powerfist ALSO disallows bonus attacks--again you cant take some of the special weapon rules and not others. Thus, both the seismic hammer and the chainfist disallow the +1 attack normally granted for having 2 ccw.

Remember FlingitNow this is the RAW for fun list. Obviously they included the bonus attack for 2 ccw in the profile of the ironclad, so GW forgot about the rules for special weapons--but we dont care about intentions here, only funny RAW stuff.

As an aside, only the ironclad has 2 kinds of special ccws from what I remember. The defiler i believe is the one that has 2 DCCW and can add regular CCWs as an upgrade option, and I 'think' all the other dreads all have only combinations of regular DCCW.

As for the chainfist example, like a power weapon DCCW you follow the rules for a powerfist. The powerfist ALSO disallows bonus attacks--again you cant take some of the special weapon rules and not others. Thus, both the seismic hammer and the chainfist disallow the +1 attack normally granted for having 2 ccw.

OK I'll give you the Chainfist but the DCCW has nothing to do with a powerfist and neither does the seismic hammer. Hence neither prohibits the +1 attack. However the rule states on page 73 "If a walker is armed with two or more close combat weapons, it gains one bonus attack for each weapon over the first". Thus the dread gains an additional attack for each CCW with in this case would be +1 attack as it has 2 CCWs. This rule overrides the 2 signle-handed special weapons rule on page 42 as it specifically refers to Dreads and how they work.

How does it over ride anything?

You agree the dread is armed with 2 different special close combat weapons, correct?

We have a rule that says how dreads get bonus attacks in GENERAL, and we have a rule for SPECIFIC weapon combinations, that only the ironclad has, that disallow bonus attacks. If the dread did not specificly have 2 different special close combat weapons, it would not invoke this rule, correct?

It overrides because its specific to walkers as opposed to the more general models, and everyone knows the more specific rule is the one that takes priority when it comes to unit types.

Edit: To make it more clear, any unit (infantry, MC, cavalary, Beast, etc.) that has 2 different special weapons can't get +1 attack (Rulebook p.42), unless its a walker where the rule specific for walkers takes effect (Rulebook p.73).

page 73, and I quote, "Walkers fight like infantry models."

By your admission, infantry models that have 2 different special weapons cant get +1 attack. I know I'm not making this stuff up.

Please quote the rule that states, SPECIFICALLY, that walkers gain +1 attack for 2 different special close combat weapons, which would contradict my above quote that walkers fight like infantry models.

For the love of! Do you want dakka to get a C&D from GW just grab a damn rulebook and look at page 73, the rule has a huge Dreadnought close combat weapons headline and the last paragraph states that a walker gets an additional attack for each CCW after the first.

"the last paragraph states that a walker gets an additional attack for each CCW after the first"

Yes, walkers do get an additional attack for each CCW after the first. They also fight like infantry. They do both at the same time.

If a dreadnaught/infantry is armed with 2 different special CCW, which the ironclad, and only the ironclad, is, then like infantry 'these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but never get the bonus attack for using two weapons [which, again, the ironclad is using 2 weapons, and they are 2 different special weapons]'

'for the love of' page 42.

Or do you believe nothing on page 42 applies to dreadnoughts?

The walker rules on p.73 do state that they use the same assault mechanic as infantry but are then provided with an additional rule, the DCCW rule, to replace the CCW on p.42, so yes nothing on that page applies to walkers since it explains how infantry interact wit CCWs not walkers.

PS:
Also i want to ask you a question if all assault rules for infantry apply to walkers does that mean they'r opponent has to roll to wound them rather than roll to penetrate, because the rules on p.39 say so or does he use the rule on p.73 that's specific to walkers and roll to pen. the front armor?

Next line under "walkers fight like infantry models" addresses that 'however, walkers resolve attacks against them like vehicles'.

Also, you state that the walker rules over ride pg 42, but in fact they over ride page 37, second bullet point in 'number of attacks'. Page 42 gives SPECIFIC examples on when the second bullet point does not apply, as page 42 SPECIFICALLY deals with weapons, and in the case of the ironclad, being armed with 2 special close combat weapons.

We all (or I think we all) know about specific versus general. In general, models get +1 attack for being armed with 2 ccw, and no bonus for additional ccw. Walkers specifically get no cap for ccw. Models with special close combat weapons specifically use the rules for special close combat weapons, and special close combat weapon rules over ride the rules for when models gain bonus attacks.

I get you dont like the RAW, but face it, the ironclad is armed with 2 special close combat weapons, FACT, and thus must choose only one weapon at a time in combat with no bonus attack. Such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!

Warptime requires you to reroll ALL hits and ALL wounds, not just unsuccessful hits/wounds.

You may always claim a 5+ cover save by insisting your models are in cover to your opponent and having him/her disagree.

RobPro wrote:You may always claim a 5+ cover save by insisting your models are in cover to your opponent and having him/her disagree.

That only works if your opponent isn't willing to stop and verify each and every model in the firing unit's line of sight to each and every model's line of sight to each and every model in the target unit. So, no, this doesn't count as a valid example of silly RAW.

--Silly RaW Police

Warptime does NOT require this. Read the definition of a reroll, and realise that it is giving you permission to rerol any of the dice you want.

"You may take all of the apples" does not require you to take all or none, but any number of apples up to the limit prescribed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warptime does NOT require this. Read the definition of a reroll, and realise that it is giving you permission to rerol any of the dice you want.

"You may take all of the apples" does not require you to take all or none, but any number of apples up to the limit prescribed.

It does not say you may re-roll some of the dice, it says you may re-roll all of the dice.

"You may take all of the Apples" does mean you take all or none. "You may take as many apples as you wish" allows you to take none, some or all. It's the same as Twin Linked Template weapons, you roll all or none.

Except the rules for rerolls states you may always reroll what you want to reroll within that set - each event may be rerolled. Blast markers (not templates ) "event" is 2D6+scatter, therefore your reroll applies to all 3 dice and all 3 must be rerolled.

FOr to hit / to wound each dice is its' own event, and each one may be rerolled up to tthe limit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rules for rerolls states you may always reroll what you want to reroll within that set - each event may be rerolled. Blast markers (not templates ) "event" is 2D6+scatter, therefore your reroll applies to all 3 dice and all 3 must be rerolled.

FOr to hit / to wound each dice is its' own event, and each one may be rerolled up to tthe limit.

Just because the rule says "Pick up the dice you wish to re-roll" does not override the specifics of a rule. If a rules wording indicates you can re-roll all or none (as Warptime does), then you re-roll all or none.

As for my Template remark, I was actually taking about Template weapons aka Flamers and what not, which, in the Twin Linked rules state "Twin-linked template weapons are fired just like a single weapon, but they can re-roll the dice to wound." Not "they can re-roll some of the dice" or "they can re-roll any of the dice" or even "they can re-roll failed rolls to wound" but "they can re-roll the dice to wound." They roll all or nothing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rules for rerolls states you may always reroll what you want to reroll within that set -

No they don't. They simply state that you pick up the dice that you wish to re-roll. If a rule is allowing you a re-roll but specifying that you re-roll all of the dice, then your choice is to re-roll all of them or none of them. If you choose all of them, then the dice you are choosing to re-roll are all of the dice.

