24956
Post by: Xca|iber
Oh, missed that bit.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
insaniak wrote:Oshova wrote:That's not even interpretted any other way. That just makes plane sense to me. Otherwise you could hide your TFC in a unit . . . =p
I suspect you misunderstood...
The TFC rules say that the Tech doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed. The obvious intention of that is that he doesn't count as an IC while the cannon is around, but becomes one (like any other Techmarine) once it is destroyed. The problem is that he doesn't actually have the IC rule (It's not included in his army list entry as it is for regular techmarines) and the rules don't specifically say that he gains it when the cannon is destroyed.
So he can't benefit from the IC rule when the cannon is around (because the rules say so) but he also can't benefit from it when the cannon is destroyed (because he doesn't have it).
This is going in. Fantastic.
Come on, insaniak, you have special mod superpowers, right?
You can sticky things, right?
You love this thread and all the good it's doing, right?
26655
Post by: Rube
ArbitorIan wrote:This is going in. Fantastic.
Come on, insaniak, you have special mod superpowers, right?
You can sticky things, right?
You love this thread and all the good it's doing, right?
If you sticky this thread, can we also get a thread stickied called 'Fun List of RAI Fun' which explains how you play by RaI (in similar exaggerated fashion)? Although I imagine it'd be pretty short, just one line; 'ignore the rules in favor of whatever you think the author actually intended'.
8316
Post by: J.Black
It's a good job that codex trumps rulebook; the BRB lists the Waveserpent's front armour value as 2!
17799
Post by: Oshova
Wow! Instant penetrating hits from any weapon =] lol
Oshova
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
J.Black wrote:It's a good job that codex trumps rulebook; the BRB lists the Waveserpent's front armour value as 2!
Only in that *Specific* section does codex automatically trump the rulebook.
Otherwise the concept you are looking for is "specific > general", which is *often* but not *always* the codex beating the rulebook.
26404
Post by: cmac
Rube wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
If you sticky this thread, can we also get a thread stickied called 'Fun List of RAI Fun' which explains how you play by RaI (in similar exaggerated fashion)? Although I imagine it'd be pretty short, just one line; 'ignore the rules in favor of whatever you think the author actually intended'.
That too would be cool. Basically, it would be fun to print out the OP and take it with my in my rules just in case I strike an awkward player in a social game (generally not the regular opponents).
26034
Post by: In_Theory
Necrons - We'll Be Back
The rule asks you to lay the models over to represent the rule, prior to the next turn when they're allowed rolls.
This is conflicted with the Wobbly Model Rule.
The models can then be removed.
Due to the RAW of WBB- We'll Be Back just removes your models from the table... We'll Be Back then looks for the model to still be around to stand back up, but can't because it's no longer on the table.
Also- models that die further cannot count the "laying down" models to also gain WBB chances- because the models aren't within the distance.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except Wobbly Model tells you to put the model back whenever you need to interact with it.
Nice try but silly RAW fail 
26034
Post by: In_Theory
Would simply checking to see if any like models in a range count as interacting with the model?
Interact = "To act on another"
While measuring to could be construed as interaction, you're not actually acting on the models like shooting or assaulting.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Well, given you are told to measure from / to the model, you are most definitely interacting with it.
23534
Post by: Macok
J.Black wrote:It's a good job that codex trumps rulebook; the BRB lists the Waveserpent's front armour value as 2!
OMG where is it? 
26818
Post by: Seriphis
Macok wrote:J.Black wrote:It's a good job that codex trumps rulebook; the BRB lists the Waveserpent's front armour value as 2!
OMG where is it?
in the profiles at the back of the bgb... 104
99
Post by: insaniak
ArbitorIan wrote:Come on, insaniak, you have special mod superpowers, right?
You can sticky things, right?
You love this thread and all the good it's doing, right?
I think the thread's mildly amusing for what it is. I don't think it needs preserving for posterity... that's likely to give some people the wrong idea.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
But it's educational!
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Ok insaniak, how bout a deal:
If this thread stays on page one till april 20th, youll admit its here to stay and sticky it.
18806
Post by: Volkov
Ok I got two
-Forget Master of the Forge not bolstering defenses because he isn't a techmarine. Lysander also has bolster defenses and he sure as hell isn't a techmarine
-Ironclad Dreadnoughts and Scout sentinels get no benefit from Move through cover as it states units of infantry...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
-Ironclad Dreadnoughts and Scout sentinels get no benefit from Move through cover as it states units of infantry...
Walkers move exactly as infantry though so it does still work for them.
However how about:
You can never make your move for the scouts ability during any of the standard missions. They all detail deployment then you deploy infiltrators and make Scout moves which presumably refers to the special rule Wolf Scouts have that is as yet undefined and then you start the game hence you never get the chance to make your Scouts move...
12157
Post by: DarkHound
Has anyone mentioned that if you run Dark Angels with Scout Marine Bikers, even your opponent isn't allowed to turbo-boost during the Scout move (ignoring the fact that you can't Scout move)?
11194
Post by: Krellnus
FlingitNow wrote:-Ironclad Dreadnoughts and Scout sentinels get no benefit from Move through cover as it states units of infantry...
Walkers move exactly as infantry though so it does still work for them.
Wrong, the rule specifies units of the Infantry type, so no walkers
DarkHound wrote:Has anyone mentioned that if you run Dark Angels with Scout Marine Bikers, even your opponent isn't allowed to turbo-boost during the Scout move (ignoring the fact that you can't Scout move)?
I think it has...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Wrong, the rule specifies units of the Infantry type, so no walkers
I think you'll find even if it said that it would not matter as all movement rules that apply to unit type infantry apply to Walkers as they are treated like infantry for movement so this argument doesn't work. However the actual rules states this:
BRB pg75 wrote: Units with this rule roll an extra D6 when rolling to move through difficult terrain.
Infantry are mentioned in the previous sentence but this sentence does not reference that sentence or it's mention of infantry.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Ok on topic. I was reading the paroxysm rule just now and noticed it says the power is in effect till the Tyrants next turn, so if said tyrant is killed and gets no next turn paroxysm is prolonged indeffynetly, or till the next game he gets a turn.
Imagine.
Player 1: And my TH/SS termies are WS & BS 1.
Player 2:Why?
Player 1: Got paroxysmed last game then beat the tyrant, nid dude hasn't played since...
17799
Post by: Oshova
Now that is an uber power! lol
Oshova
13852
Post by: ihatehumans
Stealth on vehicles doesn't work, ala Camo Netting IG?
For the same reason that the SW 5+ cover save doesn't work on vehicles?
I'm not RAW fanatical or non-lazy enough to look it up, but seems like a possibility (not to mention a chunk of points that get you nothing ).
12265
Post by: Gwar!
ihatehumans wrote:Stealth on vehicles doesn't work, ala Camo Netting IG? For the same reason that the SW 5+ cover save doesn't work on vehicles? I'm not RAW fanatical or non-lazy enough to look it up, but seems like a possibility (not to mention a chunk of points that get you nothing ).
No, completely wrong. All Stealth does is improve a cover save by 1, it doesn't matter what kind if cover save it is. The reason Storm Caller doesn't work on vehicles is because it doesn't obscure anything.
26034
Post by: In_Theory
Nobody can ever play a game of Warhammer unless their name is "Player", "Attacker", or "Defender".
25819
Post by: IggyEssEmManlyMan
Assumming you're like me and my FLGS players and view FAQs as garbage and never use them, powerfists and claws dont work versus a monolith.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:Assumming you're like me and my FLGS players and view FAQs as garbage and never use them, powerfists and claws dont work versus a monolith.
Wrong, the unmodified Strength of the *powerfist* is 2S(model), therefore powerfists DO work.
all the FAQ did was clarifiy that yes, WEAPON really did mean WEAPON.
26404
Post by: cmac
In_Theory wrote:Nobody can ever play a game of Warhammer unless their name is "Player", "Attacker", or "Defender".
Heh, that's funny.
As an aside, I have found in business that "Wrong" being replaced by "What I think you might be missing" works better for me.
16865
Post by: Nightwatch
If a Battlesuit taking drones is killed in the movement phase due to tank shock, dangerous terrain, etc, the game breaks because the drones are removed when the model with the drone controller is removed in the "shooting or assault phase".
EDIT: minor clarity issues.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
cmac wrote:In_Theory wrote:Nobody can ever play a game of Warhammer unless their name is "Player", "Attacker", or "Defender".
Heh, that's funny.
As an aside, I have found in business that "Wrong" being replaced by "What I think you might be missing" works better for me.
It was the 3rd or 4th time the same poster has gotten this wrong, and insists on repeating their error. Patience stretches only so far.
17799
Post by: Oshova
Nightwatch wrote:If a Battlesuit taking drones is killed in the movement phase due to tank shock, dangerous terrain, etc, the game breaks because the drones are removed when the model with the drone controller is removed in the "shooting or assault phase".
EDIT: minor clarity issues.
Yes, but if the battlesuit was killed in tank shock, isn't the whole unit lost, you don't just lose 1 model anymore. Now if it died due to dangerous terrain or something, then yes that would mean that the drones would stay there.
Oshova
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No,m only the model attempting DoG is lost.
4734
Post by: njfed
Love this list and don't want it to fade into the ether.
In the Blood Angels Codex, Reclusiarchs have Honour of the Chapter and Liturgies of Blood, but these powers do nothing for them. The powers only mention them working for Chaplains. The text that says a Reclusiarch is a chaplain is in the 'fluff' section, so it MUST be disregarded.
15335
Post by: Spyder68
You can technically charge out of a land raider on your opponets turn due to..
It states they may assault the turn they disembark from any access point..
Wreck a land raider.. Forced to disembark.. Charge opponet on his turn.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Blood Angel Vindicators have their weapon listed as just ordnance 1. Not ordnance blast 1.
As such BA Vinicators only fire solid S10 Ap2 shells, and do not use the large blast template.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Rulebooks say al ordnance weapons use the large blast counter.
16865
Post by: Nightwatch
Oshova wrote:Nightwatch wrote:If a Battlesuit taking drones is killed in the movement phase due to tank shock, dangerous terrain, etc, the game breaks because the drones are removed when the model with the drone controller is removed in the "shooting or assault phase".
EDIT: minor clarity issues.
Yes, but if the battlesuit was killed in tank shock, isn't the whole unit lost, you don't just lose 1 model anymore. Now if it died due to dangerous terrain or something, then yes that would mean that the drones would stay there.
Oshova
Heard someone say something along these lines earlier and I was wondering about it. How does this work, or did the poster after you get it right? As far as I can remember, only the DoG model is killed, and technically you COULD choose a drone to do it, for whatever crazy reason.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
HoverBoy wrote:Rulebooks say al ordnance weapons use the large blast counter.
No, it doesn't. Read it again. It says all Ordnance BARRAGE weapons are Blast weapons, and all ordnance BLAST weapons use the Large Blast marker. . . but nowhere does it say that all Ordnance weapons are Blast weapons.
102
Post by: Jayden63
BeRzErKeR wrote:HoverBoy wrote:Rulebooks say al ordnance weapons use the large blast counter.
No, it doesn't. Read it again. It says all Ordnance BARRAGE weapons are Blast weapons, and all ordnance BLAST weapons use the Large Blast marker. . . but nowhere does it say that all Ordnance weapons are Blast weapons.
Thus no blast template for BA Vindicators. They now have to roll to hit. They still get to roll two dice pick the highest for pen though.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Guys I did this already, and the thread got locked. Don't drag this one to lockage too
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288679.page
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Stunned vehicles can pivot, because pivoting dosen't count as moving and only immobilised vehicles are specifically forbidden to do it.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
HoverBoy wrote:Stunned vehicles can pivot, because pivoting dosen't count as moving and only immobilised vehicles are specifically forbidden to do it.
Small problem... when are you given permission to pivot? As you move. How can you claim to be pivoting legally if you have not yet started to move?
The rule that pivoting does not count as moving does not remove the requirement to move first; it makes you count as not moving even though you really did.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
thebetter1 wrote:HoverBoy wrote:Stunned vehicles can pivot, because pivoting dosen't count as moving and only immobilised vehicles are specifically forbidden to do it.
Small problem... when are you given permission to pivot? As you move. How can you claim to be pivoting legally if you have not yet started to move?
The rule that pivoting does not count as moving does not remove the requirement to move first; it makes you count as not moving even though you really did.
As I've pointed out in the last half dozen threads on it, this is not true. Turning as you move and simply pivoting on the spot are entirely different.
But whatever, I don't feel like arguing it again.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
The definition of a Re-roll is "picking up and rolling a dice you wish to re-roll" so Warptime works as intended according to RaW. Any die that apply for a re-roll may or may not be physically picked up and rolled again according to if you "wish."
4298
Post by: Spellbound
There's a tyranid psychic power that, if the Swarmlord uses it, will measure range from "The Hive Tyrant", so if you have a tyrant on the front line and the swarmlord uses the power from the back of the board, you'll affect things in range of the tyrant instead.
Likewise, if the Swarmlord uses Paroxysm on an enemy unit, the WS reduction is permanent if you don't have a Hive Tyrant in your army - as it lasts until the Hive Tyrant's next turn, and there is none.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
thebetter1 wrote:HoverBoy wrote:Stunned vehicles can pivot, because pivoting dosen't count as moving and only immobilised vehicles are specifically forbidden to do it.
Small problem... when are you given permission to pivot? As you move. How can you claim to be pivoting legally if you have not yet started to move?
The rule that pivoting does not count as moving does not remove the requirement to move first; it makes you count as not moving even though you really did.
"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary" page 57 BGB.
Thus a stunned vehicle that pivots remains stationary and dosent brake the rule for crew-stunned since that rule only states that it can't shoot or move, stationary vehicles don't move when they pivot.
If you're gonna argue this add some RAW refferences as this thread is about that – silly RAW.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Does not "count as" moving, meaning it actually IS movement.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Yea if you ignotre the fact that the whole thing says "does not count as" 
12265
Post by: Gwar!
HoverBoy wrote:Yea if you ignotre the fact that the whole thing says "does not count as"
The problem is, for it to not count as movement, it has to actually be movement in the first place.
If it was not movement, it would not need a rule saying it doesn't count as movement.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Yea but with the rule being there it is movement that dosen't count as such, so stunned can non-move aka pivot.
4298
Post by: Spellbound
Isn't that whole issue all in relation to shooting? There's evidence that pivoting actually DOES count as moving in some respects (passengers disembarking then trying to assault for instance), so really it ONLY doesn't count as movement for the purposes of shooting.
24750
Post by: forkbanger
Blood Angel magna-grapples repair immobilised vehicles for a turn.
