Which is the Dark Eldar that gives the 5+ invulnerable save, flickerfield or shadowsomething? Regardless, I found it interesting that the rules state the save provided is an invulnerable save. Every other similar ability (KFF, shield of sanguinius) provides a cover save for vehicles if I'm not mistaken. What are the implications for this? On the one hand, they are immune to markerlights. On the other hand, there could be some shooting attacks in future codices that negate invulnerable saves (GK!).

Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Oh come on, did they do that mistake again? I sure hope they remembered to state that you're allowed to use your invulnerable save against other things than wounds...

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

Just wait for Gwar! to answer whether the codex provides a 5+ invulnerable or a 5+ invulnerable against damaging hits or similar wording. Haven't seen him (over)react yet and he's read the codex.

My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

Leaving aside the RAW fundamentalists (until they wake up and have their coffee), I do wonder if "invulnerable save" vs. "cover save" for flickerfield was a conscious decision by the writers.

Infantryman wrote:My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

From a game design point of view it's actually an interesting option to have on light vehicles. Emphasis being on light. On heavy vehicles it might just screw the game over, like how some armies have a serious problem with Monoliths while others don't.

Infantryman wrote:My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

Store copies of the codex have been released and I had a read of it the other night.

Unless it states it works against hits, it doesnt. Saves only work against wounds, as defined in their rules.

If you read Gwars! thread on the DE codex FAQ its already in there....

This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds. Practically, it's played as a 5+ chance to negate glancing or penetrating hits-like a cover save, but working against almost everything.

Hopefully, the flickerfield rules are solid. If they aren't, expect it to be played the same way Bjorn's is by most people.

Correct. Its the same as Bjorn.

That being said, I can't remember the exact wording for it, so it MIGHT just have a chance to work.

If someone can tell me if it does, I would appreciate it.

And while it isn't in my DE FAQ yet (I haven't gotten around to writing that part), it will be soon enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

RaW, it won't do anything, not because it isn't obscured (that is only for cover saves), but because Invulnerable saves may only be taken against wounds.

That being said, if the rules are solid, this might not be an issue. Knowing GW, it will be though.

Funnily enough, they made the same mistake on another Bjorn rule, regarding the dice to see who goes first. Epic Fails.

I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

Save the hate for GW. They are the ones who repeatedly ?&@% up on these things. Everything would be nice and peachy if they, you know, actually knew how their own rules work. Oh, and having editors would help too.

I wouldn't put the blame on GW. I think most people will understand how the rule works. It's not that difficult.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Easy. The RaW is the Rules as Written.

What they Intended we have no idea, so we have to use the rules as written. What else are you going to use? Rules as not written?

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

It is the age old argument.

If GW had intended for blah blah blah to do bleh bleh bleh, they could have just written that, instead of something else with a different meaning. Ultimately what is the point of writing rules if they aren't rules?

Of course we all know that the real reason is that GW doesn't employ any editors, and they keep on stuffing up their own publications because of it.

Didn't turbo-boosting bikes used to get an invulnerable save and didn't Grey Knights use to have a Psycho round which ignored invulnerable saves. I know bikes aren't vehicles.

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't turbo-boosting bikes used to get an invulnerable save and didn't Grey Knights use to have a Psycho round which ignored invulnerable saves. I know bikes aren't vehicles.

Correct. In 4th edition, Bikes who Turbo Boosted had their Armour Save Become invulnerable, and lost their armour save. That meant that Psycannon Rounds murdered them well good.

Of course, RaW they still murder Ork Bikers, because you can't take cover saves against them and they are AP4.

At the RaI players, if you don't play by the rules, what exactly are you playing by?

Gwar, go review the "raw fun" thread and you will see that you do not play by the rules either.

olympia wrote:Gwar, go review the "raw fun" thread and you will see that you do not play by the rules either.

The thing is, there is a difference between clear RaW and unclear RaW.