Nothing in the re-roll rules specifically over-rides any other rules that may apply.

And to think it was only six or seven months since the "All vs. Any" threads...

How about this one the Ork FAQ about the Deff Rolla is Irrelevant because there is no Deffrolla or death rolla in the Ork codex.

Hah nice one The first Deff Rolla question is still valid thou that one has the correct spelling.

ChrisCP wrote:Hah nice one The first Deff Rolla question is still valid thou that one has the correct spelling.

But the answer doesn't. So it's addressing a different type of upgrade that is not in the Ork codex.

Referring to this bit sorry for the poor phrasing.

Q. Does a unit that successfully stops a Deff
Rolla-equipped Battlewagon’s Tank Shock suffer
any hits?
A. Yes, it does. In fact, it suffers 2D6 S10 hits!

Q. Can a Deff Rolla affect more than one enemy
unit with a single Tank Shock move?
A. Yes, all of the units Tank Shocked are affected
by the Deff Rolla (roll separately for each unit).

How about this one the Ork FAQ about the Deff Rolla is Irrelevant because there is no Deffrolla or death rolla in the Ork codex.

Or that it is irrelevant because Ramming is impossible anyway? Tank Shocking requires you to stop at least 1" away from any vehicle and nothing in the ramming rules overrides this. They just tell you what happens if you make contact with an enemy vehicle which of course would never happen due to the tank shocking rules...

40kenthusiast wrote:The monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)

Where are you getting this one from? I don't see any part about using the base strength of the unit, but rather the unaugmented strength of the weapon, which is of course how it's played normally...

FlingitNow wrote:

How about this one the Ork FAQ about the Deff Rolla is Irrelevant because there is no Deffrolla or death rolla in the Ork codex.

Or that it is irrelevant because Ramming is impossible anyway? Tank Shocking requires you to stop at least 1" away from any vehicle and nothing in the ramming rules overrides this. They just tell you what happens if you make contact with an enemy vehicle which of course would never happen due to the tank shocking rules...

Unless you happen to have a 1"+ deffrolla, in which case it's perfectly possible to contact a vehicle as the 1" restriction is measured to the hull.

Unless you happen to have a 1"+ deffrolla, in which case it's perfectly possible to contact a vehicle as the 1" restriction is measured to the hull.

Is the 1" restriction applicable to only the Hull? Because if so I assume it is because all distances are measured from eth Hull in which case the same would apply for the Tank shocking and therefore you still wouldn't be considered in contact? Otherwise the Deffrolla is the ONLY way to RAM?

FlingitNow wrote:

Unless you happen to have a 1"+ deffrolla, in which case it's perfectly possible to contact a vehicle as the 1" restriction is measured to the hull.

Is the 1" restriction applicable to only the Hull? Because if so I assume it is because all distances are measured from eth Hull in which case the same would apply for the Tank shocking and therefore you still wouldn't be considered in contact? Otherwise the Deffrolla is the ONLY way to RAM?

Any measurements to a vehicle other than shooting are to the hull, there's something to that effect in the vehicle rules IIRC.

Any vehicle would be entitled to model on a 1.00001" pole sticking out the front of their vehicle which is purely decorative and would allow them to ram legally

Any measurements to a vehicle other than shooting are to the hull, there's something to that effect in the vehicle rules IIRC.

In that case then this applies to ramming also unless there is a rule overriding it? In which case even the decorative pole would have no effect.

FlingitNow wrote:I assume it is because all distances are measured from eth Hull in which case the same would apply for the Tank shocking and therefore you still wouldn't be considered in contact?

Any measurements to a vehicle other than shooting are to the hull, there's something to that effect in the vehicle rules IIRC.

In that case then this applies to ramming also unless there is a rule overriding it? In which case even the decorative pole would have no effect.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

A 1.1" decorative pole is not part of the hull. A 1.1" decorative pole could make contact with another vehicle, and thus be a legal ram, while the vehicle's hull remained at 1" measurement distance.

FlingitNow wrote:

Any measurements to a vehicle other than shooting are to the hull, there's something to that effect in the vehicle rules IIRC.

In that case then this applies to ramming also unless there is a rule overriding it? In which case even the decorative pole would have no effect.

Much like base to base contact is not a 0" measurement (so you can't assault a unit embarked on a transport) neither is coming "into contact with an enemy vehicle" the same as a 0" measurement.

so while the pole would not be hull (and thus be allowed to enter the 1" radius presumably) it would be able to come into contact with a vehicle and trigger a ram.

Firewarriors, Pathfinders, and Broadsides may not use multi-trackers. Multi-trackers allow a unit to use two battlesuit weapons in the same shooting phase. Broadsides can only ever have 1 battlesuit weapon (plasma rifle), and the rest cannot use battlesuit weapons in any way shape or form. (Railguns are not found in the battlesuit Armoury.)

That is not "RAW stupidity".
That is just "plain stupidity".

Firewarriors and Pathfinders are not automatically given Multi-trackers. If you feel like wasting 5 point on a Hardwired Multi-tracker on a Shas'ui, then by all means do so.
That is not a fault in the rules. It is a fault in the player.

Thinking of the TL Railgun mounted on a Broadside as NOT being a battle suit weapon is odd to say the least.
In the Broadside entry there is no discernible difference between the Railgun and the SMS when it comes to determining whether the Railgun is a battlesuit weapon or not.
They are simply mentioned as the two weapons the suit is equipped with.
The Armoury entry in the Wargear section is not an exhaustive list of the battlesuit weapons in existence. It is a list of the battlesuit weapons available to buy outside of your unit entry.

Steelmage99 wrote:That is not "RAW stupidity".
That is just "plain stupidity".

Firewarriors and Pathfinders are not automatically given Multi-trackers. If you feel like wasting 5 point on a Hardwired Multi-tracker on a Shas'ui, then by all means do so.
That is not a fault in the rules. It is a fault in the player.

Thinking of the TL Railgun mounted on a Broadside as NOT being a battle suit weapon is odd to say the least.
In the Broadside entry there is no discernible difference between the Railgun and the SMS when it comes to determining whether the Railgun is a battlesuit weapon or not.
They are simply mentioned as the two weapons the suit is equipped with.
The Armoury entry in the Wargear section is not an exhaustive list of the battlesuit weapons in existence. It is a list of the battlesuit weapons available to buy outside of your unit entry.

First of all, calm down. I'm not in the mood for a heated argument that will get physical and end in a gladiator style fight to the death.

Second, just like the argument "Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope", Broadsides battlesuits are not Crisis battlesuits.