The magna-grapple allows a vehicle to move normally the turn after the magna-grapple shot, providing it survives the assault phase.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
forkbanger wrote:Blood Angel magna-grapples repair immobilised vehicles for a turn.
The magna-grapple allows a vehicle to move normally the turn after the magna-grapple shot, providing it survives the assault phase.
... What?
The vehicle can move normally.
Ok, how does a vehicle that is immobilised move? Tada!
8896
Post by: Timmah
I don't know if its been mentioned but the Death Company and DC Dread can't assault because they have the rage USR.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Why cant they assault? You may need a little more explanation as to why this doesnt work!
8896
Post by: Timmah
The Rage USR says you consolidate towards the nearest enemy in the assault phase. And you can't consolidate into close combat. So no assaulting.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Timmah wrote:The Rage USR says you consolidate towards the nearest enemy in the assault phase. And you can't consolidate into close combat. So no assaulting.
Whut? You consolidate only if you win a CC. If you are not in CC, you can't consolidate.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Timmah wrote:The Rage USR says you consolidate towards the nearest enemy in the assault phase. And you can't consolidate into close combat. So no assaulting.
Consolidate is AFTER you win combat and break / wipe out the enemy - you make a consolidate MOVE towards an enemy IF you get to make one.
It does not override or replace your ability to launch an assault.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the double 6 result on the Shokk Attack gun removes anything under the template, even vehicles. Even though it says "Vehicles suffer a penetrating hit", if you follow RAW, then the vehicle would suffer the hit in addition to being removed from play. This would also affect any vehicle, regardless of size, so in theory it could take down an Emperor Titan.
Like I said, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, I just noticed it in the Ork Codex, so don't start to flame me if someone has already said it.
Valk
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Well tehcnically speaking vehicles are models so that would make you right.
18698
Post by: kronk
Would it remove terrain?
<--- not an ork player.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Well terrain unlike vehicles is never classified as a model, anywhere.
15842
Post by: RobPro
Few more for Necrons I didn't see up there on the first page...
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.
Downed Necrons are only removed if they fail a roll to stand back up. If 10 Warriors are knocked down with no Warriors within 6 inches at the start of the Necron player's turn, they stay on the table until, at the beginning of some future turn, they become eligible to make their roll.
6846
Post by: solkan
RobPro wrote:Downed Necrons are only removed if they fail a roll to stand back up. If 10 Warriors are knocked down with no Warriors within 6 inches at the start of the Necron player's turn, they stay on the table until, at the beginning of some future turn, they become eligible to make their roll.
That's a perfectly legitimate way of playing Necrons!  (Rules interpretation to the contrary backed up only by a retracted FAQ entry, *rant* *rant* *rant*)
24707
Post by: Hesperus
Robin Cruddace wanted to let Nid players take units of Carnifexes, but didn't want them to abuse rule allocation like every other rock unit. In order to avoid it, he included the following note:
"All Carnifexes in the brood must have the same options."
Well, of course they all have the same options. It's not like one has the options in the Carnifex entry and another has the options in the Biovore entry.
I'm sure he meant that all Carnifexes must take the same options, but, well...
Silly Cruddace.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Hey, Thanks for this thread. The reading has been amusing
Got one for you. White dragon and a bunch of others will be angry about me letting this one out of the bag. I can't believe the Tau codex has been around since '05 and I was the first to notice after four years.
Here we go,
Tau Battlesuits have their own "Armoury". In the armoury there are the three different sections of:
1)Battlesuit Weapons
2)Battlesuit Support Systems
3)Battlesuit Wargear
States in the rules that, "Any model with access to the Battlesuit Armoury may take up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear List."
This means that the Battlesuit Weapons and Support systems do not count towards the 100 pt total
Again I refer you to the, "Any model with access to the Battlesuit Armoury may take up to 100 points from the Battlesuit Wargear List." line.
This is where it gets fun.
Drones are Wargear
Under the drone rules there is no modification that requires the battlesuit to be equipped with a drone controller in order to purchase drone.
Under the Drones Section it specifies that, "Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit should have to take a morale check having taken 25% casualties."
The Drone Controller rule in the wargear section is what actually limits the number of drones to two per model.
By Raw, any battlesuit with access to the armoury and wargear section can purchase a 100 pts of drones and the drones casualties won't effect moral.
There are other problems in thw Battlesuit armoury but I felt that it was time for this to see the light of day.
Have fun
P.S.- The same wording is in effect for the Tau infantry and the 100 pt limit lends to the thought that they were originally designed with this in mind.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ah focusedfire, I remember your Rants about the Tau Codex from the good old days
11731
Post by: The Bringer
*5 Drones
23394
Post by: Ashtaroth
these may be wrong
ANY termagant unit, including enemy termagants, will use a tervigon's leadership, benefits from it's biomorphs, and takes a hit if the tervigon is killed, if they are within 6" of it.
additionally, enemy units will not scatter if placed within 6" of a lictor using deep strike
also (a stretch, this one) an enemy tyranid player will benefit from the +1 to reserve rolls via Pheremone trail; it merely says The Tyranid player, not the controlling player
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Ashtaroth by that logic any space marine unit with combat tactics would benefit from Marneas Calgars choose to pass fail rule including possible enemy BLOOD ANGELS units. Not sure it is correct though.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ashtaroth: Army special rules only affect enemy units if the rule specifically says so. Covered in the Rulebook FAQ.
23394
Post by: Ashtaroth
insaniak wrote:Ashtaroth: Army special rules only affect enemy units if the rule specifically says so. Covered in the Rulebook FAQ.
gah, as i expected. that being said i'm not particularly up to date with the FAQ's or errata. thanks for the correction 
99
Post by: insaniak
focusedfire wrote:By Raw, any battlesuit with access to the armoury and wargear section can purchase a 100 pts of drones and the drones casualties won't effect moral.
As pointed out in the other thread, you're limited to one of each of the three drone types by the armoury restriction on taking the same item more than once.
6846
Post by: solkan
Mispost.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I don't know if this counts, but all Marines and Chaos Marines that can take upgrades must be modelled as male Marines, as it states that "The (insert rank) may replace his (insert weapon)", rather than "may replace their (insert weapon)".
Valk
7597
Post by: Kirbinator
Valkyrie wrote:I don't know if this counts, but all Marines and Chaos Marines that can take upgrades must be modelled as male Marines, as it states that "The (insert rank) may replace his (insert weapon)", rather than "may replace their (insert weapon)".
Considering GW only makes male marines and has anyone actually seen female marines on the table, I don't think this counts as a typo/convoluted grammar situation.
6846
Post by: solkan
Valkyrie wrote:I don't know if this counts, but all Marines and Chaos Marines that can take upgrades must be modelled as male Marines, as it states that "The (insert rank) may replace his (insert weapon)", rather than "may replace their (insert weapon)".
I'm not sure which English-like language you're speaking, but in the English-like language which I was raised to speak, the gender used for pronouns when the referent is either unknown or a member of a mixed group is male.  And I'm not even going to get started on that horrid abomination which is the singular 'their'...
You crazy kids and your ideas of how the language works. 
28249
Post by: bloog
Pika_power wrote:The Rage USR breaks the rulebook, because there is no way to check LOS in the movement phase.
Are you saying you're not allowed to check LOS in the movement phase at all?
I ask because this came up the other day in a game...
28499
Post by: Cheeslord
Apologies for not reading all 13 pages to see if anyone else said this, but:
- Firstly, awesome thread
Secondly: tyranid 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. But when they are deployed they havent yet drifted anywhere, and they are in base - to base contact with impassable terrain (a model not in the same unit is always impassable terrain). this is the detonation condition in the spore mine rules (no phase is mentioned, so the rule applies all the time).
mark.
26322
Post by: Hoodwink
Spore mines can also run and assault. Try using that in a game
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
bloog wrote:Pika_power wrote:The Rage USR breaks the rulebook, because there is no way to check LOS in the movement phase.
Are you saying you're not allowed to check LOS in the movement phase at all?
I ask because this came up the other day in a game...
Don't actually listen to anything that's said in this thread.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
UPDATED AGAIN!!
Since nobody wants to sticky this, I may make an Article....
insaniak wrote:focusedfire wrote:By Raw, any battlesuit with access to the armoury and wargear section can purchase a 100 pts of drones and the drones casualties won't effect moral.
As pointed out in the other thread, you're limited to one of each of the three drone types by the armoury restriction on taking the same item more than once.
Thankyou all for this fantastically complex one. I've added the following as clarification...
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.
Cheeslord wrote:Apologies for not reading all 13 pages to see if anyone else said this, but:
- Firstly, awesome thread
Secondly: tyranid 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. But when they are deployed they havent yet drifted anywhere, and they are in base - to base contact with impassable terrain (a model not in the same unit is always impassable terrain). this is the detonation condition in the spore mine rules (no phase is mentioned, so the rule applies all the time).
mark.
Not sure I understand this one. They only count as impassable terrain if they're in different units. How can you deploy them all at once in one DS circle if they're separate units?
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
ArbitorIan wrote:Not sure I understand this one. They only count as impassable terrain if they're in different units. How can you deploy them all at once in one DS circle if they're separate units?
The thing is they are separate units that deploy together, since spore clusters deploy together but the mines then act independantly, so as soon as the DS is done they are no longer one unit.
28499
Post by: Cheeslord
What he said ...
at least they don't insta-give killpoints now (that was epically bad).
Mark.
99
Post by: insaniak
ArbitorIan wrote: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.
Not entirely accurate. The drones wouldn't count as casualties if you don't model them, but instead consider them a part of the suit. If they are represented as models, they would be treated like any other model in the unit... the Drone Controller rules are redundant in that situation.
102
Post by: Jayden63
The Space Wolf power Tempest Wrath vs jump infantry.
The power causes all jump infantry models that end their move within the area of effect to have to take a dangerous terrain test.
Jump infantry are effected even if they choose to walk and not use their jump packs. The power doesn't say move as jump infantry, it just says jump infantry.
Funny enough, models like Mephiston that can use a power such as Wings of Sanguin move as jump infantry but are in fact still classified as infantry and as such are immune to the Tempests Wrath effects.
So you got guys walking on the ground but because they have a bulky backpack on they take hits from a psychic blizzard. But you got another guy zooming around with psychic induced flight ignoring the blizzard.
12157
Post by: DarkHound
insaniak wrote:ArbitorIan wrote: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.
Not entirely accurate. The drones wouldn't count as casualties if you don't model them, but instead consider them a part of the suit. If they are represented as models, they would be treated like any other model in the unit... the Drone Controller rules are redundant in that situation.
Oh god, Tervigon Crisis Suits! GIANT FLYING CLUSTERS OF DRONES!!!
12141
Post by: jayjester
Independent Characters do not get along well with vehicles.
An IC can not end it's movement phase within 2" of unit he dose not intend to join, or can not join. This would include vehicles. This makes it very awkward for a IC to try and embark in a transport, as it must be exactly 2 inches away (unless the vehicle moved closer). When an IC disembarks, it must disembark exactly 2" out. IC's with a vehicle repair ability can not themselves move into base to base contact during the movement phase. They would either have to run during the shooting phase (hoping for a 2+), use the assault phase, or move the vehicle(s) into base contact with it. This makes it very awkward for repairing IC's to fix vehicles.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
For all its worth ill point out techpriests arent IC's, even if your post belongs in another thread.
12141
Post by: jayjester
Never mentioned techpriests, same as didn't mention mekboys. There are however quite a few IC's with vehicle repair.
Also, I did post this in "Fun List of RAW Fun", this being the thread we are in currently.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
jayjester wrote:Never mentioned techpriests, same as didn't mention mekboys. There are however quite a few IC's with vehicle repair.
Also, I did post this in "Fun List of RAW Fun", this being the thread we are in currently.
Weird i got ma threads mixed up 
13731
Post by: HiveFleetGoliath
Cheeslord wrote:What he said ...
at least they don't insta-give killpoints now (that was epically bad).
Mark.
Last codex they didn't, they weren't scoring units. Doesn't that mean they arn't worth killpoints?
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
HiveFleetGoliath wrote:Cheeslord wrote:What he said ...
at least they don't insta-give killpoints now (that was epically bad).
Mark.
Last codex they didn't, they weren't scoring units. Doesn't that mean they arn't worth killpoints?
No.
If non-scoring units wheren't worth KPs then what of all the HQ, Elite, Fast attack, and Heavy support units are they worth no KPs either?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
any UNIT gives kill points, regardless of scoring or not.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
The third paragraph of Codex: Tyranids states that the Doom of Malan'tai is a type of Zoanthrope (p 58). He has access to all Zoanthrope powers and invulnerable saves.
The description of Master of the Forge says he is the most senior Techmarine in a Chapter. He has access to the bolster defences rule.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
The Master of the Forge's bolster defenses works just fine no matter how you read these kinds of rules. The ability mentions the Techmarine but directs the player to actually take the action of bolstering a ruin.
11857
Post by: Ludovic
Brother-Sergeant Chronos MUST be assigned to one tank in the army. If you take this to the logical extreme you cannot play a Codex:Space Marines army without taking Chronos.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Ludovic wrote:Brother-Sergeant Chronos MUST be assigned to one tank in the army. If you take this to the logical extreme you cannot play a Codex:Space Marines army without taking Chronos.
Deff Dreads must take two weapons. Does this somehow mean that you need to take a Deff Dread?
28420
Post by: darkdm
The untis ordered to fire with Bring it Down! and Fire on my Target! by a CCS do not need line of sight on the unit they are firing on. The line specifically reads "the ordered unit immediatly shoots at the nominated target" in both cases, and only the CCS has to have line of sight to nominate a unit.
Also, for a Move, Move, Move! it reads "rolling three dice and using the highest result", which could very well mean the sum of two or all three dice as your highest "result", allowing your guardsmen to run up to 18 inches.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
darkdm wrote:The untis ordered to fire with Bring it Down! and Fire on my Target! by a CCS do not need line of sight on the unit they are firing on. The line specifically reads "the ordered unit immediatly shoots at the nominated target" in both cases, and only the CCS has to have line of sight to nominate a unit.
Also, for a Move, Move, Move! it reads "rolling three dice and using the highest result", which could very well mean the sum of two or all three dice as your highest "result", allowing your guardsmen to run up to 18 inches.
1) Yes and when you check for LoS one would fail so all shots will automatically miss.
2) No, just no. Your English needs some work if you're trying to say that.
11857
Post by: Ludovic
There's no definition of a "one-shot" weapon in the BRB or in most weapon descriptions. Most "one-shot" weapons are merely given a weapon attribute of "one-shot" and when you try to look it up it's not in the book.