Unclear RaW is fine to house rule

The RaW regarding Invuls on vehicles is 110& clear though, so to house rule it is unnecessary.

Ordznik wrote:This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds.

Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

insaniak wrote:

Ordznik wrote:This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds.

Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

The rules for cover saves do, but all Bjorns save does is let you ignore a wound on a 5+ every time you take a Pen or Glance.

Not very useful, is it?

lol I see the funny side of this, It has an invunerable save, it takes the save, well done you ignored the wound, now about that penetrating hit?

I myself tend to outright ignore certain rules when playing (wound alocation one for example) as i dont play in tournaments, my oponents generally dont mind as usually it gives them an advantage, call me a cheat i dont care, I play for funzors, and if they do mind.. i play properly.

the point im failing to make is, it has a invunerable save, so it get it, and i ignore RAW AND RAI.

And I have F.U.N.

I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

I agree with Sidstyler, GW must know there own rules (or so reason would have us believe!) and the inv. save is perhaps a typo for a cover save? I still think people take this game far to seriously, which is fine perhaps in a GM tourney but I would generally say that if both player have an understanding of what is meant I.E RAI and they both agree on it, then what´s the need of arguing further?

RAI is all well and good, but it really ticks me off when players start changing things for no reason (not just to make the things work properly, like vehicle Invul saves).

A prime example would be 3++ Storm Shields on SM codices that don't get them.

Start with RAW and work from there is my motto for these things. Generally I don't have to deviate too far to have a fun gaming experience for both players.

Over on the Forge World side of things, they gave Mega and Meka dreds an invulnerable save, and now Grot Battle tanks have one. For the orks, it represents redunancy of parts, and the fact that half the crap on an ork vehicle doesn't actually do anything.

Gwar! wrote:I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

You're absolutely correct in this, partially.

That's also like saying somebody who gets out of murder because of a technicality of the court could be determined as justice. It's a fault of justice. Just like these are faults with the rules. Obviously, determining which is the fault and which isn't is a greyer area than in my example(GW getting off their lazy arses to make rulings would help alleviate this issue..), but that doens't mean that playing RaI isn't still playing within the rules. That's merely a matter of opinion, as the rulings of TOs being the true gospel proves.

I think the issue lies where the intention is 100% obvious, and rules lawyers refute it at the last second just to gain an advantage.

Gwar, out of curiosity,do you bring a list of your FAQ with you when you play a game to explain how you will interpret them for your opponent to keep in mind when making tactical/army building decisions.

A-P wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

Save the hate for GW. They are the ones who repeatedly ?&@% up on these things. Everything would be nice and peachy if they, you know, actually knew how their own rules work. Oh, and having editors would help too.

I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"

puma713 wrote:
I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"

Well, there is a bit of a difference here. We're not actually playing 40k currently, and no one is actually trying to use these "exploits" in a game against you. I mean, how many of us have actually played a real life game where someone pulls some of these RAW loopholes on you?

Many people's stance on YMDC basically boils down to: "The only thing we can make definitive judgments on is what is literally written in the rules. Once you start interpreting them to make sense, there's going to be a disagreement between people, and no answer you can be 100% sure of." Sometimes that can go to far (IMO) and cause things not to work that really, really look like they should.

But, ultimately, the rules of 40k work. In friendly games, people tend to allow RAI interpretations that allow abilities to work. And, in tourneys, a judge usually does what a Judge (courtroom style) does, and interprets the rules that aren't 100% clear so that they make sense.

Gwar! wrote:I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

Can't wait to see how your FAQ pans out with how hilariously bad this codex is (not that its bad, its just the wording on alot of things is rather poorly thought out)

Also, Bjorn has an invunlerable save, so he's your precident.
Also, Will be fun to see if grey knights can still bypass them and become the anti-DE army with tons of stormbolters to mow down 5/6 infantry, and invuln-ignoring weapons.