Finally, lots of people use multi-trackers on Firewarriors. Shas'ui with Markerlight and multi-tracker to shoot both the markerlight and pulse weapon. It's humorous RAW because it's in the infantry war-gear list that Firewarriors and Pathfinders can get Hard-wired multi-trackers and (I do not recall the quote at the moment) may use the systems as battlesuits would.

On several Tau forums this has been brought up, so please sir, calm down :/

!$# wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:That is not "RAW stupidity".
That is just "plain stupidity".

Firewarriors and Pathfinders are not automatically given Multi-trackers. If you feel like wasting 5 point on a Hardwired Multi-tracker on a Shas'ui, then by all means do so.
That is not a fault in the rules. It is a fault in the player.

Thinking of the TL Railgun mounted on a Broadside as NOT being a battle suit weapon is odd to say the least.
In the Broadside entry there is no discernible difference between the Railgun and the SMS when it comes to determining whether the Railgun is a battlesuit weapon or not.
They are simply mentioned as the two weapons the suit is equipped with.
The Armoury entry in the Wargear section is not an exhaustive list of the battlesuit weapons in existence. It is a list of the battlesuit weapons available to buy outside of your unit entry.

First of all, calm down. I'm not in the mood for a heated argument that will get physical and end in a gladiator style fight to the death.

No worries. I am very calm.

Second, just like the argument "Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope", Broadsides battlesuits are not Crisis battlesuits.

Nobody is saying that. The Multi-tracker doesn't refer to Crisis suits. It refers to "battlesuit weapon systems". The Broadside is a battlesuit. its weapons are battlesuit weapon systems. Hence the Broadside part of the RAW-fun isn't really relevant.

Finally, lots of people use multi-trackers on Firewarriors. Shas'ui with Markerlight and multi-tracker to shoot both the markerlight and pulse weapon. It's humorous RAW because it's in the infantry war-gear list that Firewarriors and Pathfinders can get Hard-wired multi-trackers and (I do not recall the quote at the moment) may use the systems as battlesuits would.

This is indeed like the "Doom of Malan'tai, 3++ or not-situation". Just like with the DOM one can ask; "Why give a non-battlesuit the option to buy an upgrade that only (by RAW) helps battlesuits?"
In my mind it doesn't quite "qualify" as a real RAW-fun moment as it only appears the second a player decides to buy an upgrade with a questionable effect. Unlike the DOM, where there is no option presented.

On several Tau forums this has been brought up, so please sir, calm down :/

OK. I fail to see the relevance, but OK.
I am sure this has/is an issue, but I do not find it a RAW-fun moment along the lines of DOMs 3++ and Blood Angel transports without exits. This is just my opinion of course.

And once again, I am very calm.
The only thing starting to damage my calm is your slightly condescending insisting on me having to calm down. I don't think that it is intentional on your part, so I'll just let it slide.

Steelmage99 wrote:The Multi-tracker doesn't refer to Crisis suits. It refers to "battlesuit weapon systems". The Broadside is a battlesuit. its weapons are battlesuit weapon systems. Hence the Broadside part of the RAW-fun isn't really relevant.

"Battlesuit Weapon Systems
Airbursting Fragmentation Projector (Special Issue)
Burst Cannon
Cyclic ion blaster (Special Issue)
Flamer
Fusion blaster
Missle pod
Plasma Rifle"

I don't see Railgun... sorry. :(

Which I already addressed with;

The Armoury entry in the Wargear section is not an exhaustive list of the battlesuit weapons in existence. It is a list of the battlesuit weapons available to buy outside of your unit entry.

The function of the Armoury isn't to present an exhaustive list of battle suit weapons. The function is to list those weapons available under the special circumstance of having access to the Armoury.

Anyway this isn't the place for this discussion.
Should you feel it warrants further discussion, please make a separate thread.

I believe we have derailed this thread more than enough.

...The battlesuit weapon list is NOT the wargear list either...

I edited my post while you posted.

Lets take it elsewhere if you feel it warrants it.

Hey, OP, please edit the original post with big words saying something to the effect of "Take your arguments to PM or a different thread". This is just ridiculous.

i didn't see this on the updated list and i don't think got errata but:

Ghazghkull's waaaugh effect that makes fleet an auto six doesn't work in 5th since everyone runs in the shooting phase. Fleet simply allows you to assault after running.

And of course that you can run first, then declare the Waaagh after to full effect, and avoid taking any wounds.

wizerdree wrote:i didn't see this on the updated list and i don't think got errata but:

Ghazghkull's waaaugh effect that makes fleet an auto six doesn't work in 5th since everyone runs in the shooting phase. Fleet simply allows you to assault after running.

there is no mention of a fleet roll in either Waaagh nor Ghazkull's prophet of the Waaagh. it says you automatically countas rolling a 6 for the Waaagh movement; and waaagh grants fleet but those are separate sentences.

Waaagh and Prophet of the Waaagh are written well.

there is no mention of a fleet roll in either Waaagh nor Ghazkull's prophet of the Waaagh. it says you automatically countas rolling a 6 for the Waaagh movement; and waaagh grants fleet but those are separate sentences.

Waaagh and Prophet of the Waaagh are written well.

What is WAAAGH movement? Waaagh movement is not defined anywhere so it still has no effect...

Kommissar Kel wrote:

wizerdree wrote:i didn't see this on the updated list and i don't think got errata but:

Ghazghkull's waaaugh effect that makes fleet an auto six doesn't work in 5th since everyone runs in the shooting phase. Fleet simply allows you to assault after running.

there is no mention of a fleet roll in either Waaagh nor Ghazkull's prophet of the Waaagh. it says you automatically countas rolling a 6 for the Waaagh movement; and waaagh grants fleet but those are separate sentences.

Waaagh and Prophet of the Waaagh are written well.

LMFAO. Tell me good sir, what is a Waaagh! Movement then?

Eldar Plasma Grenades do nothing! As the Codex never says what they are!

(I think, I cant find them in my Elfdar codex, so I might have just missed them)

Gwar! wrote:Eldar Plasma Grenades do nothing! As the Codex never says what they are!

(I think, I cant find them in my Elfdar codex, so I might have just missed them)

They're assault grenades, look at the "Assault grenades" entry in the main rulebook-they're given as an example.

(I missed them on the first look through the Space fairy codex too .)

they're given as an example, but draw a diagram, some assault grenades are plasma, but not all plasma grenades are assault.

If Xs are a subset of Ys, it should be "all Xs are Ys, but not all Ys are Xs".

Gwar is, I believe, of the opinion that what are listed in the Eldar codex as plasma grenades are not necessarily identical to what are listed in the rulebook as plasma grenades, and this why they're unusable.

Wolf Scouts cannot scout (and hence cannot outflank or use the OBEL rule) - they have the Scout USR, but there is no such thing. There is, however, a scouts USR.
(Or was it the other way around?)