So, either one-shot weapons cannot be used because they have no rules for them, or you ignore the nonexistent "one-shot" rule and get to fire them as many times as you want.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fail. The rule book is NOT inclusive (if you disagree, find the GW 40k definition of "the") therefore you determine what "one shot" means in English.
That is fairly clear.
11857
Post by: Ludovic
"One shot only, ever, in a game" is clear. "One shot" is not, for the purposes of this thread. It could mean one shot in a round even if there are rules that would otherwise allow you to shoot twice such as mystics. Or it could mean the shot could never be twin linked even if there are rules that would allow that such as Bring It Down.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
One shot is very clear, you have One Shot with that weapon. The rest are just very tenuous attempts at muddying it.
Doesnt alter that your position relied on treating a non-inclusive ruleset as inclusive, which is never going to work!
8261
Post by: Pika_power
MasterSlowPoke wrote:bloog wrote:Pika_power wrote:The Rage USR breaks the rulebook, because there is no way to check LOS in the movement phase.
Are you saying you're not allowed to check LOS in the movement phase at all?
I ask because this came up the other day in a game...
Don't actually listen to anything that's said in this thread.
That said, he's allowed to, but when he tries to, he'll be stuck. Just ask him for a page reference on how to check LoS. He'll direct you to the shooting phase rules, which all reference shooting or 'the shooting phase'. Gotta love RaW.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Brood Progenitor: 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.
Initiative test for JotWW, Toughness test for being a Chaos Spawn...
6769
Post by: Tri
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Brood Progenitor: 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.
Initiative test for JotWW, Toughness test for being a Chaos Spawn...
? what are you on about ?
None of those tests use Leadership. Even though they may use the Tervigon's Ld for them it does nothing as they are testing against the Termagant's Initiative and Toughness respectively.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
? what are you on about ?
None of those tests use Leadership. Even though they may use the Tervigon's Ld for them it does nothing as they are testing against the Termagant's Initiative and Toughness respectively.
It doesn't matter it says you can substitute the Tervigons Ld value of 10 for any test you are required to take. So you will take a toughness test against the value of 10 (not the value of LD10 which is meaningless).
6769
Post by: Tri
FlingitNow wrote:? what are you on about ?
None of those tests use Leadership. Even though they may use the Tervigon's Ld for them it does nothing as they are testing against the Termagant's Initiative and Toughness respectively.
It doesn't matter it says you can substitute the Tervigons Ld value of 10 for any test you are required to take. So you will take a toughness test against the value of 10 (not the value of LD10 which is meaningless).
That is some crazy reading ... you know if you follow that logic then the Termagants are going to be shooting at BS10 at max strength for the gun (since that's capped) with ten shots on the spine fist ... In Close combat 10 attacks at WS 10 wounding at str10 ... and it can be toughness 10 ....
Na i think i prefer my reading that you use the type for type. Yes you may always use the Tervigon Ld but it only does anything on a LD test. Still guess it does have a place here since you can read it both ways.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
That is some crazy reading ... you know if you follow that logic then the Termagants are going to be shooting at BS10 at max strength for the gun (since that's capped) with ten shots on the spine fist ... In Close combat 10 attacks at WS 10 wounding at str10 ... and it can be toughness 10 ....
None of those incidences are tests. You might prefer your reading but by RaW for any "test" you are required to take as a Termagaunt you can use the value of 10.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
As above, an "Initiative test" is a "test" just like a "Pinning test," "Leadership Test," Toughness Test," etc. If an "Initiative test" isn't a test, then neither is a "Leadership test" by the same logic. Either way it's messed up
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
This is a separate point.
If you are asked to make a test with a given modifier, is that modifier applied to the dice roll or the stat being rolled against?
11194
Post by: Krellnus
I believe it actually modifies the dice roll, I know it does for Ld tests.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It applies to the stat, i.e. testing pinning at -1 means you test at [Ld-1] - making it easier to get pinned.
Same for break teats - you test at [Ld - difference in wounds] vs 2D6, so it gets harder to pass as you lose by greater amounts. Which is what you would expect..
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Here's one.
Culexus Assassins are always Leadership 7 as they are affected by their own Soulless rule!
21170
Post by: Klawz
Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
11857
Post by: Ludovic
As well as getting the benefit of priest's rerolls.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.
11857
Post by: Ludovic
And both the Honour Guard and Command Squad from Codex:Space Marines are identified as "retinues" in their fluff, but they aren't Retinues.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Ludovic wrote:And both the Honour Guard and Command Squad from Codex:Space Marines are identified as "retinues" in their fluff, but they aren't Retinues.
Command Squads are never identified as retinues. Captains are said to have them, but none are listed in the codex.
The Honour Guard instance is non-rule fluff because it contradicts the army list, that is, unless you believe every Honour Guard squad has to carry a chapter banner. Not to mention the possibility of a real-world meaning for "retinue." In Nork Deggog's case, he is identified as an Ogryn, and nothing suggests otherwise, while his special rules suggest he is one.
21170
Post by: Klawz
thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.
I know. But, this is " RAW" not " RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Klawz wrote:thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.
I know. But, this is " RAW" not " RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.
Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?
11857
Post by: Ludovic
thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.
I know. But, this is " RAW" not " RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.
Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?
Do you even know what "quote" means? I see no quote.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Ludovic wrote:Do you even know what "quote" means? I see no quote.
Fine, because the burden of proof is definitely on the person not claiming the rules work in a funny way:
page 67 wrote:Nork Deddog is a legend in his own lifetime, an Ogryn...
Now do you have any actual arguments or do you just want to troll?
8900
Post by: Aelyn
thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:thebetter1 wrote:Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.
Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.
I know. But, this is " RAW" not " RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.
Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?
The exact wording of the rules is:
Bulky: Ogryns are colossal thugs with thick-set frames and immense guts. Each Ogryn counts as two models for the purposes of transport capacity.
Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.
The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.
Please remember that no-one would seriously expect you to play that Nork takes up one seat in a Chimera. This thread is about times that the RAW is silly, after all
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Aelyn wrote:
Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.
The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.
What gives you the right to arbitrarily say that one part of the codex is flavor text that has no bearing on the rules and another part is not? In almost all cases, flavor text simply does nothing in the game; for example, you cannot do anything based on the fact that Space Marines can win battles when outnumbered 100 to 1. In this case, where Nork's status as an Ogryn would make or break the effect of a known rule, why would you ignore it?
8900
Post by: Aelyn
thebetter1 wrote:Aelyn wrote:
Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.
The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.
What gives you the right to arbitrarily say that one part of the codex is flavor text that has no bearing on the rules and another part is not? In almost all cases, flavor text simply does nothing in the game; for example, you cannot do anything based on the fact that Space Marines can win battles when outnumbered 100 to 1. In this case, where Nork's status as an Ogryn would make or break the effect of a known rule, why would you ignore it?
So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?
I never claimed to the right to arbitrarily say one part of the codex was flavour. My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Aelyn wrote:So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?
No, unless you are seeing something in his rules that actually says he is dead (I never found this) and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties.
Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.
I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.
I would also like to point out that, in addition to the large number of flawed entries on the list, there is a huge inconsistency for the main rulebook. It first says that models that move like jump infantry cannot deep strike because deep striking is not moving, but it then says that mishaps cannot occur because deep striking is movement.
8900
Post by: Aelyn
thebetter1 wrote:Aelyn wrote:So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?
No, unless you are seeing something in his rules that actually says he is dead (I never found this) and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties.
*shrug* I admit I may be misremembering this point, as I do not have the Blood Angels codex myself - though I could have sworn that Tycho's history/background section explicitly said he was dead.
thebetter1 wrote:Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.
I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.
...
Strawman much?
thebetter1 wrote:I would also like to point out that, in addition to the large number of flawed entries on the list, there is a huge inconsistency for the main rulebook. It first says that models that move like jump infantry cannot deep strike because deep striking is not moving, but it then says that mishaps cannot occur because deep striking is movement.
This... intrigues me. I don't recall seeing the second part - nice find! May I ask where those quotes are from?
26034
Post by: In_Theory
... and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties...
Makes me actually want to find in the book if it actually states anything about killed/dead models and referring to them as casualties.
It would break any and all weapons that say "kills x models" or "model is counted as dead" or "dead models...blah"?
While I don't think there's many or any weapons or rules for attacks/shooting that refer to killing models or dead models, its just amusing that if something were to come into the game saying that "x models in target unit are killed...", it wouldn't actually do anything without the corresponding passage saying that "models killed" or "dead models" are "removed from the game as casualties".
99
Post by: insaniak
There are rules that run into the opposite problem... The last few codexes have introduced special rules that function while the model is 'alive' ... which is problematic as the casualty removal rules actually mention that casualties are not necessarily dead, but give no way of determining it either way.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Aelyn wrote:
*shrug* I admit I may be misremembering this point, as I do not have the Blood Angels codex myself - though I could have sworn that Tycho's history/background section explicitly said he was dead.
It describes a situation when he fell in battle. This is not nearly enough for a rules argument.
Aelyn wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.
I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.
...
Strawman much?
You do realize this is your argument, not mine, right? I'm not the one saying that only the Special Rules section is a valid source for rules.
26994
Post by: H3ct0r
Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.
So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.
14932
Post by: Norade
thebetter1 wrote:H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.
So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.
You're wrong for the same reason people saying Doom and a Zoanthrope, or Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant are wrong.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Mahtamori wrote:Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.
I see no reason for skilled spazz elf warriors not to be able to defend whoever is in the fight with them.
26531
Post by: VikingScott
Mahtamori wrote:Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.
I think there is the line saying "to a minimum of 1"
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Mah - except you ignore the first condition, which is not fulfilled unless you are in combat with them. If you are not in combat with them you cannot get to the second line saying you have lost an attack...
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Actually as long as the DA unit is involved, even with just base to base, in that fight they are technically in the fight and are capable of effecting it – by attacking and deffending.
Edit: To praphrase my answer – youd don't have to be trying to hit the avengers for them to get in your way with they'r sparkly spazz elf skills.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
WRong - when DIRECTING attacks on the DA unit you lose attacks. If you are not directing any attacks on them at all then you cannot trigger the "lose one attack" rule.
Seriously, can people *please* read the first condition, it spells out exactly when and what this power does....
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Since this is RAW, what the rules actually say is that a) you have to attack the Dire Avengers to lose the attacks (which is in the spirit of the rules) and b) once the model has attacked the Dire Avengers they will lose the attack (to a minimum of 1) for the rest of the game, regardless of whether still in close combat with the Dire Avengers or not. It's b I'm getting at. The RAI clearly mean just that single turn, but going by RAW it's forever.
nosferatu1001 - that is how it's meant to be read. It's not how it's written, though. It doesn't state "as long as an enemy model is attacking" nor does it state "whenever attacking the Dire Avengers". It simply reads "if [you attack the DA] you'll [lose one attack each assault phase] to [a minimum of 1]". A true rules lawyer might even state the attacks lost are cumulative.
A better way for GW to have written it is
In each assault phase any model which directs attacks towards a member of the Exarch's squad will lose one attack to a minimum of one.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Mahtamori wrote:Since this is RAW, what the rules actually say is that a) you have to attack the Dire Avengers to lose the attacks (which is in the spirit of the rules) and b) once the model has attacked the Dire Avengers they will lose the attack (to a minimum of 1) for the rest of the game, regardless of whether still in close combat with the Dire Avengers or not. It's b I'm getting at. The RAI clearly mean just that single turn, but going by RAW it's forever.[/i]
Oooh now i get it, that is silly RAW
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It simply reads "if [you attack the DA] you'll [lose one attack each assault phase] to [a minimum of 1]". A true rules lawyer might even state the attacks lost are cumulative.
I have to disagree it says, not "if you attack the dire Avengers", but if "Directing your attacks at the Dire Avengers" which is an ongoing action. To satisfy that language you don't have to have attacked the DAs at some point but must be directly attacking them now. Like the statement: If I am running I am moving fast. Means you have to actually be running to gain the property of moving fast. Having run several weeks ago does not mean you are now moving fast. However if the statement read: If I ran I am moving fast. Then having at any point run would mean I am now moving fast. The language of the Defend special rule follows the pattern of the first example thus you must be actually directing your attacks at the DAs to lose the attack. Nos is spot on as usual...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Mah - reread the sentence and *put back* the tense you removed.
"Directing" is present tense, continuiing action. As soon as you stop "directing" the effect ends.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Norade wrote:thebetter1 wrote:H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.
So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.
You're wrong for the same reason people saying Doom and a Zoanthrope, or Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant are wrong.
Those people have not backed up their arguments. I have, therefore you cannot lump me into their group.
27871
Post by: Shatter.proof
Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.
99
Post by: insaniak
Shatter.proof wrote: You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such.
He has the Bulky rule. The problem isn't that he isn't Bulky. It's that the Bulky rule has an effect that applies to Ogryns and he doesn't have a rule that specifically says he is an Ogryn, just a fluff section that describes him as such.
Personally, I'm thinking the RAW can actually go either way. Yes, you can take the hardline approach that the rules don't say he is an Ogryn so he isn't. But you can also take the rule within the context in which it is provided... if the rule only applies to Ogryns, and he has the rule, then in that context he must be an Ogryn.
You can apply the same argument to the Warpfield/ DoM issue in the Nid codex.
RAW doesn't mean taking the specific rule in isolation. You have to apply it within the context of the rules as a whole. That's why a lot of the 'rulings' in this thread are questionable... Taking RAW to silly extremes isn't really RAW. In many cases, it's simply applying the silliest possible interpretation to a rule that can be read several ways.
27871
Post by: Shatter.proof
Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony. So in theory it is the same (all be it different rule application). So by the strict wording of bulky and warpfield and a lot of other things do not apply to special named unites because it isn't the same thing named in the rule.
Like Y has the X rule. The X rule says all Zs act or get A. This doesn't meant that Y is a Z because it has X rule, it just means that technically X rule doesn't apply to Y because it only applies to Z.
99
Post by: insaniak
Shatter.proof wrote:Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony.
Yes, I just pointed that out...
Like Y has the X rule. The X rule says all Zs act or get A. This doesn't meant that Y is a Z because it has X rule, it just means that technically X rule doesn't apply to Y because it only applies to Z.
Just went through that as well...
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Shatter.proof wrote:Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.
You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.
14932
Post by: Norade
thebetter1 wrote:Shatter.proof wrote:Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.
You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.
Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.
27871
Post by: Shatter.proof
insaniak wrote:Shatter.proof wrote:Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony.
Yes, I just pointed that out...