There's a difference between rules lawyering some things that are open to interpretation, and rules lawyering something Games Workshop clearly meant to give to something.

Yea, the author would really write "5++ save" under the wargear entry, and actually mean "nothing".

Same with the flamestorm cannon. "Derp derp you know RAW you can't fire that right"? Yea, because the Codex author put the flamestorm cannon in as an April Fools joke guys; it's not actually a real weapon that's meant to work.

If someone called that on me and was serious, I'd pack up and leave. What they're saying is "RAW it doesn't work", but what they really mean is "I matter more than GW, the people who actually made the game, and wrote the rules".

Magnalon wrote:There's a difference between rules lawyering some things that are open to interpretation, and rules lawyering something Games Workshop clearly meant to give to something.

Yea, the author would really write "5++ save" under the wargear entry, and actually mean "nothing".

If someone called that on me and was serious, I'd pack up and leave.

Which tells us a lot more about your maturity than your opponents, to be honest.

So you're telling me by gloating, and saying "you're doing me a favor" for a rule Games Workshop obviously meant to be "5+ obscure cover save", you're the bigger man?

I don't play against people like that. It's an uphill battle the entire game trying to just win via rules lawyering. It's a meta-game on top of a game that I like to play for fun. I don't have to enjoy the meta-game to enjoy 40K.

It's a personal preference of mine, and a call that I personally make. I'd just concede the game, say "you win, good game", and move on. What's not mature is sitting there arguing back and forth for hours just to get through one shooting phase.

As long as I don't make a big deal about it, I don't see how I'm not being mature in the slightest. I'm choosing not to play against someone with bad sportsmanship.

Magnalon wrote:So you're telling me by gloating, and saying "you're doing me a favor" for a rule Games Workshop obviously meant to be "5+ obscure cover save", you're the bigger man?

I don't play against people like that. It's an uphill battle the entire game trying to just win via rules lawyering. It's a meta-game on top of a game that I like to play for fun. I don't have to enjoy the meta-game to enjoy 40K.

It's a personal preference of mine, and a call that I personally make. I'd just concede the game, say "you win, good game", and move on. What's not mature is sitting there arguing back and forth for hours just for one movement phase.

I am not gloating at all. I am saying "Strictly speaking, this rule does not work. I have no idea what GW intended because I didn't write the damn thing."

How we go from there depends on your reaction. If you start whining like a child (as it seems you would), you bet your ass I'll make you play RaW. If you go "Oh, Derp Derp GW Derp would you like to house rule it?" I would day yes.

If you're talking about a Tourney - the TO can make whatever call he wants - it's his tourney.

But if we were playing a friendly game in a local store, and I spent the points for the 5++ invunerable; if you smirked and said "you know you just wasted your points right?", that's just awful.

Also I never stated I would whine in the slightest. If you see my post above, you'd see that I'd obviously try to calmly ask "are you serious?", and if they were to cross their arms and go "No! You don't get it!", then I'd choose to calmly pack up my things, say good game, and walk away.

Of course I'd try to reason with them.

Magnalon wrote:If you're talking about a Tourney - the TO can make whatever call he wants - it's his tourney.

But if we were playing a friendly game in a local store, and I spent the points for the 5++ invunerable; if you smirked and said "you know you just wasted your points right?", that's just awful.

Again with the strawman. No-one is going to gloat and go "Haha you are stupid for wasting points!" No, I am going to point out, exactly as I said before, that it technically doesn't work, and leave it at that.

Your reaction will dictate mine.

So it seems we had a misunderstanding then (albeit with you calling me out personally first).

Of course I'd try to reason in a calm manner.

I've just played against a few of those people before when I first started playing, and it's not fun in the slightest. When every single action you take is under a magnifying glass, and you're always wrong apparently, it completely takes the fun out of the game.