Bran Dawri wrote:Wolf Scouts cannot scout (and hence cannot outflank or use the OBEL rule) - they have the Scout USR, but there is no such thing. There is, however, a scouts USR.
(Or was it the other way around?)

Nope, that's right

They can Outflank however as they have Infiltrate

Wasn't there some crap with impassible terrain?

Like: you can deploy in one (there are no rules about deploying?) but then I guess you can't move at all.

If pivoting on the spot doesn't count as moving so they can pivot into impassible terrain?
[I could be wrong on both cases]

Macok wrote:Wasn't there some crap with impassible terrain?

Like: you can deploy in one (there are no rules about deploying?) but then I guess you can't move at all.

If pivoting on the spot doesn't count as moving so they can pivot into impassible terrain?
[I could be wrong on both cases]

There are no deployment rules ... there in lies the problem

Updated AGAIN, still going strong....!

And with the additional instruction to take your RAW arguments onto other threads pleas, otherwise this one goes OT.....

Thanks!

Oh. How about this one:
Dire Avengers' Bladestorm doesn't have any drawbacks? You can't shoot in the "subsequent shooting phase" [Eldar Codex p.30] but it's your enemy's so no harm done..

WRONG.

Klawz wrote:The Tyranid physic power dominion doesn't do anything, as there is nothing called "synapse range".

Erm... What?

Page 33, Codex Tyranids: Synapse Creatures and Tyranid units that are within 12" of a Synapse Creature are said to be within synapse range.

Page 62, Codex Tyranids: If successful, the Tervigon's synapse range is increased to 18" until the beginning of the next friendly turn.

Thus, if Dominion is Sucsessful, models within 18" of the Tervigon are said to be within synapse range.

And I know the RaW arguments are supposed to go elsewhere, but I just wanted to point out that this is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:

Klawz wrote:The Tyranid physic power dominion doesn't do anything, as there is nothing called "synapse range".

Erm... What?

Page 33, Codex Tyranids: Synapse Creatures and Tyranid units that are within 12" of a Synapse Creature are said to be within synapse range.

Page 62, Codex Tyranids: If successful, the Tervigon's synapse range is increased to 18" until the beginning of the next friendly turn.

Thus, if Dominion is Sucsessful, models within 18" of the Tervigon are said to be within synapse range.

And I know the RaW arguments are supposed to go elsewhere, but I just wanted to point out that this is wrong.

>.< Sorry.

Klawz wrote:Sorry.

Not a problem, being shown up is how we learn

Gwar! wrote:

Klawz wrote:The Tyranid physic power dominion doesn't do anything, as there is nothing called "synapse range".

Erm... What?

Page 33, Codex Tyranids: Synapse Creatures and Tyranid units that are within 12" of a Synapse Creature are said to be within synapse range.

Page 62, Codex Tyranids: If successful, the Tervigon's synapse range is increased to 18" until the beginning of the next friendly turn.

Thus, if Dominion is Sucsessful, models within 18" of the Tervigon are said to be within synapse range.

And I know the RaW arguments are supposed to go elsewhere, but I just wanted to point out that this is wrong.

Well then! You slipped up too 'units', 'units', 'models' (Nit-picky but isn't that what we all love. Or was there a reason?)

ChrisCP wrote:Well then! You slipped up too 'units', 'units', 'models' (Nit-picky but isn't that what we all love. Or was there a reason?)

Nope, you are right, it was a typo, it should have been units

forkbanger said:

How you deploy is not in the rulebook

Yes and no. It tells you who deploys and when, but I get the distinct feeling that's not what you mean. If you mean that it does not specifically say "A model is deployed when the player removes it from their army transport device of choice and places it on the gaming surface," then no, how you deploy is not in the rulebook. And by that reasoning, neither is how you roll a d6.

ArbiterIan said:

That one about starting the game is really bugging me. I'm sure someone had a reading of RAW which meant that there was no way to actually START a game.....

I'm working from the AoBR book here, so it may be different in the BRB, but there's no way to actually start an Annihilation mission. Reading through Seize Ground and Capture & Control, you're referred to the Deploy Forces section, each of which specifically states "Start the game!" (exclamation mark is an exact quote ). Annihilation simply describes the situation and gives victory conditions without ever telling you to deploy, therefore never telling you to start the game.
Or, using forkbanger's reasoning, at no point does the book ever say "Starting the game involves one player beginning their turn by using their models to represent a progression through the movement, shooting, and assault phases of the game as outlined herein." But that may be pushing it!

But then again we are wargamers and thus not retards . . . so kinda know how to do these things . . . but where's the fun in that? GW should fully explain everything. Then maybe there would be less arguments about things . . . or maybe more . . . and more FAQs . . . and more fun RAW . . . GW DO IT!!! =D

Oshova

Deep Striking is broken.

Since Deep Strike scattering forces you to move a model after you have placed it on the board that many inches in the given direction, you can not scatter over impassable terrain or other models.

You joined four days ago, I assume that's because you picked up the game that long ago, please re-read your rule book, specifically about the part including mishaps and also the very start of this thread.

If I'm mistaken in my stance towards you I do so apologise.

Edits: wrong post dammit.

You joined four days ago, I assume that's because you picked up the game that long ago, please re-read your rule book, specifically about the part including mishaps and also the very start of this thread.

Mishap only tells you what to do if you scatter over impassible terrain or other models. If you read the RAW that the scatter and initial placement is part of the movement (i.e. you are in the Mawloc isn't allowed to target enemy units camp) then this would never happen as you are forced to stop 1" away from the enemy and before you reach the impassible terrain hence never triggering mishap.

"If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model,or on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike Mishap table and apply the results. "

One makes the conclusion "if they would" so one doesn't actually need to move the model into the terrain, it would be forced to others wise by the specific "If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position." it might be worth nothing then that RAW the scatter die must be rolled separately to the 2D6.

ChrisCP wrote:One makes the conclusion "if they would" so one doesn't actually need to move the model into the terrain, it would be forced to others wise by the specific "If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position." it might be worth nothing then that RAW the scatter die must be rolled separately to the 2D6.

But RAW they would not, as the model 'moves'. You can't move into impassable terrain, friendly units, or within 1" of enemy units.

Yes the can't - but they would if they could - so you do this instead...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'Would' doesn't constitute 'does' it's being used in conditional sentences to express a possibility. One the technically is possible because of the forced movement created by a scatter when deepstriking.

ChrisCP wrote:Yes the can't - but they would if they could - so you do this instead...

'Would' doesn't constitute 'does' it's being used in conditional sentences to express a possibility. One the technically is possible because of the forced movement created by a scatter when deepstriking.

Forced movement does not ignore terrain effects. If it did, then they could potentially scatter into such terrain. Since it does not, they cannot and would not.

Would but they can't as I was trying to say before I went off on the tangent - would can be used even in situations when something is not possible "They would come if they had the fare." but they can't because they are poor today (lol) vis-à-vis 'they would move into impassable terrain but they can't because of the rules, we also have a rule telling us what to do when this happens' your understanding of the English involved is leading to this confusion.