Like Y has the X rule. The X rule says all Zs act or get A. This doesn't meant that Y is a Z because it has X rule, it just means that technically X rule doesn't apply to Y because it only applies to Z.
Just went through that as well...
Then we shall do it again! AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!! For that is truly how Game's Workshop meant us to use RaW for they are evil master minds. Circles. They love them.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Norade wrote:thebetter1 wrote:Shatter.proof wrote:Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.
You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.
Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.
Why does this section need to be proven above all the others? Using your logic, anything without "Rules" in its title is not a rules section.
14932
Post by: Norade
thebetter1 wrote:Norade wrote:thebetter1 wrote:Shatter.proof wrote:Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.
You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.
Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.
Why does this section need to be proven above all the others? Using your logic, anything without "Rules" in its title is not a rules section.
Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Norade wrote:
Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.
Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."
14932
Post by: Norade
thebetter1 wrote:Norade wrote:
Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.
Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."
All precedents point to fluff having no say in rules debates; thus Nork is not an Orgyn, The Doom is not a Zoanthrope, and the Swarmlord is not a Hive Tyrant.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."
If you go down this route then Nork has ALL the rules of an Ogryn which would also include the stat line. Ditto for Doom who would gain Warp Lance and Warp Blast, you could also claim he would have to be the same points value.
Nork is an Ogryn here are the rules for Ogryn he must therefore follow those rules... You can't pick and choose when he's an Ogryn (which is something defined in the rules with a statline points value etc) and he's a Nork...
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Norade wrote:
All precedents point to fluff having no say in rules debates; thus Nork is not an Orgyn, The Doom is not a Zoanthrope, and the Swarmlord is not a Hive Tyrant.
This is extremely flawed. First, precedents have no influence in the RAW extremism you are arguing. Second, the Doom does not say it is a Zoanthrope (I haven't checked the Swarmlord). Third, the intent (which is what you are arguing) is clearly against you on this. Fourth, you yourself decided that it is fluff, not the codex, and not based on any written rules (more intent on your part in a RAW discussion).
FlingitNow wrote:
If you go down this route then Nork has ALL the rules of an Ogryn which would also include the stat line. Ditto for Doom who would gain Warp Lance and Warp Blast, you could also claim he would have to be the same points value.
Nork is an Ogryn here are the rules for Ogryn he must therefore follow those rules... You can't pick and choose when he's an Ogryn (which is something defined in the rules with a statline points value etc) and he's a Nork...
Specific rules override general ones. Nork has a listed statline that he follows. This is similar to how Seismic Hammers (which are by definition dreadnought close combat weapons) have traits in addition to the standard dreadnought close combat weapon.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Here are two, not sure if they have been brought up, not bothered to actually READ this thread:
Tellion is not Unique.
Absural Vect (the Dark Eldars Flying Land Raider of Doom) can be turned into a Squig by Zogwort as he has the Independent Character rule!
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Gwar! wrote:
Tellion is not Unique.
I fail to see the silliness.
29538
Post by: Chuggy G
thebetter1 wrote:Gwar! wrote:
Tellion is not Unique.
I fail to see the silliness.
Because it means that he's not an individual. Unique means he's a specific guy, so there's only one of him. All 'squad upgrade' characters are supposed to be unique, but he is not. 'Tellion' is like a title, for incredibly old scouts who have awesome bolters, I guess.
99
Post by: insaniak
Gwar! wrote:Tellion is not Unique.
He doesn't have the Unique rule, but the rule in his entry that only allows you to upgrade a single Scout squad to include him does the exact same thing.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
insaniak wrote:Gwar! wrote:Tellion is not Unique.
He doesn't have the Unique rule, but the rule in his entry that only allows you to upgrade a single Scout squad to include him does the exact same thing.
Oh, I know, but this is for Silly RaW!
99
Post by: insaniak
And Telion not being Unique is not silly RAW. It's not RAW at all, as explained here.
19754
Post by: puma713
Dunno if this has been listed in the list of RAW fun yet (16 pages is getting a bit much to go through!) but:
Ko'sarro Khan on Moondrakkan is still infantry. Nowhere does it say his unit type changes, despite the fact that he's riding a bike. So, he may drive Moondrakkan out of the front of a Land Raider, Knight Rider style.
Which, I guess goes for the Command Squad too.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
Insaniak, can you change this thread's title to "Poor Reading Comprehension Fun"?
99
Post by: insaniak
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.
Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.
It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.
For what it's worth, can everyone please try to remember that this thread is not intended as anything more than a little harmless fun. You may not agree with all of the rules interpretations raised here (I know I don't) but there's really no reason to take umbrage at any of it. If you can't see the funny side of it, that's fine. Move on and leave it to those who do.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Maybe it should be moved to 40k general discussion then?
24140
Post by: ExtremeMetalFTW
Loving this thread.
On a semi-related note, got into an argument concerning "real world" RAW/RAI
19754
Post by: puma713
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
insaniak wrote:MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.
Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.
It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Insaniak, can you change this thread's title to "Poor Reading Comprehension Fun"?
How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
16 pages. Let's not end this in flaming here.
WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.
6846
Post by: solkan
Pika_power wrote:WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.
Unless you have a codex like CSM (or Dark Angels, or Space Marines ...) which includes the statement "Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model." Automatically Appended Next Post: Just because I'm bored and have too much time right now...
Chaos Daemons doesn't have anything requiring unit upgrades to be modeled. Eldar, Necron and Dark Eldar have contra- WYSIWYG, "... you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear if they are not shown on the model".
99
Post by: insaniak
Pika_power wrote:WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.
WYSIWYG has never really been a product of the rules, aside from in tournament play. It's a gaming convention.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
insaniak wrote:MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.
Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.
It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.
A model on a Space Marine Bike follows all the rules for bikes in the rulebook, not just the ones on page 53. They can't go in transports. The distinction between this and having the unit type "Bike" is about the same as a unit like Tellion being a 0-1 choice and being Unique.
puma713 wrote:How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.
Even if I was wrong, what's ironic about that?
19754
Post by: puma713
MasterSlowPoke wrote:insaniak wrote:MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.
Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.
Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.
It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.
A model on a Space Marine Bike follows all the rules for bikes in the rulebook, not just the ones on page 53. They can't go in transports. The distinction between this and having the unit type "Bike" is about the same as a unit like Tellion being a 0-1 choice and being Unique.
Really? What page does it say that? That bikes can't go in transports? The type of unit: Bike can't. But that's the point of what I posted - that by RAW, those units are not Unit: Bike. I think you're missing the point of this thread.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:puma713 wrote:How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.
Even if I was wrong, what's ironic about that?
What was ironic was you commenting on how the thread should be changed to "Poor Reading Comprehension" and yet, it was you who couldn't read.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
You'd have a hard time saying that a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook isn't a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook.
99
Post by: insaniak
MasterSlowPoke wrote:You'd have a hard time saying that a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook isn't a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook.
Which rule are you referring to? Can you find a rule in the 40K rulebook that says that bikes can't ride in transports?
Units of the Type: Bike can't, because the rules specify that only Infantry can... but a unit that follows the rules for bikes, but is still Infantry would be fine under that rule.
The rules for bikes don't tell us that a unit with a bike is the unit Type: Bike. They simply lay out the rules for bikes. The unit actually has to have the Type specified in order to be considered that type.
It's a very clear hole in the rules, but that's kind of the point of the thread.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Models have to be Type: Infantry to fit in a transport - effectively this is a rule saying models of the Type: Bike cannot fit in a transport. It's a rule that effects bikes, thus it's a rule for bikes, thus it's applied to models with Space Marine Bikes.
There's a hole here where things outside the main rulebook that effect Type: Bike don't work on models with Space Marine Bikes - JotWW is the obvious suggestion.
21170
Post by: Klawz
Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.
23394
Post by: Ashtaroth
Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.
which is redundant because a model can only ever take 1 save
19199
Post by: T_VanderZwaag
Tau:
Command and Control node is unusable because Target Priority Tests do not exist anymore.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.
Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with.
Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws.
If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
BeRzErKeR wrote:Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.
Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with. Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws. If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.
I would actually say he does get an armour save, RaW. The exact wording is: "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable." Not "During this period, Ghazghkull's armour saving throw is invulnerable" or "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw granted to him by Mega Armour is invulnerable" but "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable." Which means he WILL get an armour save vs any weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, so long as they are not AP2, AP1 or ignore armour (ala Warscythe or C'Tan Phase Sword).
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
Gwar! wrote:BeRzErKeR wrote:Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.
Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with.
Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws.
If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.
I would actually say he does get an armour save, RaW.
The exact wording is:
"During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."
Not "During this period, Ghazghkull's armour saving throw is invulnerable" or "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw granted to him by Mega Armour is invulnerable" but "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."
Which means he WILL get an armour save vs any weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, so long as they are not AP2, AP1 or ignore armour (ala Warscythe or C'Tan Phase Sword).
Right, that's what I said. Ghazghkull's save (the one on his profile) becomes Invulnerable, but he is granted another one by the Mega Armour in his equipment section, which remains Armour.
99
Post by: insaniak
I would disagree. The fact that it refers to Ghaz's 'saving throw' (rather than specifying Armour) means that, for that turn, any time you take a save you are taking an invulnerable save.
An armour save is a saving throw. Ghaz's saving throw is invulnerable. ergo, Ghaz's armour save is invulnerable for that turn.
If he tries to take a cover save that would likewise at that particular point in time be considered an invulnerable save, as it is a saving throw.
21312
Post by: BeRzErKeR
insaniak wrote:I would disagree. The fact that it refers to Ghaz's 'saving throw' (rather than specifying Armour) means that, for that turn, any time you take a save you are taking an invulnerable save.
An armour save is a saving throw. Ghaz's saving throw is invulnerable. ergo, Ghaz's armour save is invulnerable for that turn.
If he tries to take a cover save that would likewise at that particular point in time be considered an invulnerable save, as it is a saving throw.
If you consider "his saving throw" to mean "any saving throw he takes", then yes, you're right.
However, if you consider "his saving throw" to be "the saving throw on his profile", then no, you're wrong.
Depends on your interpretation.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
His Saving Throw is invulnerable. Doesn't matter where or how, when you take that save it is considered invulnerable... if this qualifys it as a usable 'invulnerable saving throw' as opposed to an an invulnerable 'saving throw' is a differetn issue
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
There's a hole here where things outside the main rulebook that effect Type: Bike don't work on models with Space Marine Bikes - JotWW is the obvious suggestion.
On this issue I suppose 'moving as' a bike would save you from JotWW too doubley so for a hive-tyrant.
@Gwar: Zogwort's meant to do that thou
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Models have to be Type: Infantry to fit in a transport - effectively this is a rule saying models of the Type: Bike cannot fit in a transport.
Not from a RaW standpoint (which is the entire point of this thread). It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too. Unless you're a Space Marine IC equiped with a bike as you are still unit type Infantry and therefore can jump in a Rhino (or more effectively in a Landraider) if you want. Fromn a RaW point of view.
99
Post by: insaniak
FlingitNow wrote: It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too.
Not exactly. As I explained earlier, the rules do restrict riding in transports specifically to Infantry. The issue is with the fact that the bike rules don't specify that having a bike makes a model Type: Bike. They should, and it should be a no-brainer for actual gameplay even without it... but from a RAW standpoint, an Infantry model that is given a Space Marine bike follows the rules for bikes, but remains Type: Infantry.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
FlingitNow wrote:Models have to be Type: Infantry to fit in a transport - effectively this is a rule saying models of the Type: Bike cannot fit in a transport.
Not from a RaW standpoint (which is the entire point of this thread). It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too. Unless you're a Space Marine IC equiped with a bike as you are still unit type Infantry and therefore can jump in a Rhino (or more effectively in a Landraider) if you want. Fromn a RaW point of view.
The statements "Only infantry can ride in transports" and "You can't ride in a transport if you're not infantry" are logically equivalent. The rule applies to bikes to it applies to models with Space Marine bikes. This is from a RAW point of view.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
The statements "Only infantry can ride in transports" and "You can't ride in a transport if you're not infantry" are logically equivalent. The rule applies to bikes to it applies to models with Space Marine bikes. This is from a RAW point of view.
Is the IC on a bike infantry? It is like trying to claim a Hive Tyrant with wings doesn't do 2d6 penetration or ignore armour saves.
Yes they follow the rules for bikers but they are still infantry and thus can still get in a transport. Trying to claim that the only infantry rule some how equates a specific exclusion for bikers is still not follwoing the RaW.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Epic wrong the Tyrant's entry classes him as an MC so he gets to ignore armor and pen with 2D6, regardless of having wings or not, since he only moves as jump infantry other than that he retains alll his own capabilities.
The problem with your argument is that even tho marines who buy bikes move like bikes they'r entry still classes them as infantry, thus allowing transport entry.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
I decided to go through the list of silly RAW points and find the flaws. I won't touch any of the armies except Space Marines, as I don't play them.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Wobbly Model Rule means models can move in any direction, including into mid-air, 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.
Only if terrain makes it difficult to place the model there. The lack of terrain is not terrain.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Then just model some eyes on them.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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'.
Unless, of course, you speak English.
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, dependent on codex.
See the tenth point on this list.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)
Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.
Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.
We should care because...
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
See the fifth point on this list.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'
"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.
I'm skipping the armies I do not play.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.
Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.
By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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.
This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.
I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.
ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.
The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.
28528
Post by: Nitros14
Honestly, the rules as written for Warptime in the Chaos Codex say that ALL rolls to hit and wound, from ANY source MAY be re-rolled.
So if you went as written for that you could choose to re-roll every single dice thrown in that turn for hitting and wounding.
Of course the Psyker would have to somehow roll the dice...
Warptime is just really poorly worded.
29238
Post by: keeblerpowell
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.
I would totally agree with this if marines helmets didn't have eye holes (or eyes ports or screens or what ever the eye looking things in their helmets really are).
Like.... I really think that hive guard should not be able to shoot because they have no eyes.......... wait they don't need line of sight to fire!!! looks to me like this IS they way that GW wants this to work!!! lol
Dreadnaughts should NOT be able to shoot. I really like that idea.
To drunkspleen- please know that I am just playin.... I am pretty new to these forums and I want you to know this post was all in good fun.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Then just model some eyes on them.
In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.
We looked at this extensively a while back. LoS is defined in terms of the shooting phase, no where else. So because it uses terms like "the firing model", we cannot use it in the movement phase. Also, there is free pivot for anyone in the shooting phase when checking LoS. It didn't apply to the rest though. When people were trying to interpret it in a way that allowd them to play properly, they were using arguments such as "They can see through their own head, because they are friendly to themselves" (which still didn't work, IIRC). Anyway, it turned out if you tried to follow the rules there, the entire game locked up. So it's definitely RAWly ambiguous.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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'.