In other words "If their compulsion is to do X. Then replace this action with another."

The would ony applies to eth cannot deploy because of impassible terrain/landing on other models. Only scatteriong onto eth models wouldn't fulfill this if statement as you would be forced to stop before you reached them.

Using this reading (i'm not saying it is definitely correct) only large DSing units would possibly mishap as the unit stops 1" from the enemy or at the edge of impassible and then only if there is a full ring of models to deploy would any not be able to deploy as described in the mishap section.

Thought this one might be worth a mention.

Alerian wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:Actually, the DA codex states that NO model may turbo as a scout move, it does not specify that only DA models may not do so.

Therefore, if one player is using the DA codex, then no unit in either army may turbo scout move....see how stupid RAW can be

No, that's not right. Nothing lets the opponent look in the DA codex for rules, nor does the rule say it applies to the enemy, so it doesn't.

Actually the DA codex specifies NO model....that means NO model. It is stupid. It is just a note about a 4th ed rule, yet by pure RAW, if any player is useing the DA codex then pure RAW dictates taht NO model may scout/turbo. Of course no one in their right mind would play it that way; however it is RAW.

It is also not the first time that one codex effects both the codex army and its opponent. Again, I am not suggesting that anyone would play it this way. This is just one more example where RAW shuold be overlooked for RAI, because NO model means "NO" model.

Then again, it is also just listed as a "Note", so one could just as easily disregard it as "notating" a 4th ed rule, and therefore allow it bearing in 5th, whatsoever.

Pure RAW on this is broken...no way around it, as it is a "note" referencing a 4th rule that indeed allowed "NO" unit to scout turbo. If you play this by RAW (which nobody will), then NO unit can trubo/scout...including DA and their opponents.

So let me get this clear . . . By RAW does it affect the other player, or not? . . . Sorry just didn't think you said it enough =p

Might have to bring this up next time I play Dark Angels against Valkyries . . . "Sorry you can't turbo boost, it says right here in my codex that you can't . . . No I'm not using that unit, but it says there NO model." Just see how long it takes for me to get a slap. =p

Oshova

Oshova wrote:So let me get this clear . . . By RAW does it affect the other player, or not? . . . Sorry just didn't think you said it enough =p

Might have to bring this up next time I play Dark Angels against Valkyries . . . "Sorry you can't turbo boost, it says right here in my codex that you can't . . . No I'm not using that unit, but it says there NO model." Just see how long it takes for me to get a slap. =p

Oshova

Valkyries don't Turbo Boost.

They don't!? Isn't their 24" move counted as turbo boosting? =[ that sucks lol . . . Well in that case I'll have to use it against Nob bikers =D

Oshova

Nob bikers can't turbo boost during a scout move because they can't scout...

Deffkoptas however...

I think it must be time for bed . . . Seeing as I don't seem to be able to remember anything of any importance . . . Or do anything of any importance . . . I apologise for my current failure of rules knowledge.

Btw, it's not really a rule that doesn't work . . . it's more a broken rule, that's horribly effective. So, you know that your next game is your Deamonhunters Vs Daemons . . . What should you take? . . . My vote is for the most pacifistic army known to man. 3 Inquisitors and 2 Inquisitor Lords . . . All with the psychic power Sanctuary. It creates a lovely area that blocks line of sight for deamons, they can't enter it, it basically makes your army invincible when playing deamons. And with the rules stating that psychic powers are measured from the hull of vehicles . . . How many Land Raiders can you fit in there? As many as your points will allow! THAT is how you exploit old codices to create the world's least enjoyable game =D

Oshova

Oshova wrote:I think it must be time for bed . . . Seeing as I don't seem to be able to remember anything of any importance . . . Or do anything of any importance . . . I apologise for my current failure of rules knowledge.

Btw, it's not really a rule that doesn't work . . . it's more a broken rule, that's horribly effective. So, you know that your next game is your Deamonhunters Vs Daemons . . . What should you take? . . . My vote is for the most pacifistic army known to man. 3 Inquisitors and 2 Inquisitor Lords . . . All with the psychic power Sanctuary. It creates a lovely area that blocks line of sight for deamons, they can't enter it, it basically makes your army invincible when playing deamons. And with the rules stating that psychic powers are measured from the hull of vehicles . . . How many Land Raiders can you fit in there? As many as your points will allow! THAT is how you exploit old codices to create the world's least enjoyable game =D

Oshova

Sure, a lot of the Daemon army can't touch it, but a lot of the Daemon army aren't Daemons according to a strict ruling of the DH codex! So much of them can still get into the bubble!

But all Daemons are Daemons . . . It doesn't say with the Daemon special rule. It just says daemons. So surely all models bought from the Daemons book are Daemons.

Oshova - waiting until he can say something without using the word Daemons

That's pretty funny. DA army special rule: nobody can tubro boost scout. Effective against.. orks? Scout bikers?

ph34r wrote:That's pretty funny. DA army special rule: nobody can tubro boost scout. Effective against.. orks? Scout bikers?

Scout Bikers and Deffkoptas.

Oshova wrote:But all Daemons are Daemons . . . It doesn't say with the Daemon special rule. It just says daemons. So surely all models bought from the Daemons book are Daemons.

Oshova - waiting until he can say something without using the word Daemons

The units in the Chaos Daemon book have a rule called 'Daemon' but the Daemonhunter codex on page 20 specifically defines what it means by the words 'Daemon' and 'Daemons'.

Why on Earth would you expect the definition in one codex to change the definition used by another codex?

So it clearly defines it by the words Daemon and Daemons? I'm sure that quite a few times it calls the Daemons in the Daemons book Daemons . . .

But look we're getting off topic here.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:So it clearly defines it by the words Daemon and Daemons? I'm sure that quite a few times it calls the Daemons in the Daemons book Daemons . . .

But look we're getting off topic here.

Oshova

Problem is Daemons are a defined gaming term in the daemon hunter codex. It is not enough to be called a daemon you must also be recognised as such and have your name on the list in their codex.

If you're not on the list they don't think you are a daemon.

Here's one I just noticed. The deffrolla cannot ram. The GW FAQ says, "The death rolla does indeed..."

ryan3740 wrote:Here's one I just noticed. The deffrolla cannot ram. The GW FAQ says, "The death rolla does indeed..."

Yeah there could be a whole section for just Orky spelling. For instance, before the latest Ork codex came out the rule for Power Fists stated that Power Fists and Power Claws double your strength, and Power Fist (and Claws) strike last in CC. Well, someone pointed out in a joking manner that the rule technically stated that "Power Claws" double your strength, but do not strike last as the strikes last rule does not apply to Power Claws, only Claws, so they strike at initiative.

Then I pointed out that Orks don't have Power Claws, they have Power Klaws, which since there is not a rule for them get treated as a normal power weapon

Then the whole fun RAW funness got rendered moot when the ork codex came out and said Power Klaws are treated as power fists in every aspect.

In various psychic powers, including Warptime, THE PSYKER ITSELF must roll the dice. (That's the model, not the player)

Could I get a quote on that? I check p50 of the rulebook but didn't find anything.

Its in their respective codices.

makr wrote:

In various psychic powers, including Warptime, THE PSYKER ITSELF must roll the dice. (That's the model, not the player)

Could I get a quote on that? I check p50 of the rulebook but didn't find anything.

CSM Codex, p88 wrote:

Warptime

The power is used at the start of any player's turn. If successful, the psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that player's turn.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think we should campaign to sticky this thread. Maybe I'll make the title look more educational or something...

uh, ummm, yes, something that is both fun AND educational, like we haven't seen that marketing trick before?

Oh..well the rulebook says you can't reroll a reroll.
So...
My opponent and I roll for first turn. We both roll a 3. THat's a tie. We reroll. We both roll a 5. Well, you can't reroll a reroll...

No one goes first, the game is a draw.

Lol...RAW is silly.

So very silly.

And, as mentioned earlier, not true.

Steelmage99 wrote:And, as mentioned earlier, not true.

Agreed. I wish people would read before posting.

Gwar! wrote:I wish people would read before posting.

Wish granted (well not really none of the gods i asked had the power)

Here is a good one:
Nob Bikers, Warbikers and IC's on Warbikes are not the Bikes unit type.

Page 46 of Codex: Orks states "Any model mounted on a Warbike [...] modifies his troop type to Bike [...]" (Exact wording there).

Sadly, there is no such thing as a "troop type", so it obviously is never modified.

Oh this is just awesome.

Gwar does that mean that ork bikes count as infantry? SLOOOOW!!! lol

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Gwar does that mean that ork bikes count as infantry? SLOOOOW!!! lol

Oshova

Only things that buy Warbikes (Nobs and IC's). Warbikers and Wazzdakka are Bikes proper.

The bad thing about this thread is that all of the TFGs have bookmarked it, printed it out and use these rulings in games.

ginger_nid_dude wrote:The bad thing about this thread is that all of the TFGs have bookmarked it, printed it out and use these rulings in games.

No.

If they were TFG, they would know all this anyway.

So my friends Nob Biker army would be screwed =p . . . Well more screwed than using 4 Jaws of the World Wolf on it . . . That was hilariously horrible watching lines of bikers fall into a chasm =D

Oshova

Again updated. Thanks everyone!

STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY
STICKY STICKY

We want a sticky thread! Sticky my thread!

Yeah this is a cool thread +1 for stickying it. Sure a new huge batch will be added when people have properly digested the new BA codex, so many nwe special rules loads have to be worded wrong or have knock effects.

FlingitNow wrote:Yeah this is a cool thread +1 for stickying it. Sure a new huge batch will be added when people have properly digested the new BA codex, so many nwe special rules loads have to be worded wrong or have knock effects.

Well I already posted up an FAQ for it, so feel free to dissect it and relay the RaW silliness here, I CBA doing it myself

Is there much silliness in it? You've already done the leg work so i assume you know.

Units with Red Thirst that don't also have ATSKNF. Rendering Red Thirst useless.

The specific wording of the Stormraven's transport ability, rendering most of the "walkers" in the army unable to use it.

Adding new terms to the game then never defining them.

Just a few of the BA goodies.

Loads of units have "Power Swords" >.<

The main rule book states that zzap guns hit automatically, though there is no mention of this in the ork codex.

I think I remember a buddy of mine mentioning something about RAW says that the Necron Deceiver's ability to 're-deploy' an enemy unit cannot ever be used.
I'll have to go back and re-read that bit and figure out what he meant...
[EDIT:] It seems that he was referring to the fact that there are no specific deployment rules outlined in any mission descriptions. They say what special rules would be used, but doesn't specifically refer to how to deploy.

A librarian uses quickening in the assualt phase at which point he gains the fleet USR that he can't use as he may only run in the shooting phase.

A librarian uses quickening in the assualt phase at which point he gains the fleet USR that he can't use as he may only run in the shooting phase.

He can run in the shooting phase with or without the fleet USR, the Fleet USR just allows him to then assault in the assault phase if he ran. So it works fine as he gains the rule when he needs to use it.

FlingitNow wrote:

A librarian uses quickening in the assualt phase at which point he gains the fleet USR that he can't use as he may only run in the shooting phase.

He can run in the shooting phase with or without the fleet USR, the Fleet USR just allows him to then assault in the assault phase if he ran. So it works fine as he gains the rule when he needs to use it.

I'm not sure that is RAI, as GW actually corrects this in their Errata. The subtle difference being that if you fail the psychic test in the shooting phase (as changed to in the Errata) then you can change plan and instead of running, shoot and not assault.

I'm not sure that is RAI, as GW actually corrects this in their Errata. The subtle difference being that if you fail the psychic test in the shooting phase (as changed to in the Errata) then you can change plan and instead of running, shoot and not assault.

Yeah if you run you are relying on getting the power off and have lost your chance to shoot should you fail the psychic test or it be nullified by something (hood runic weapon etc). Hence why they changed it but it still did work before.

Ceorron - you also missed that the BRB summary has a specific "the codex version is always right", so even if it states the zzap gun hits automatically, unless the codex also states this you ignore the BRB.

In the new BA book, Gabriel Seth is able to use his S8 rending on a monolith, as he doesn't have rending, his attacks are mearley resolved as having rending, rendering living metal useless against it. GO FLESH TEARERS.

Krellnus wrote:In the new BA book, Gabriel Seth is able to use his S8 rending on a monolith, as he doesn't have rending, his attacks are mearley resolved as having rending, rendering living metal useless against it. GO FLESH TEARERS.

Actually, he can't. He has the "Rending Special Rule". There is no such thing as a "Rending Special Rule". There is a Rending Weapon type, but Gabriel doesn't have that!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ceorron - you also missed that the BRB summary has a specific "the codex version is always right", so even if it states the zzap gun hits automatically, unless the codex also states this you ignore the BRB.


Yeah I know but still is obviouse mistake in the BRB.

Just because I started the thread and it clearly is a scribes fault.

Wazzdakka can fire all his weapons but only when he turbo boosts.

See:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285217.page

Wazzdakka can fire all his weapons but only when he turbo boosts.

Not true that is a choice to interpret him being able to fire "his weapons" as saying he may fire all his weapons rather than any of his weapons (notice how in both instances I'm using a plural). Later reading follows all the RaW for both the BrB and the Codex the former reading breaks BrB rules and the Codexes rules so is not a valid rules interpretation under RaW.

@FlingitNow, I know I know that it is a mistake, and that it is picky, and the rule interpretation is obvious, a little anal but this forum is about making light of the written mistakes of others, no need to be so defensive of the rules.