Unless, of course, you speak English.
English has nothing to do with it. I cannot RAWly make the jump from "Large Blast Template" to "Large Blast Markers", because in the English I speak, Template=//=Marker. Of course, if you have a rules reference saying that they're the same, it's an entirely different matter.
thebetter1 wrote:
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, dependent on codex.
See the tenth point on this list.
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)
Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.
Templates are range-checking. It's why weapons are labeled as "Range: Template". And range is measured from weapon barrel on tanks.
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.
Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.
He's wrong. It's the deployment types that tell you to "Start the Game!", and all three do it consistently.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.
We should care because...
Without out beloved RAW, we can't start the game. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing Warhammer 40K, and this is a WH40K forum.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
See the fifth point on this list.
Am I counting wrong, or have you directed me to the scouts question?
If so, there's no point of objection from you here, so the RAW stays firm in the face of tyranny.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'
"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.
I'm skipping the armies I do not play.
Even more reason it can't be meaning Scouts moves. Not even capitalised. Honestly, how difficult is it for you people to learn to read the rules?
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.
Define 'works fine'. I would say being unusable is not 'works fine'.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.
Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.
Still no rebuttal? Even so, he is merely being thorough, as some of us appreciate good writing without holes.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.
By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.
Can you provide a rules reference for that statement of both being DCCW?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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.
This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.
If the rule only applies to a certain model, it clearly can't be applied to another model, even if that model has the rule. It'd be like trying to WAARGH with a grot (pre- FAQ). So you do not get to add +1 to a cover save, as the rule only comes into effect with a techmarine.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.
I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.
Valid rules interpretation, young trooper! Let's add that to the list.
"An independent character cannot join a Techmarine with a Thunderfire cannon"
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.
The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.
It's never stated the player whose turn it is has to do the "select a unit".
DISCLAIMER: This post is to be taken with a grain of salt in some areas.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Thanks for that Pika I couldn't do it without lecturing about the 'spirit' of the 'spirit' of the 'rules' (you know them things in books and occasionally in .pdf form marked as clarification)
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Then just model some eyes on them.
In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.
They'd also cease to be Citadel miniatures at this point and would become inelligible for use. Remember by RaW only unconverted Citadel Miniatures can be used...
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
Im gone for two days and this thread smells like smoke again
29337
Post by: baroncrowle
Meh... Lawyers...
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Pika_power wrote:thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Then just model some eyes on them.
In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.
I don't get it. What are you arguing?
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.
We looked at this extensively a while back. LoS is defined in terms of the shooting phase, no where else. So because it uses terms like "the firing model", we cannot use it in the movement phase. Also, there is free pivot for anyone in the shooting phase when checking LoS. It didn't apply to the rest though. When people were trying to interpret it in a way that allowd them to play properly, they were using arguments such as "They can see through their own head, because they are friendly to themselves" (which still didn't work, IIRC). Anyway, it turned out if you tried to follow the rules there, the entire game locked up. So it's definitely RAWly ambiguous.
I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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'.
Unless, of course, you speak English.
English has nothing to do with it. I cannot RAWly make the jump from "Large Blast Template" to "Large Blast Markers", because in the English I speak, Template=//=Marker. Of course, if you have a rules reference saying that they're the same, it's an entirely different matter.
The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)
Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.
Templates are range-checking. It's why weapons are labeled as "Range: Template". And range is measured from weapon barrel on tanks.
You're the one who needs a rule reference.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.
We should care because...
Without out beloved RAW, we can't start the game. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing Warhammer 40K, and this is a WH40K forum.
"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
See the fifth point on this list.
Am I counting wrong, or have you directed me to the scouts question?
If so, there's no point of objection from you here, so the RAW stays firm in the face of tyranny.
You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'
"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.
I'm skipping the armies I do not play.
Even more reason it can't be meaning Scouts moves. Not even capitalised. Honestly, how difficult is it for you people to learn to read the rules?
You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.
Define 'works fine'. I would say being unusable is not 'works fine'.
The squad does get Infiltrators, just as his ability says. Infiltrators has effects beyond allowing the unit to infiltrate.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.
By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.
Can you provide a rules reference for that statement of both being DCCW?
Codex: Space Marines
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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.
This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.
If the rule only applies to a certain model, it clearly can't be applied to another model, even if that model has the rule. It'd be like trying to WAARGH with a grot (pre- FAQ). So you do not get to add +1 to a cover save, as the rule only comes into effect with a techmarine.
You would be correct if we were arguing about different cases, such as the Doom of Malanthai. In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.
The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.
It's never stated the player whose turn it is has to do the "select a unit".
Another example of picking the worst possible interpretation and labeling it as the rules. Interpreting the rules this way means that your opponent can force you to assault.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I don't get it. What are you arguing?
That they are no longer models with no eyes if you've modelled eyes onto them. However as I pointed out once you start converting models your models cease to be purely citadel miniatures and thus cease to be lgeal under RaW.
I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.
Where are the parts that allow you to check LoS outside the shooting phase? Even with that you can simply turn your models around so they are facing the opposite way to the enemy (although that too opens a can of worms).
The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.
Except there is an in game definition of template and it refers to the conshaped template. The problem is large blast template could refer to anything the actual template, the large blast marker or even the small blast marker (it is still a template and you could consider it large depending on what you are comparing it to), without the correct way it is "impossible" (via RaW) to determine which template they are refering to.
You're the one who needs a rule reference.
Template is checking range it is done just like any other range check except you us ethe template rather than the tape measure. Please pont to a rules reference that states it works differently if you have one.
"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.
Yes it is but unfortunately it is not a word in the English language that relates to placing models on a table...
You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.
The Wings DS is a contentious issue it is not correct pure RaW but older Codexes had rules that prevented models with wings from DSing, however this was before all JI could DS...
However the mishaps can occur just very rarely and never to single models DSing as they would stop within 1" of the enemy and then the extra models placed around them could cause mishap. This is the most strict adherence to the letter of the rules hence it is RaW.
You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.
Clear yes, 100% defined no. Again by RaW your argument doesn;t stand up. By the slightest amount of common sense it does but that is not what this thread is about.
The squad does get Infiltrators, just as his ability says. Infiltrators has effects beyond allowing the unit to infiltrate.
Then if outflank was the ony bonus he was giving his squad why doesn't it say he gives them out flank rather than infiltrate? Seriously you think this rule works as is? Are you really trying to claim that the intention of them saying you give the squad infiltrate was that the squad could not infiltrate? Seriously?
Codex: Space Marines
Not a rules reference that would be this:
C: SM pg65 - "A seismic hammer is treated as a dreadnought CCW that adds +1 to rolls on the vehicle damage chart."
Which clearly illustrates it ios no more a DCCW than a thunderhammer is a powerfist or a powerfist is a power weapon...
In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.
Please read the rule it requires a techmarine for you to nominate to bolster defences. This does not work if you have a MotF...
Another example of picking the worst possible interpretation and labeling it as the rules. Interpreting the rules this way means that your opponent can force you to assault.
This is exactly what this thread is about. Funny things that the rules say if you interpret them literallly and don't engage your brain. This is known as the RaW interpretation. Just because this interpretation results in another stupid result doesn't stop it from being correct. So if anything you've just proven that players are free to declare assault for other players models more than disproved that you can perform this assault move. However i don't think you are ever allowed to declare actions for your opponents models but might be wrong. Can anyone find a rules quote or this should go onto the list .
I think you;ve misinterpreted the point of this thread. it is a fun list of stupid rules interpretations using RaW. It is a harmless bit of fun and is poking a biut of fun at the RaW loyalists out there who often hide behind "well it is RaW so you have to play it that way or you are cheating/Housing ruling/ not playing 40K...."
20065
Post by: thebetter1
FlingitNow wrote:
I don't get it. What are you arguing?
That they are no longer models with no eyes if you've modelled eyes onto them. However as I pointed out once you start converting models your models cease to be purely citadel miniatures and thus cease to be lgeal under RaW.
If they are no longer models with no eyes, great. The game works. As for your view on converted models, try telling GW it is okay to recast their models as long as you change them a little bit first.
FlingitNow wrote:
I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.
Where are the parts that allow you to check LoS outside the shooting phase? Even with that you can simply turn your models around so they are facing the opposite way to the enemy (although that too opens a can of worms).
More relevantly, where are the parts that say LoS can only be checked during the shooting phase, despite the fact that rules tell you to check it in other phases?
FlingitNow wrote:
You're the one who needs a rule reference.
Template is checking range it is done just like any other range check except you us ethe template rather than the tape measure. Please pont to a rules reference that states it works differently if you have one.
Again, you have provided no rule to back up your argument that placing the template is checking range. Yes, you miss automatically if the unit is more than a template's length away, but beyond that, you cannot put the burden of proof on me to show that it is not a form of checking range.
FlingitNow wrote:
The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.
Except there is an in game definition of template and it refers to the conshaped template. The problem is large blast template could refer to anything the actual template, the large blast marker or even the small blast marker (it is still a template and you could consider it large depending on what you are comparing it to), without the correct way it is "impossible" (via RaW) to determine which template they are refering to.
If you consider template and marker as synonyms (which they are in this context) then you can derive the fact that large blast template is the same as large blast marker.
FlingitNow wrote:
"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.
Yes it is but unfortunately it is not a word in the English language that relates to placing models on a table...
Words have many meanings depending on the context, and they are often not all in the dictionary. If you can honestly tell me that when you first read the rule you did not know what they meant by deploy, only then can deploy be seen as a meaningless term.
FlingitNow wrote:
You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.
The Wings DS is a contentious issue it is not correct pure RaW but older Codexes had rules that prevented models with wings from DSing, however this was before all JI could DS...
However the mishaps can occur just very rarely and never to single models DSing as they would stop within 1" of the enemy and then the extra models placed around them could cause mishap. This is the most strict adherence to the letter of the rules hence it is RaW.
Are you actually making an argument or just stating you are right?
FlingitNow wrote:
You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.
Clear yes, 100% defined no. Again by RaW your argument doesn;t stand up. By the slightest amount of common sense it does but that is not what this thread is about.
Clearly my argument must be wrong if you say so.
FlingitNow wrote:
Codex: Space Marines
Not a rules reference that would be this:
C: SM pg65 - "A seismic hammer is treated as a dreadnought CCW that adds +1 to rolls on the vehicle damage chart."
Which clearly illustrates it ios no more a DCCW than a thunderhammer is a powerfist or a powerfist is a power weapon...
You quote where it says that it is treated as a DCCW yet you then say it is not. A thunderhammer is a power fist and a power fist is a power weapon, again all by definition.
FlingitNow wrote:
In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.
Please read the rule it requires a techmarine for you to nominate to bolster defences. This does not work if you have a MotF...
The rule doesn't say that. Remember, just because the Doom of Malanthai does not get a 3+ invulnerable save does not suddenly mean all the rules that have been around for years working in a similar way must not work either.
FlingitNow wrote:
I think you;ve misinterpreted the point of this thread. it is a fun list of stupid rules interpretations using RaW. It is a harmless bit of fun and is poking a biut of fun at the RaW loyalists out there who often hide behind "well it is RaW so you have to play it that way or you are cheating/Housing ruling/ not playing 40K...."
So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Science Project - Rough outline for J.F.
Goal/Aim: Investigate the effects of various household chemicals on plant cuttings.
Equipment
Plants: Carrot, Potato, Onion.
Chemicals: Salt, Iodine,
thebetter1 wrote:So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?
Mate if for some reason the premise of this thread subtly disturbs you or you simply can not grasp it, just stay away.
We've managed to get through 17 pages of discussion through pain, flames, tears, laughter, slaughter and people such as yourself, who seem to take it all a little too seriously.
Your aggressive stance and what is essentially name calling and ignoring of the idea that the thread is built on is quite frustrating. I would use the yellow triangle, but in all honesty you are not breaking any rules - just annoying the people who enjoy this thread and ruining the chuckles it brings them.
26818
Post by: Seriphis
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 because of the stupid.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
If they are no longer models with no eyes, great. The game works.
But still not for models with out eyes, which is entirely the point. nAs to the later point and "my view" on cionvertions I really don't get what you're saying. Comnvertions by RaW are not allowed, you're free to try to get GW to caste models that currently have no eyes in versions with eyes. I guessing they won't and until they do the rule is still true.
More relevantly, where are the parts that say LoS can only be checked during the shooting phase, despite the fact that rules tell you to check it in other phases?
Please provide a rules reference for when you are given direct permission to check LoS outside of the shooting phase. You are given permission do to it during the shooting phase I see no rules that allow you to do it at other times.
Again, you have provided no rule to back up your argument that placing the template is checking range. Yes, you miss automatically if the unit is more than a template's length away, but beyond that, you cannot put the burden of proof on me to show that it is not a form of checking range.
Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. A template weapon is a ranged weapon and follows ALL the normal rules for firing a ranged weapon except any specific exceptions for template weapons. Thus it is assumed to be checking range and done how all other measuring is done unloess you can prove otherwise.
If you consider template and marker as synonyms (which they are in this context) then you can derive the fact that large blast template is the same as large blast marker.
If you consider, context and derive are not RaW arguments.
Words have many meanings depending on the context, and they are often not all in the dictionary. If you can honestly tell me that when you first read the rule you did not know what they meant by deploy, only then can deploy be seen as a meaningless term.
What has this got to do with wghat I understood when i first read the rule? I understood when I first read the rule that the Doom has a 3++ save, that Shrike allows a unit without infiltrate to infiltrate with him, that the Swarmlord is Hive Tyrant for rules purposes etc etc etc.
Are you actually making an argument or just stating you are right?
Read the thread. DSing is movement therefore all restrictions apply that would to movement. Thus your initial placement mjust be a legal move. You are told to move your model 2d6" in a random direction and we know from the movement rules if you do this you stop when you come within 1" of the enemy. There is no specific permission to break this 1" rule with this movement in the DS rules.
Clearly my argument must be wrong if you say so.
As soon as you start clinging to words like context and obvious you are no longer arguing RaW.
You quote where it says that it is treated as a DCCW yet you then say it is not. A thunderhammer is a power fist and a power fist is a power weapon, again all by definition.
Treat as something doesn't mean it is that something, particularly as it also has other effects. Does a model with a powerfist and power weapon get to use both in CC and gain +1A? Or one with a thunderhammer and Powerfist?
The rule doesn't say that. Remember, just because the Doom of Malanthai does not get a 3+ invulnerable save does not suddenly mean all the rules that have been around for years working in a similar way must not work either.
"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."