Apoc Rulebook P141: Cloudstrike Squadron

The Supercharged rule states the following:

If the Cloudstrike does not fire in given shooting phase, then in the next Shooting phase all pulse lasers in the Squadron count as having the Lance rule

Am I correct in thinking that this allows you to always have Lance, as obviously you cannot fire in the opponent's Shooting phase, giving your Pulse Lasers the Lance rule for your phase?

Just a little RAW thing I found yesterday.

Valk

Valkyrie wrote:Apoc Rulebook P141: Cloudstrike Squadron

The Supercharged rule states the following:

If the Cloudstrike does not fire in given shooting phase, then in the next Shooting phase all pulse lasers in the Squadron count as having the Lance rule

Am I correct in thinking that this allows you to always have Lance, as obviously you cannot fire in the opponent's Shooting phase, giving your Pulse Lasers the Lance rule for your phase?

Just a little RAW thing I found yesterday.

Valk

That's Apoc, RaW doesn't really apply.

Gwar! wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:Apoc Rulebook P141: Cloudstrike Squadron

The Supercharged rule states the following:

If the Cloudstrike does not fire in given shooting phase, then in the next Shooting phase all pulse lasers in the Squadron count as having the Lance rule

Am I correct in thinking that this allows you to always have Lance, as obviously you cannot fire in the opponent's Shooting phase, giving your Pulse Lasers the Lance rule for your phase?

Just a little RAW thing I found yesterday.

Valk

That's Apoc, RaW doesn't really apply.

RAW applies just as much in Apoc as in any other game type.

Calgar's "Titanic Might" special rule does not work for the same reason Warptime doesn't work.

It says Calgar can re-roll blah blah blah. So not only does the model have to do the rolling, you have to ask nicely. He doesn't have to, but he can. So take back those smurf jokes!

... I think.

EDIT: Of course, I guess that means Combat Tactics and God of War don't work either, since the unit (or Calgar) has to choose to pass/fail. I imagine you'll be waiting awhile for those little plastic dudes to make a decision.

A little addition to the models without eyes cant see rule:

Even if you add gunners to the bassilisk it still can't see because they.re eyes cant draw LOS through the gun shield thingie (sorry i don't know the correct english term for it).

HoverBoy wrote:A little addition to the models without eyes cant see rule:

Even if you add gunners to the bassilisk it still can't see because they.re eyes cant draw LOS through the gun shield thingie (sorry i don't know the correct english term for it).

Actually, vehicles are exempt from this. With vehicles, you draw LOS from the gun barrel. The basilisk gunners are just cosmetic....

Hmm musta missed that rule. Oh well wrong again, gettin used to it

HoverBoy wrote:A little addition to the models without eyes cant see rule:

Even if you add gunners to the bassilisk it still can't see because they.re eyes cant draw LOS through the gun shield thingie (sorry i don't know the correct english term for it).

I don't think there is a proper English term for it...

Krellnus wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:the gun shield thingie (sorry i don't know the correct english term for it).

I don't think there is a proper English term for it...

Surprisingly enough "gun shield" is a proper English term for it. Might also be called a mantlet.

You are wrong about Shrike not conferring infiltrate to the unit he joins. It is in the reserve rules that you have to let your opponent know the organization of the reserved units, and even has a specific paragraph about joining ICs to units in reserve.

Fearspect wrote:You are wrong about Shrike not conferring infiltrate to the unit he joins. It is in the reserve rules that you have to let your opponent know the organization of the reserved units, and even has a specific paragraph about joining ICs to units in reserve.

Actually, he is right. You can do it if you keep them in RESERVE, you cannot do it if you want to deploy them.

You decide the organization of units before you deploy them, I'm not following here.

Some of these raw points are valid, but most are really reaching and it takes away from the serious ones (i.e. saying Hive Tyrants cannot take bone swords as they are not Tyranids...)

Fearspect - it has NOTHING to do with organisation, but to do with the specific rules on jow ICs join units during deployment.

The ONLY way for an IC to join a unit during *deployment* as opposed to Reserves is to be *deployed in coherency)* with the unit.

This means the unit you want Shrike to join to HAS to be on the table - if they are not you *cannot* be in coherency as you have no way to measure to the unit to determine 2".

So, the unit has been deployed - and, as it is not Shrikes unit, it does not have Infiltrate. Meaning it has to deploy normally.

If you try to hold the unit back to the infitlrate step, you still cannot deploy them - as they dont have infiltrate. They must therefore go in reserve where you *can* join Shrike, however it is not too late to deploy them as Infiltrators - so they hav eto Outflank (or arrive normally...)

"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them." p 48

This is not a conditional statement of 'A, but only if B', it reads as 'if A then B'.

Fearspect wrote:"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them." p 48

This is not a conditional statement of 'A, but only if B', it reads as 'if A then B'.

Yes, to join the unit, he must deploy in coherency. To do that, the unit without infiltrate must be deployed, BEFORE the "Deploy infiltrators" step.

Fearspect wrote:"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them." p 48

This is not a conditional statement of 'A, but only if B', it reads as 'if A then B'.

So how are you measuring coherency without the unit being on the table? As the only way to deploy in the Infiltrate step is to *already have* Infiltrate you cannot deploy hte unit and then Shrike.

the line you think supports your case actually destroys it.

Wrong, because of the comma. Also, you are both reading in words that are not there.

Anyway, you can get really obtuse about just about anything written (And They Shall Know No Fear rule refers to Space Marines, there is no unit named this, etc. etc.) to the point where every sentence can be challenged if you choose to be difficult (or by ignoring English structure).

OP: I really think the word games ones should be removed; they are really reaching to expand your list. I am positive that plenty can be found without resorting to those which kind of discredit your whole post. I do like things like the Blood Angels transports not having exits - now that is a funny omission.

Let's keep it polite please people.

Fearspect - sorry, no, you're still wrong on this.

the "by" places a requirement on how an IC starts the game with a unit. The only way an IC can start the game with a unit is BY deploying with the unit.

Please explain how you think it parses otherwise?

The requirement it places is how to deploy him, but he is already part of the unit prior to deployment.

Part 1, or, an alternative way to join a unit:

"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit..."

The game begins prior to deployment, so it does not factor in.

Part 2, how to deploy them:

"...by being deployed in coherency with them."

Ensuring you do not pass on rules and then abandon them on the first turn.

Edit: We should probably take this elsewhere...

Actually the game begins at Step 5: Start the Game! It cannot begin prior to deployment otherwise the sentence makes no sense.

"by being deployed" *is the condition* you must fulfill. So, if you want to join the IC to the unit, you MUST deploy the IC *in coherency* with the unit.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to deploy in coherency when either unit is off the table.

Why not deploy shrike, and then the unit he has joined will deploy in coherency with him?

In fact, if you want to get REALLY RAW you can ONLY deploy or move a whole unit at once (not individual figures) since they must be in coherency at all times, meaning that you have to place all 30 Ork Boys at once, all within 2" or you are breaking the rules!

I see movement trays making an appearance in 40K

Oh, and knocking a miniature over by accident so that it is out of coherency, or picking it up off the table more than 2" is cheating.

ihatehumans wrote:Why not deploy shrike, and then the unit he has joined will deploy in coherency with him?

You can only do that if you don't want to infiltrate them. Otherwise, the unit doesn't have the infiltrate ability until Shrike joins them... so they would have had to be deployed with the rest of the army.

In fact, if you want to get REALLY RAW you can ONLY deploy or move a whole unit at once (not individual figures) since they must be in coherency at all times, meaning that you have to place all 30 Ork Boys at once, all within 2" or you are breaking the rules!

This is incorrect. Models have to be in coherency after finishing their movement. There is no requirement for models to be in coherency at all times.

Oh, and knocking a miniature over by accident so that it is out of coherency, or picking it up off the table more than 2" is cheating.

Doing anything by accident is not cheating. Cheating requires deliberate intent. And the second point is incorrect for the same reason as your deployment example.

ihatehumans wrote:Why not deploy shrike, and then the unit he has joined will deploy in coherency with him?

A. Because there is no 'unit he has joined' until he has deployed in coherency with them
B. Because he isn't being deployed in coherency with them in that case
C. Because the unit doesn't have infiltrate and couldn't deploy next to him anyway, thus defeating the whole purpose

Fearspect wrote:The requirement it places is how to deploy him, but he is already part of the unit prior to deployment.

There is no way provided by the rules for him to be joined to the unit prior to deployment unless you're keeping him in Reserves.


If you go back and have another look at the IC deployment rules, the 'alternate way of deploying' is alternate to deploying him by himself. No reference is ever made to being able to put the IC with the unit before you deploy them outside the rules for Reserves.

I agree insaniak that the alternate to deploying him alone is to deploy him in a unit.

Fearspect wrote:I agree insaniak that the alternate to deploying him alone is to deploy him in a unit.

You can deploy him into a unit. Not with a unit, as you were claiming before. It's an important distinction, and it's what stops him (by RAW) from being able to infiltrate with a unit that doesn't itself already have the Infiltrate USR.

Nobody (or at least practically nobody) actually plays that way... but that isn't the point of this thread.

Its right there in the rule I quoted: he joins the unit, then you put them down together. Everyone keeps adding this mysterious sentence of "He is not part of the unit until they hit the table."

And I thought we were getting along so well... :(

Fearspect wrote:Its right there in the rule I quoted: he joins the unit, then you put them down together. Everyone keeps adding this mysterious sentence of "He is not part of the unit until they hit the table."

And I thought we were getting along so well... :(

Because he ISN'T PART OF THE UNIT UNTIL HE HITS THE TABLE. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Fearspect wrote:Its right there in the rule I quoted: he joins the unit, then you put them down together. Everyone keeps adding this mysterious sentence of "He is not part of the unit until they hit the table."

And I thought we were getting along so well... :(

What part of "by deploying in coherency" are you struggling with?

How are you deploying in coherency without either deplpoying the unit or Shrike. If you are stating you are deploying in coherency while off the table, you are not a) deploying or b) able to measure coherency.

He joins the unit, then you deploy them in coherency, just like it says in the rule. The comma parses the sentence that way.

If it were a requirement to do as you both state, the comma would be removed and you would still have a grammatically correct sentence that says something different.

Edit:

I see what's happening. You are all reading the sentence like this:

"By being deployed in coherency with a unit, an independent character may alternately begin the game already with them."

Again, not what is written.

Fearspect wrote:He joins the unit, then you deploy them in coherency, just like it says in the rule.

Except that the rule doesn't say that. Nowhere does it state that he joins the unit before they are deployed. It instead states that he has to be deployed in coherency to join the unit.

The unit is deployed. You can then deploy the IC in coherency with them, at which point he counts as joined to the unit.

I see what's happening. You are all reading the sentence like this:

"By being deployed in coherency with a unit, an independent character may alternately begin the game already with them."

That's how we're reading it, yes.

Fearspect wrote:He joins the unit, then you deploy them in coherency, just like it says in the rule. The comma parses the sentence that way.

If it were a requirement to do as you both state, the comma would be removed and you would still have a grammatically correct sentence that says something different.

Edit:

I see what's happening. You are all reading the sentence like this:

"By being deployed in coherency with a unit, an independent character may alternately begin the game already with them."

Again, not what is written.

Actually, the comma does not work that way.

In this case, that comma is a grammatical error and should not be there. It's presence does not change the meaning of the sentence. The best possible justification for including it would be the "natural pause" rule for comma usage that not every style manual ascribes to anymore.

Check the following link and see rule number 9.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

The following sentences mean the same thing:

"Alternatively, an independent character may begin the game already with a unit by being deployed in coherency with them."

and

"Alternatively, by being deployed in coherency with them, an independent character may begin the game already with a unit."

Also, I believe that GW missed a correct comma usage in that sentence after the word "alternatively" at the beginning of the sentence; there should be one there, but I don't think GW included one in their rules.

I read your link, Saldiven. I have never heard of strong/weak clauses. "If you are not sure about this, let me know now." is the example you give, but this is clearly a conditional statement. Maybe if the phrase was, "If you want an independent character to begin the game with a unit, then you must deploy them in coherency." then your rule #9 would apply.

"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit" reads like an independent clause to me (a sentence that can stand alone).

The second part, "by being deployed in coherency with them." is subordinate to the first, depending on the first part to make sense.

However it still applies a condition on the first - in order to start the game with a unit, it must be deployed in coherency.

Lol, love the thread.

--Nevermind, nothing to see here

Absolutely agree, nosferatu1001. The condition is that if you chose to join them to a unit, then you put them down in coherency when it later comes time to deploy them. A little redundant, but I hear GW HQ is a silly place.

But as has been pointed out "may start the game" is AFTER deployment, therefore they are not joined until the start of the game.

Which is after deployment is over, and after you have any choice to deploy the unit as infiltrators. See Step 5: Start the Game!

Look guys please don't spend the next page going round in circles. The RAW is that he can't deploy as infiltrators with a unit. But the way everyone plays it, is that they can.

Every other RAW rule in here isn't really played that way. But that's what the RAW states.

Oshova

So rolling for first turn (the single most important dice roll of the game), picking sides, setting up objectives, and deployment are not part of the game?

I guess by the book that is something hard written, and something the OP can add to his list.

So rolling for first turn (the single most important dice roll of the game), picking sides, setting up objectives, and deployment are not part of the game?

Yes by RaW none of these are part of the game. I'd argue that building an army list is also hugely important for the outcome of the battle but again that is not considered part of the game. The game starts at a specific point after deployment as covered in the rules.

This thread is entirely for stupid interpretations of the rules using RaW.

FlingitNow wrote:

This thread is entirely for stupid interpretations of the rules using RaW.

Well, I see it as a piss-take on 32.67% of the threads on "40k You Make Da Call". Hence my entertainment.