Get it now?
So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?
The pint of the thread is to have a laugh and a joke at some of GWs more lax rule writing whilst also having a laugh at miscomprehension possible if you take literalism too far.
If you have such a problem with the thread why are you even bothering to post on it?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Seriphis wrote: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 because of the stupid.
Add it to the list. FAQ=//= RAW, as stated by GW themselves.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Here's a great one from another thread:
Vehcile moves 12" to contest objective. Gets assaulted by MC, hitting on 6s stuns the Vehcile.
Back to the vehicles turn it can't move due to stun. MC doesn't get blown away in shooting phase so can now assault the vehicle. We check the rules for the to hit rule and it states movement in "its previous turn". The Vehicle's previous turn was when it moved 12" it was stationary in its current turn (it states turn not movement phase), so MC is hitting on 6s again against the stationary vehcile...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
thebetter1 - by definition a Thunderhammer is NOT a powerfist, it is like a powerfist *with extra bonuses* - meaning it cannot be a powerfist, as a powerfist is completely defined.
Template weapons have Range: Template. Until you can show how you do not check range using the template you are just wrong on this.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Ok, so I'll do a big update any sec, but just to offer reply (this is a long one, get readyyy!!)
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Wobbly Model Rule means models can move in any direction, including into mid-air, 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.
Only if terrain makes it difficult to place the model there. The lack of terrain is not terrain.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Then just model some eyes on them.
Wouldn't this be modelling for advantage?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.
But Line of Sight is a game concept, as listed on page 16 of the rulebook. It is something that is checked as step 1 of making a shooting attack.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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'.
Unless, of course, you speak English.
Again, game concept. A digital weapon is not a digital laser, a Heavy Bolter is not a Bolter, and a Blast Template is not a Blast Marker.
thebetter1 wrote:
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, dependent on codex.
See the tenth point on this list.
Now this is a long and complex one with a few threads all to itself (and all probably locked given the sort of arguments that result). Either way, I don't see how Scout not being capitalized makes a difference?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)
Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.
Actually, this is a really interesting one. Are we putting in a new silly rule? Flamer weapons don't actually have to touch the nozzle of the weapon, and can fire from any point on the hull?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.
Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.
Where?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.
We should care because...
Permissive ruleset means you can only do things you're specifically instructed how to do? Because, RAW, I can deploy on a different table in a different room, silly as that obviously is...
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
See the fifth point on this list.
Again, don't see the connection between this and the Jump Infantry thing...
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'
"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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)
Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.
Well, Shrike can infiltrate, and he can give Infiltrate to his squad, but only AFTER infiltrators have already been placed. If that's the intention, then yes it works fine...
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.
Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.
The reason for multiple mentions is because, as listed earlier in the thread, it's different for almost EVERY codex. And almost every codex has a different silly broken bit. Hence why it's mentioned differently for each army...
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.
By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.
P42, a Special Close Combat weapon is defined as anything that is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon or a pistol. If using Two Different Special Weapons, the model must choose which one to use that turn. The rule therefore relies on the question "Are a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and a Seismic Hammer different things?" Well, they have different names, and different rules and the Ironclad is listed as having one of each, so...
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- 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.
This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.
Well this is the same as the Doom of Malantai/Zoanthrope thing too. I don't care either, and you'd be able to use it playing me, but this thead is about stupid rule wording. The rule makes numerous references to the Techmarine who is doing the bolstering. Lysander is not a Techmarine.
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.
I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.
Well the silliness comes from the idea that he was intended to have IC, but doesn't any more. Are you saying that, once the cannon is destroyed, no characters can THEN join him, since he is now an IC? But if he was a regular techmarine (infantry) then characters could join him?
thebetter1 wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.
The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.
Aha! Good point. Shall be changed.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - by definition a Thunderhammer is NOT a powerfist, it is like a powerfist *with extra bonuses* - meaning it cannot be a powerfist, as a powerfist is completely defined.
Okay, that was a bad example that someone else started out of context. Try considering power fists and power weapons.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Template weapons have Range: Template. Until you can show how you do not check range using the template you are just wrong on this.
I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Wouldn't this be modelling for advantage?
Is this a RAW thread or not?
ArbitorIan wrote:
But Line of Sight is a game concept, as listed on page 16 of the rulebook. It is something that is checked as step 1 of making a shooting attack.
The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Now this is a long and complex one with a few threads all to itself (and all probably locked given the sort of arguments that result). Either way, I don't see how Scout not being capitalized makes a difference?
Didn't I already make it clear I was pointing to a different entry, the tenth one on the original list?
ArbitorIan wrote:
Where?
Page 86: "Start the game!"
ArbitorIan wrote:
Permissive ruleset means you can only do things you're specifically instructed how to do? Because, RAW, I can deploy on a different table in a different room, silly as that obviously is...
Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?
ArbitorIan wrote:
Again, don't see the connection between this and the Jump Infantry thing...
One ruling treats the whole deep striking process as movement, the other acts like it is not movement at all, and both appeared together on the same list.
ArbitorIan wrote:
P42, a Special Close Combat weapon is defined as anything that is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon or a pistol. If using Two Different Special Weapons, the model must choose which one to use that turn. The rule therefore relies on the question "Are a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and a Seismic Hammer different things?" Well, they have different names, and different rules and the Ironclad is listed as having one of each, so...
Seriously, you're arguing with the rulebook on this one. The codex says that they are the same thing, and you say they are not.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Well this is the same as the Doom of Malantai/Zoanthrope thing too. I don't care either, and you'd be able to use it playing me, but this thead is about stupid rule wording. The rule makes numerous references to the Techmarine who is doing the bolstering. Lysander is not a Techmarine.
No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.
FlingitNow wrote:
But still not for models with out eyes, which is entirely the point. nAs to the later point and "my view" on cionvertions I really don't get what you're saying. Comnvertions by RaW are not allowed, you're free to try to get GW to caste models that currently have no eyes in versions with eyes. I guessing they won't and until they do the rule is still true.
Sure, in GwarHammer.
FlingitNow wrote:
If you have such a problem with the thread why are you even bothering to post on it?
Maybe because it spills out into so many other threads?
FlingitNow wrote:
Please provide a rules reference for when you are given direct permission to check LoS outside of the shooting phase. You are given permission do to it during the shooting phase I see no rules that allow you to do it at other times.
The Rage USR.
FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. A template weapon is a ranged weapon and follows ALL the normal rules for firing a ranged weapon except any specific exceptions for template weapons. Thus it is assumed to be checking range and done how all other measuring is done unloess you can prove otherwise.
Great, you just proved a point nobody was disputing.
FlingitNow wrote:
If you consider, context and derive are not RaW arguments.
Why not? Are you implying that reading is not a part of RAW?
FlingitNow wrote:
What has this got to do with wghat I understood when i first read the rule? I understood when I first read the rule that the Doom has a 3++ save, that Shrike allows a unit without infiltrate to infiltrate with him, that the Swarmlord is Hive Tyrant for rules purposes etc etc etc.
If you understood the meaning of a word when you first read it, you cannot claim it has no clear meaning. Understanding what a rule does is a different matter.
FlingitNow wrote:
"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."
Get it now?
Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
So many quotes...
Also – GwarHammer, i lol'd
17799
Post by: Oshova
Ok with the whole Lysander thing . . . If you had Lysander and a basic Techmarine in the army, could you just say that the techmarine bolsters the defenses due to Lysander being there?
"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."
So surely that would work? Not the way it's intended, but work it would none-the-less =D
Oshova
22438
Post by: Cptn. Waaagh!
Oshova wrote:Ok with the whole Lysander thing . . . If you had Lysander and a basic Techmarine in the army, could you just say that the techmarine bolsters the defenses due to Lysander being there?
"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."
So surely that would work? Not the way it's intended, but work it would none-the-less =D
Oshova
Yes, but a Techmarine has Bolster Defenses anyway, so it doesn't matter if Lysander is there or not.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Right, ok. Some good points.
@thebetter1 - Cool - i thought you meant the tenth point on YOUR list, hence confusion. I think you might be right about the lysander thing though. Anyway, lots of points - i'll clear all this up and do an update any second by reading all the relevant rules carefully and in the most wilfully literal way 0 it wouldn't be RAW otherwise....!
8261
Post by: Pika_power
thebetter1 wrote:
I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.
Check any weapon. Under "Range" in the table, it says "Template". Ergo, placing the template is checking range. The Template has nothing to do with Blast Markers. Besides, Blast isn't under the range section, so your comparison doesn't work.
thebetter1 wrote:Is this a RAW thread or not?
It doesn't matter. Even if you model eyes onto your Wraithlord, it doesn't change the fact that if your Wraithlord doesn't have eyes, it can't shoot. You're proposing a workaround, not a dispute to the RAW.
thebetter1 wrote:
The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.
Please explain, using non-shooting related rules quotes, how I check LoS in the movement phase for the Rage rule.
thebetter1 wrote:
Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?
General applies. General tells me to deploy. I take that as to 'generally' deploy. I deploy on the bookshelf and take potshots at your army. No where does it tell me to put models on the table.
thebetter1 wrote:
No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.
No, the RAW does not work that way. You cannot cut entire parts out like that. If it says "When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster." You cannot shorten it to "When you deploy nominate one ruin to bolster.", because that isn't following the original sentence. It's like changing "The Chaos Gods can manipulate Horus to kill the Emperor" to "The Chaos Gods can kill the Emperor." They can, but only by using Horus. Likewise, you can, but by using the techmarine.
thebetter1 wrote:
Sure, in GwarHammer.
In True RAW. The convention followed in this thread. If we continue down this track, we'll just end up screaming TFG at each other, so allow me to remind you that none of these rulings are what we would seriously play, and this entire thread is an exercise in proving how thoroughly stupid following the RAW to the letter is.
thebetter1 wrote:Maybe because it spills out into so many other threads?
Then argue in the other threads. No one invades the 40k forum if it starts bleeding into Dakka Discussions, so don't attack this thread because it spills into others.
thebetter1 wrote:
The Rage USR.
That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.
thebetter1 wrote:
Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.
That's kind of the idea in a rules debate. To quote the part of the rule that goes against the opponent's argument.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
The Rage USR.
That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.
Cheers for the break down Pika I think this guy is just arguing for the sake of it because this thread dares to poke fun at RaW. I asked him for a rules reference that states you check LoS in any phase other than the shooting phase. He just states a USR without quoting any text. the reason he hasn't? You guessed it because the Rage USR does not mention LoS or checking LoS at anytime let alone giving you specific instructions to do so during the movement phase... Much like He's claimed eth SM Codex has said that a Seismic Hammer is a DCCW yet as I've posted over eth page it says no such thing. He's just making up rules and when we post the rules that prove him wrong his great response is: " Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point." You couldn't make it up...
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
SM Chapter Master Orbital bombardment scatters a single shot not a blast marker of any sort.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Kommissar Kel wrote:SM Chapter Master Orbital bombardment scatters a single shot not a blast marker of any sort.
As I already told you in the other thread, you are wrong. Dead Wrong. Ordnance Barrage ALWAYS uses the Large Blast Marker, and it is VERY CLEARLY described in the rules. Check them out!
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Ah I see now it is in the Barrage section of the Shooting weapons not in Ordnance Barrage in the vehicles. I had looked for it in the vehicle section.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Pika_power wrote:thebetter1 wrote:
I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.
Check any weapon. Under "Range" in the table, it says "Template". Ergo, placing the template is checking range. The Template has nothing to do with Blast Markers. Besides, Blast isn't under the range section, so your comparison doesn't work.
You have no idea how many people have said this exact same thing without reading my argument. The fact that a weapon's range is template does not mean placing the template in such a way so as to cover as many enemy models as possible and then counting up the number hit is a form of checking range.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.
Please explain, using non-shooting related rules quotes, how I check LoS in the movement phase for the Rage rule.
Page 16, the largest paragraph in the right column. It is to big to quote under fair use, but there is absolutely no mention of applying only for shooting.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?
General applies. General tells me to deploy. I take that as to 'generally' deploy. I deploy on the bookshelf and take potshots at your army. No where does it tell me to put models on the table.
This would break the deployment rules. Yes, they do actually exist, I just checked.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
Sure, in GwarHammer.
In True RAW. The convention followed in this thread. If we continue down this track, we'll just end up screaming TFG at each other, so allow me to remind you that none of these rulings are what we would seriously play, and this entire thread is an exercise in proving how thoroughly stupid following the RAW to the letter is.
Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.
Also, too many people are using the fact that these are not RAP rulings as proof that they must be supported under RAW.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.
No, the RAW does not work that way. You cannot cut entire parts out like that. If it says "When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster." You cannot shorten it to "When you deploy nominate one ruin to bolster.", because that isn't following the original sentence. It's like changing "The Chaos Gods can manipulate Horus to kill the Emperor" to "The Chaos Gods can kill the Emperor." They can, but only by using Horus. Likewise, you can, but by using the techmarine.
The way it really works is that you nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster. You do not have a Techmarine, so he does not bolster it. It then gets +1 to its cover save, regardless of whether any Techmarine was involved.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
The Rage USR.
That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.
See above.
Pika_power wrote:
thebetter1 wrote:
Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.
That's kind of the idea in a rules debate. To quote the part of the rule that goes against the opponent's argument.
No, that is not debate at all. If you have a quote that proves the other side is right and you cut it down so that it does not appear that way, you made a fraudulent argument.
FlingitNow wrote:
I asked him for a rules reference that states you check LoS in any phase other than the shooting phase. He just states a USR without quoting any text. the reason he hasn't? You guessed it because the Rage USR does not mention LoS or checking LoS at anytime let alone giving you specific instructions to do so during the movement phase...
If that were true, it would not have been on the fun list of RAW fun to begin with.
FlingitNow wrote:
Much like He's claimed eth SM Codex has said that a Seismic Hammer is a DCCW yet as I've posted over eth page it says no such thing.
It says it is treated as a DCCW, which means it acts exactly the same way under all circumstances unless specified otherwise. In this case, the only exception is that it adds 1 to vehicle damage rolls.
FlingitNow wrote:
He's just making up rules and when we post the rules that prove him wrong his great response is:
"Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point."
You couldn't make it up...
You do realize I dealt with 17 quotes on this page, yet you fail to see why I was reluctant to quote from the codex? I'm not going to do your work for you. Because I described the rule in detail, your comments accuse me of lying. If I were you, I would not continue that accusation, otherwise I might actually post the rule and prove you wrong.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
thebetter1 wrote:
You have no idea how many people have said this exact same thing without reading my argument. The fact that a weapon's range is template does not mean placing the template in such a way so as to cover as many enemy models as possible and then counting up the number hit is a form of checking range.
Let's cover this properly.
I fire a flamer from a turret on a tank. We go to the template rules in order to find out what happens.
"Place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it" ( Pg. 29)
Wait, my tank doesn't have a base. Let's see in the vehicle rules have anything to say about it. Oh look, two possible interpretations!
"Instead for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from the hull" ( Pg. 56)
Well we could use this one I suppose, but is a flamer template really a 'distance'?
"When firing a vehicle's weapon, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon" ( Pg. 56)
This sounds better. It's a weapon being fired, and Template is in the "Range" slot of the weapon. Unless there are objections, I think we'll use this interpretation. Back to the template rules!
""Place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models" ( Pg. 29)
Now, what do we define as 'the narrow end of the template' and 'friendly model'? If the 'narrow end' is defined as 'the narrower half of the template' then there is no problem. If 'friendly model' does not include the firing model, everything's fine. If neither of those occur, then we get a broken rule.
thebetter1 wrote:
Page 16, the largest paragraph in the right column. It is to big to quote under fair use, but there is absolutely no mention of applying only for shooting.
"Taking in a view from behind the firing models to 'see what they see' "
Also, if we only follow that paragraph, it means with Rage, it's perfectly viable to turn your models around so they don't see the enemy. Also, they can't see through each other.
thebetter1 wrote:This would break the deployment rules. Yes, they do actually exist, I just checked.
In that case, please post the rules reference and blow the argument out of the water, so we can remove the offending item from the list.
thebetter1 wrote:
Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.
You have a point; I can't find it. So converting to put eyes on gets around the problem. However, Wraithlords without eyes on them will be unable to fire.
thebetter1 wrote:
Also, too many people are using the fact that these are not RAP rulings as proof that they must be supported under RAW.
What do you mean by that?
thebetter1 wrote:
The way it really works is that you nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster. You do not have a Techmarine, so he does not bolster it. It then gets +1 to its cover save, regardless of whether any Techmarine was involved.
Could you please post the rule, both the original and the edited version without the Techmarine in it? I can't know what your edited rule is, so I may be arguing against something I actually agree with.
thebetter1 wrote:No, that is not debate at all. If you have a quote that proves the other side is right and you cut it down so that it does not appear that way, you made a fraudulent argument.
Please show how it's a fraudulant argument.
thebetter1 wrote:You do realize I dealt with 17 quotes on this page, yet you fail to see why I was reluctant to quote from the codex? I'm not going to do your work for you. Because I described the rule in detail, your comments accuse me of lying. If I were you, I would not continue that accusation, otherwise I might actually post the rule and prove you wrong.
Each side posts rule references. It is not the opponent's job to go and find rules that support your claims, it is yours. The opponent finds rules that support his claims. You then each post them, and consider each other's rules, and try to reach a conclusion.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.
Not much time but:
BrB pg viii wrote:To play Warhammer 40,000 you will need an army - in other words a collaction of citadel miniatures
Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Ok, so lots of changed based on the last few pages. As many people have said, we've got to EIGHTEEN PAGES with an essentially silly but quite important thread. Let's not ruin it now by pointing out the same thing, over and over, with load of massively long posts, again and again, for pages on end. If you want to argue about a particular point, start a new thread where everyone can see the title and join in.
- The Shrike listing in the original post states 'Shrikes unit may not DEPLOY as infiltrators'. This stands. We never suggested that they lost any other special rules that apply to infiltrators. Outflanking counts, since he still can't join the unit until after they needed to state they were ouflanking.
- Sudden reading of codex reveals that Techmarines DO have the Independent Character rule.
Techmarines can increase the effectiveness of cover, reinforcing crumbling walls and re-welding badly damaged spars. {A} Each Techmarine can bolster a single ruin before the game begins. {B} When you deploy, nominate a single ruin in your deployment area for your Techmarine to bolster. The ruin's....(rules)
- Here's the offending rule. Now, many of these stupid rules depend on reading them in the most stubborn way possible. We accept that most special rules printed include a brief bit of fluff at the start. The first sentence is unquestionably the fluff bit. The rest depends on where you define the border between fluff and rules. If you say that rules start at point {A}, or that the WHOLE rule is 'rules' then you must have a Techmarine. If you say that the first two sentences are fluff and the rules start at point {B}, then you don't need a TechmarineI'm (thebetter1's argument). since this thread is all about being wilfully literal, I'm leaving it in for now, but if you want to discuss it in another thread, please do. If a conclusion if reached, I'll edit it! I also refer you to the related argument 'can IG fire non-lasgun weapons from a Chimera?'
- REMOVED Chargin from a Land Raider in the enemy's turn.
- REMOVED not being able to start the game.
- ADDED Tervigons and LD for test
- ADDED Culexus Assassins
- ADDED Nork and the transport/priest thing - he's only identified as an Ogryn in the FLUFF, and convention here is that anything before the stat line is fluff, not rules. Again, 'can IG fire non-lasgun weapons from a Chimera?' is related in this case - if we accept that anything written in the entire book is a game rule, we get into a lot of sticky situations....
- ADDED Tellion not unique
- ADDED Space Marine characters and bikes.
- ADDED Only Citadel Minis may be used.
- ADDED Models moving off the table
- CLARIFIED the bookshelf deployment rule
- CLARIFIED the Tau battlesuit/drone thing
- CLARIFIED Wobbly model rule
- CLARIFIED the DS movement thing - troops arriving from DS do so in the movement phase, which prohibits them from getting within 1" of an enemy, and therefore can't mishap when hitting enemy models.
20065
Post by: thebetter1
It appears that this thread is not about RAW at all. You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written." You also arbitrarily ignore some rules in favor of others. On top of that, some things that I have quite clearly defeated (seriously, you are told to deploy on the table) are being added to the list. Therefore, I see no reason to continue posting here.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
thebetter1 wrote:You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written."
Hold on there. FaQs are NOT RaW, even GW say so. What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.
The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.
The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.
http://www.games-workshop.com/ gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019
20065
Post by: thebetter1
Gwar! wrote:thebetter1 wrote:You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written."
Hold on there. FaQs are NOT RaW, even GW say so.
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.
The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.
The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.
http://www.games-workshop.com/ gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019
I direct you to the tenets of YMDC, saying the following:
Lorek wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.
Also, how is this page on GW's site any different from TMIR? The rules aren't important and they can be changed if you agree on it. Note the phrase in the paragraph you quoted: "prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
"Source of Information" =! RaW And read the Tenets again, it mentions TMIR, and how we do not use it in YMDC since it just makes any and all rules discussions pointless. By TMIR, I can say all my Space Wolves are S10 T10 with 67" of movement. If you disagree, you are making the game unfun, for me. Therefore, you are knowingly breaking TMIR, and another word for Knowingly Breaking rules is Cheating. Therefore, I win, because you cheated. THAT is why TMIR is not used here on YMDC. And before you say the FAQs are the Authors intent... they aren't. The SW FAQ proved that!
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
FlingitNow wrote:Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.
Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?
Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
thebetter1 wrote:It appears that this thread is not about RAW at all. You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written." You also arbitrarily ignore some rules in favor of others. On top of that, some things that I have quite clearly defeated (seriously, you are told to deploy on the table) are being added to the list. Therefore, I see no reason to continue posting here.
Well, you've made lots of points. Some of those points have been argued over and over between you and other people. Sometimes you've made your point and the RaW STILL isn't clear, because other people disagree, and have equally valid readings. You just keep making the point again. Sometimes your point is wrong, or has already been covered earlier in the thread, as has been pointed out. And some of your points are correct, and are oversights on MY part, and I've amended the list or removed things in respect of that. If it is the case that there is a specific rule that states that you MUST deploy your models on the table, then quote it. You can quote an awful lot of lines without breaking fair use. Quote it, and I'll change the list. Or at least give a page, paragraph and line reference. If your point is correct, I WILL amend the list, as has happened already with some of your points.
7926
Post by: youbedead
MasterSlowPoke wrote:FlingitNow wrote:Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.
Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?
Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.
yes, but you couldn't use forgeworld models as their not citadel
apparently that dkog army is ilegal
12265
Post by: Gwar!
youbedead wrote:yes, but you couldn't use forgeworld models as their not citadel
apparently that dkog army is ilegal
Protip: Forge World are Citadel Miniatures.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
MasterSlowPoke wrote:I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.
Up until the site redesign there was Citadel logo on the left hand side of almost every page.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
MasterSlowPoke wrote:I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.
7
Every copy of IA disagrees with you,
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I can't remember the exact name of the mission, but in the Battle Missions book there is a scenario where the IG player can drop Stray Round markers. The rules state that you may not blow the markers to influence the landing point, but nowhere does it say that you can't fold or scrunch up the paper to stop it fluttering.
Valk
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Possibly more of a modeling/converting issue, but...
Eldar aren't allowed to field models (including non-IC models) that do not display the gear purchased for them (but are allowed to field models which have too much gear, luckily).
-> Some models, such as the Swooping Hawks, must have gear added to them which aren't supplied in the GW product packages. Swooping Hawks generally miss their grenades.
This is a special rule under Using the Army Lists which is stated in the Eldar Codex on page 59, and provides more restrictions than the BRB does.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?
Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.
The last line is debatable. But as soon as you start adding parts from another kit or another source or Green stuff the kit ceases to be the kit releaqse by Citadel and therefore ceases to be wholly a Citadel miniature therefore you are not allowed to use it...
Add this to this rule:
Eldar aren't allowed to field models (including non-IC models) that do not display the gear purchased for them (but are allowed to field models which have too much gear, luckily).
-> Some models, such as the Swooping Hawks, must have gear added to them which aren't supplied in the GW product packages. Swooping Hawks generally miss their grenades.
And thus you can never legally field Swooping Hawks as Citadel do not have a model that is usuable for them. Just like say a Tervigon or Thunderwolf Cavalry but more dumb because they do have swooping hawk models just not ones with the wargear required on them for you to field them...
99
Post by: insaniak
Gwar! wrote:By TMIR, I can say all my Space Wolves are S10 T10 with 67" of movement. If you disagree, you are making the game unfun, for me. Therefore, you are knowingly breaking TMIR, and another word for Knowingly Breaking rules is Cheating.
Therefore, I win, because you cheated.
THAT is why TMIR is not used here on YMDC.
No, Gwar, that's not why TMIR is not used in rules discussions, because it's not how TMIR works, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.
TMIR is not used in rules discussions because the fact that you can change the rules is irrelevant in a discussion of those rules. That's all there is to it.
6769
Post by: Tri
FlingitNow wrote:
Eldar aren't allowed to field models (including non-IC models) that do not display the gear purchased for them (but are allowed to field models which have too much gear, luckily).
-> Some models, such as the Swooping Hawks, must have gear added to them which aren't supplied in the GW product packages. Swooping Hawks generally miss their grenades.
And thus you can never legally field Swooping Hawks as Citadel do not have a model that is usuable for them. Just like say a Tervigon or Thunderwolf Cavalry but more dumb because they do have swooping hawk models just not ones with the wargear required on them for you to field them...
Er ... If we being 100% RAW WYSIWYG only effects characters since it is part of their rules rather then part of "models and units".
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Tri - iirc Eldar have a special WYSIWYG rule in their book...
6769
Post by: Tri
nosferatu1001 wrote:Tri - iirc Eldar have a special WYSIWYG rule in their book...
Quick check ...
... no, nearest thing i can see is page 21 wargear but that covers exarch and their weapons.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
page 59 Eldar Codex (second sentence under Using the Army lists):
Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons or wargear not shown on the models.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
99
Post by: insaniak
ArbitorIan wrote:- Sudden reading of codex reveals that Techmarines DO have the Independent Character rule.
They have it listed as one of their rules on the unit page. In the army list, solo Techmarines have it. The Tech who comes with the Thunderfire Cannon does not.
6769
Post by: Tri
FlingitNow wrote:page 59 Eldar Codex (second sentence under Using the Army lists):
Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons or wargear not shown on the models.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
gah well hidden ... i don't think i've read 'using the army list' since i started.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but AFAIK, there are two types of Jetbikes: Jetbikes and Eldar Jetbikes, which have extra abilities.
P40 and 64 of the Eldar Codex: Guardian Bikers have Eldar Jetbikes.
P37 and 65: Shining Spears, who are the most elite mounted Eldar warriors, only have bog-standard Jetbikes.
Probably something not seen during GW's so-called "proof-reading"
Valk
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Actually not even Guardian jetbikers have Eldar Jetbikes. Whilst their bestiary entry describes one option for them being Eldar Jetbikes (just as the aspect warrior entries describe Exarch powers and wargear that you don't automatically get) the Armylist entry makes no mention of an Eldar jetbike. Only that their unit type is jetbike...
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Page 30 of the Tau Codex: Decoy Launchers are useless as there is no "Glancing Hit Vehicle Damage Table", there is only a "Vehicle Damage Table" which you apply respective modifiers to.
Valk
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
FlingitNow wrote:page 59 Eldar Codex (second sentence under Using the Army lists):
Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons or wargear not shown on the models.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
That said, it doesn't clearly define exactly what the wargear looks like anywhere that isn't fluff. You could easily argue the bumps on the model (that admittedly look quite similar to soulstones/helmets/feet etc) are in fact grenades.
7209
Post by: Nofasse 'Eadhunta
Brother-Captain Stern is not a Grey Knight, as he does not have the Grey Knights rule.
29478
Post by: ImRightBehindYou
Death Masks say the opponent must pass a leadership or be at WS1 if they wish to assault a unit with a Death Mask. It doesn't say what happens if the test is failed. This is like Bjorn's invulnerable save, it doesn't say what happens therefore one should always take the test. . JK, that's a jerk move.
27997
Post by: Warlordron'swaagh
Not sure this qualifies, but Black Templar still have old school smoke/ POTMS rules, so if my vehicles pop smoke, you cannot penetrate them, and my vehicles also pretty much ignore shaken/stunned results
21170
Post by: Klawz
ImRightBehindYou wrote:Death Masks say the opponent must pass a leadership or be at WS1 if they wish to assault a unit with a Death Mask. It doesn't say what happens if the test is failed. This is like Bjorn's invulnerable save, it doesn't say what happens therefore one should always take the test. . JK, that's a jerk move.
The must pass a leadership test or be at WS 1. That seems to tell you what happens pretty well.
29478
Post by: ImRightBehindYou
Klawz wrote:ImRightBehindYou wrote:Death Masks say the opponent must pass a leadership or be at WS1 if they wish to assault a unit with a Death Mask. It doesn't say what happens if the test is failed. This is like Bjorn's invulnerable save, it doesn't say what happens therefore one should always take the test. . JK, that's a jerk move.
The must pass a leadership test or be at WS 1. That seems to tell you what happens pretty well.
No, from my interpretation (which could easily be wrong) it means they can choose to be at WS1 or pass a test.
21170
Post by: Klawz
ImRightBehindYou wrote:Klawz wrote:ImRightBehindYou wrote:Death Masks say the opponent must pass a leadership or be at WS1 if they wish to assault a unit with a Death Mask. It doesn't say what happens if the test is failed. This is like Bjorn's invulnerable save, it doesn't say what happens therefore one should always take the test. . JK, that's a jerk move.
The must pass a leadership test or be at WS 1. That seems to tell you what happens pretty well.
No, from my interpretation (which could easily be wrong) it means they can choose to be at WS1 or pass a test.
Can you quote the rule please? BTW, which codex is this from?
30167
Post by: BoyMac
Page 50 of the Blood Angels Codex:
An enemy assaulted my one or more unit equipped with Death Masks must pass a Leadership test or be reduced to weapon skill 1 for the duration of the Assault phase.
It actually doesn't make the work unit plural so you may find a work around that with multiple units…
24750
Post by: forkbanger
The Trukk's Ramshackle rule never takes effect.
If a Trukk suffers a Vehicle Destroyed! or Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects.
There is neither a Vehicle Destroyed! nor a Vehicle Explodes! (wrecked) result on the vehicle damage table.
23704
Post by: ceorron
insaniak wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:- Sudden reading of codex reveals that Techmarines DO have the Independent Character rule.
They have it listed as one of their rules on the unit page. In the army list, solo Techmarines have it. The Tech who comes with the Thunderfire Cannon does not.
Don't think this is a mestake just how it is, looking through the codex.
21170
Post by: Klawz
BoyMac wrote:Page 50 of the Blood Angels Codex:
An enemy assaulted my one or more unit equipped with Death Masks must pass a Leadership test or be reduced to weapon skill 1 for the duration of the Assault phase.
It actually doesn't make the work unit plural so you may find a work around that with multiple units…
They must pass a leadership test...or be reduced to weapon skill one.
If you don't take the test, you're at weapon skill 1. If you take the test, and fail it, you're at weapon skill one. Only by passing a leadership test can you remove the weapon skill one.
17799
Post by: Oshova
Well you could look at it that you have a choice. Be WS1, or take a LD test and risk running away :p
Oshova
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Erm, no - a LD test is not a morale check...
8900
Post by: Aelyn
Warlordron'swaagh wrote:Not sure this qualifies, but Black Templar still have old school smoke/ POTMS rules, so if my vehicles pop smoke, you cannot penetrate them, and my vehicles also pretty much ignore shaken/stunned results
This is no problem - the rulebook specifies that some older codexes use different rules for Smoke Launchers which override the ones in the rulebook.
Edit: I was going to say that Dark Angel smoke launchers specify that the vehicle is concealed, meaning they qualify for the 4+ cover save despite as well as getting the downgrade from glace to penetrate - and if that's not enough, it also specifies to place cotton wool around the model, which could easily qualify it for the save. However, in the main rulebook it's only obscured vehicles and not concealed ones that get the 4+ cover save, and the cotton wool argument doesn't work because a vehicle would only get the save if obscured by models or terrain, and the cotton wool is neither of these.
However, if you have a really, really big smoke cloud, you can still make the target invisible - the rules state you can place cotton wool and are silent on how much cotton wool to place.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Don't think this is a mestake just how it is, looking through the codex.
Then why does it bother to say in the TFC rules that he doesn't benefit from the IC rule until the TFC is destroyed? Since he'll never benefit from it as ghe doesn't have it...
23704
Post by: ceorron
FlingitNow wrote:
Don't think this is a mestake just how it is, looking through the codex.
Then why does it bother to say in the TFC rules that he doesn't benefit from the IC rule until the TFC is destroyed? Since he'll never benefit from it as ghe doesn't have it...
Ah good point ... What page is that on again?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Page 73 in itailisc after the techmarine profile.
14816
Post by: alexwars1
Space Marine codex, pg 131. In the Honour Guard section, it says the Chapter Champion may take "Digital Lasers." There are no rules for "Digital Lasers" in the codex. There are, however, "Digital Weapons".
17799
Post by: Oshova
They're on the missing page of every SM codex. Digital Lasers are the most awesome weapon in 40K, they kill every model within 36" on a 2+, no saves of any kind . . . but sadly the page is missing, so you can't use them =[
=p
Oshova
26180
Post by: Vanguard27
Valkyrie wrote:Page 30 of the Tau Codex: Decoy Launchers are useless as there is no "Glancing Hit Vehicle Damage Table", there is only a "Vehicle Damage Table" which you apply respective modifiers to.
Valk
This was changed in the FAQ
Page 30 - Decoy Launchers
The second sentence should be changed to:
Whenever a glancing hit causes an Immobilized result onto a vehicle, the Tau player may force his opponent to re-roll the dice, and the second result applies.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Vanguard27 wrote:Valkyrie wrote:Page 30 of the Tau Codex: Decoy Launchers are useless as there is no "Glancing Hit Vehicle Damage Table", there is only a "Vehicle Damage Table" which you apply respective modifiers to.
Valk
This was changed in the FAQ
Page 30 - Decoy Launchers
The second sentence should be changed to:
Whenever a glancing hit causes an Immobilized result onto a vehicle, the Tau player may force his opponent to re-roll the dice, and the second result applies.
Actually, the ERRATA changed it.
Big difference!
26180
Post by: Vanguard27
Gwar! wrote:Vanguard27 wrote:Valkyrie wrote:Page 30 of the Tau Codex: Decoy Launchers are useless as there is no "Glancing Hit Vehicle Damage Table", there is only a "Vehicle Damage Table" which you apply respective modifiers to.
Valk
This was changed in the FAQ
Page 30 - Decoy Launchers
The second sentence should be changed to:
Whenever a glancing hit causes an Immobilized result onto a vehicle, the Tau player may force his opponent to re-roll the dice, and the second result applies.
Actually, the ERRATA changed it.
Big difference!
umm, yeah, you and your logic!..
Gotta QFT me to, ehh, no ninja edits for me..
And umm, its 540 AM, I have been up all night... give me a break..
19090
Post by: Aramoro
Strictly by RAW wrecked vehicles can still move around and shoot. They effectively become terrain but they don't stop being vehicles. You can even embark back into your now wrecked TerrainTank though you will have to take difficult and dangerous terrain checks to get in. Your vehicle is destroyed and is a wreck but it's still a vehicle by the description of what a wreck is.
Aramoro
17799
Post by: Oshova
Does that mean that it can take further damage? Make a wrecked vehicle explode a turn later. lol
Oshova
19090
Post by: Aramoro
I would guess so, I mean if you get Exploded you remove the vehicle from the table, but Wrecked leaves it there. Every time you get wrecked your passengers fall out though so they may not like it that much.
Aramoro
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
You want to transport 10 Terminators in safety? Take a Land Raider Prometheus from Imperial Armour Apocalypse II.
The datasheet for the Prometheus states that it may transport "10 models". There is no rule limiting the number of Terminators it may carry, therefore it may carry 10, as this would fulfill the circumstances for "10 models"
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Valkyrie wrote:You want to transport 10 Terminators in safety? Take a Land Raider Prometheus from Imperial Armour Apocalypse II.
The datasheet for the Prometheus states that it may transport "10 models". There is no rule limiting the number of Terminators it may carry, therefore it may carry 10, as this would fulfill the circumstances for "10 models"
Try reading the Terminator armour rules.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Gwar! wrote:Valkyrie wrote:You want to transport 10 Terminators in safety? Take a Land Raider Prometheus from Imperial Armour Apocalypse II.
The datasheet for the Prometheus states that it may transport "10 models". There is no rule limiting the number of Terminators it may carry, therefore it may carry 10, as this would fulfill the circumstances for "10 models"
Try reading the Terminator armour rules.
Damm, I thought I had something there
30569
Post by: Cadet_Commissar_Ludd
Don't know if this is already on here but according to the apoc book, Hierophant bio-titans and barbed hierodules have a save of 2 and 3 respectively not 2+ and 3+ so there is a 5 in 6 chance they will fail to save the armour saves
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whereas knarlocs have a 6+ i mean WTF
17799
Post by: Oshova
I'm still waiting for the mispront of giving a "6-" save . . . yeah that's right I need to roll 6 or less on one D6 to save my guys =D
Would be hilariously funny . . . and yet incredibly broken in combat or against anything without an AP =p
Oshova
25338
Post by: eNvY
- The Monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)
Can anybody please tell me where this is in the necron codex? I've read the Living Metal rule about 5 times and I can't find anywhere where is says this. It just states it ignores lance weapons and you don't get extra armor penetration against it. Because my monoliths frequently get annihilated by TH& SS termies and if there is something that says they can't use the additional str that would be GREAT.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
eNvY wrote:- The Monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)
Can anybody please tell me where this is in the necron codex? I've read the Living Metal rule about 5 times and I can't find anywhere where is says this. It just states it ignores lance weapons and you don't get extra armor penetration against it. Because my monoliths frequently get annihilated by TH& SS termies and if there is something that says they can't use the additional str that would be GREAT.
You probably would receive several attacks to the groin for trying that.
25338
Post by: eNvY
Valkyrie wrote:eNvY wrote:- The Monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)
Can anybody please tell me where this is in the necron codex? I've read the Living Metal rule about 5 times and I can't find anywhere where is says this. It just states it ignores lance weapons and you don't get extra armor penetration against it. Because my monoliths frequently get annihilated by TH& SS termies and if there is something that says they can't use the additional str that would be GREAT.
You probably would receive several attacks to the groin for trying that.
Haha, but where is this rule?
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
There is no rule anything like that in the Necron book.
25338
Post by: eNvY
MasterSlowPoke wrote:There is no rule anything like that in the Necron book.
Okay, then why is it listed here? In the example of a marine with a lascannon shooting a monolith and having to use his base strength (not the gun).
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Because someone didn't know what they were talking about.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
eNvY wrote:MasterSlowPoke wrote:There is no rule anything like that in the Necron book.
Okay, then why is it listed here? In the example of a marine with a lascannon shooting a monolith and having to use his base strength (not the gun).
Because in the example, the marine is not affecting the Monolith, the Lascannon is, and the strength of a Lascannon is 9.
17639
Post by: thegreyman
The main rulebook states that when you have a ballistic skill greater than 5, you always hit on a 2+ and get a reroll to hit with the weapon. It states that the reroll to hit needs the "number in italics after the slash". There is a number after the slash, but no number in italics.
23204
Post by: ginger_nid_dude
eNvY wrote:- The Monolith takes hits at the base strength of the unit attacking (so, 4 for a Devastator with a lascannon)
Can anybody please tell me where this is in the necron codex? I've read the Living Metal rule about 5 times and I can't find anywhere where is says this. It just states it ignores lance weapons and you don't get extra armor penetration against it. Because my monoliths frequently get annihilated by TH& SS termies and if there is something that says they can't use the additional str that would be GREAT.
Your monoliths shouldn't be being killed by SS/ TH terminators anyway as TH gives them S8. That means they can only glance a monolith due to AV14. As when a monolith receives weapon destroyed, it loses one shot (doesn't say anything about minimum modifiers) you can never kill all it's guns to glance kill it.
27997
Post by: Warlordron'swaagh
PK Nobs, strength 9 FTW!
29057
Post by: CruoAngelus
Ok, there aren´t any Spearhead things yet but here´s a thing that lets a Sm list take a Ork Stompa:
Super Heavy Spearhead:
"(Fluff)Super-heavy vehicles such as the Imperial
Baneblade or Ork Stompa are amongst
the most deadly combatants on the
battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Just
one of them can dominate a battlefield.
Although incredibly rare, their presence
can single-handedly spell the difference
between victory or defeat. Because of
their might and nigh-on invulnerability,
super-heavies are often used to
spearhead an assault. Protected by
incredibly thick armour, they shrug off
even heavy weaponry, and they are
armed with batteries of guns that can
level a city block and destroy entire
swathes of enemy troops."
Spearhead Rules:
"One super-heavy vehicle chosen from ANY
Apocalypse datasheet.
Note that you need the Apocalypse Expansion
book in order to use this spearhead."
If you got the WD issue with the spearhead rules then you understand
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Space Marine Codex, page 81, first column, near the bottom:
Assault Vehicle: Models disembarking from any access point on a Land Raider can launch an assault on the turn they do so.
So, by this wording, if my Land Raider is hit and suffers a result of Wrecked--Destroyed, as long as my models get out of an access point, they are allowed to launch an assault during my opponent's turn.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
No. They can launch an assault, but you have no permission to.
18364
Post by: Little lord Fauntleroy
If you use the codex that was uploaded to the GW site, the Daemonhunters now cannot feild an army (as it does not conatin a FOC).
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
If you use the codex that was uploaded to the GW site, the Daemonhunters now cannot feild an army (as it does not conatin a FOC).
Or does it mean they can just freely select any units they want? So here's my 20 Vindicare assassins...
26531
Post by: VikingScott
FlingitNow wrote:If you use the codex that was uploaded to the GW site, the Daemonhunters now cannot feild an army (as it does not conatin a FOC).
Or does it mean they can just freely select any units they want? So here's my 20 Vindicare assassins...
Assassins are 0-1. Even with no FOC its still 0-1.
18364
Post by: Little lord Fauntleroy
FlingitNow wrote:If you use the codex that was uploaded to the GW site, the Daemonhunters now cannot feild an army (as it does not conatin a FOC).
Or does it mean they can just freely select any units they want? So here's my 20 Vindicare assassins...
Nope-as per the 40k rulebook, "one box on the FOC allows you to make one selection for your army". If there's no FOC, then there are no boxes, so you cannot make any selections.
28659
Post by: dbsamurai
epic win on the hilarity scale here XD this reminds me of the old BA codex (the pdf one) where none of their vehicles could be gotten into cause they had no access points XD
Oh and if you wanna be quasi realistic, none of the new vehicles can function as there is no mention of crew (thats not a rule thing just a literal thing...)
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Irrelevant to the rules, as you say. And if you want 40K info which is irrelevant to the rules you look to Imperial Armour.
There is detailed how many crew, where the seats are, how many cupholders and all manner of other entirely extraneous data.
17799
Post by: Oshova
Scott that's so that you can scratch build a model that you can take panels off and see all the inside detail with hand molded crew etc . . . only to have GW officials drop down from helicopters with flamethrowers to melt down the model.
LMAO!
Oshova
|
|