Grakmar wrote:

puma713 wrote:
I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"

Well, there is a bit of a difference here. We're not actually playing 40k currently, and no one is actually trying to use these "exploits" in a game against you. I mean, how many of us have actually played a real life game where someone pulls some of these RAW loopholes on you?

And that's my point. If you're not going to play it that way, then why argue it? If you're arguing it, it stands to reason that you'd play it that way - otherwise, you're simply playing Devil's Advocate, not "Making the Call". When people ask what to do in a situation, they're not asking a quesiton about an arbitrary situation - they're generally asking because they want to know how to play. And when someone tells them something that is pure RAW, but logically absurd, that person is going to go into a game thinking that they can do something that another player is going to call them out on.

Grakmar wrote:
But, ultimately, the rules of 40k work. In friendly games, people tend to allow RAI interpretations that allow abilities to work. And, in tourneys, a judge usually does what a Judge (courtroom style) does, and interprets the rules that aren't 100% clear so that they make sense.

True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, the Errata is changes to the rules, so they are RaW. The FAQs are just House Rules (by their own admission) so are neither RaW or RaI, especially considering the authors do not write them (*coughcough*).

What was your point again?

So does anyone actually play in this pure RAW manner or is it just pointless theory?

*makes flickerfield save*

DE player "Yes!"

RAW player "Sorry bro, No."

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, the Errata is changes to the rules, so they are RaW. The FAQs are just House Rules (by their own admission) so are neither RaW or RaI, especially considering the authors do not write them (*coughcough*).

What was your point again?

My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

@puma713: What about players that try to exploit RAI to gain an advantage? People who like to say that their Dark Angels get 3++ storm shields, or that Eldrad should gain a bonus attack when using his Witchblade, because "obviously he should get it," or that (pre FAQ) Deff Rollas shouldn't be used as a ramming weapon since "that's clearly not what was intended."

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of where "RAI" (to use the term loosely) makes sense, such as Bjorn's save, etc, and also plenty of examples where house ruling poor GW oversights does not unfairly rebalance the game.

However, when some competitive jerk tries to say that some rule was "intended" to work a certain way, just to gain an advantage over me, I'd say that's just as bad as any RAW rules lawyer. It goes both ways. The problem is that it's much harder to argue with someone who's rules claims are based on an arbitrary notion of "intended."

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

except the tyranid one XD

@puma713: What about players that try to exploit RAI to gain an advantage? People who like to say that their Dark Angels get 3++ storm shields, or that Eldrad should gain a bonus attack when using his Witchblade, because "obviously he should get it," or that (pre FAQ) Deff Rollas shouldn't be used as a ramming weapon since "that's clearly not what was intended."

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of where "RAI" (to use the term loosely) makes sense, such as Bjorn's save, etc, and also plenty of examples where house ruling poor GW oversights does not unfairly rebalance the game.

However, when some competitive jerk tries to say that some rule was "intended" to work a certain way, just to gain an advantage over me, I'd say that's just as bad as any RAW rules lawyer. It goes both ways. The problem is that it's much harder to argue with someone who's rules claims are based on an arbitrary notion of "intended."

Intent is tough to prove. Obviously, RAW should be the first option. In cases where RAW is unclear then players have to come to an agreement. I agree to use the GW FAQ's. Anything not covered here has to be though out. People just need to be reasonable.

Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording. Same with vehicles with hull mounted flamers. The intent was obviously not for them to be a trap for people who don't know better. They are supposed to work. A rules oversight should not stop any reasonable person from letting them work.

In cases like the "falling back from a failed morale check in a vehicle" where there are no rules, just be reasonable. To say "oh there in nothing that lets them fall back so they die" is just over the top. It's just a game for fun. Albeit a poorly written game that needs better customer service when it comes to fixing holes in their product. Nevertheless, play with the intent of fun. I'm a competitive person who loves to win. Despite this I would never feel good about a win that I claimed because I stopped some guy I was playing from using his 5++ saves he paid for, or not letting them fire a vehicle flamer. How would anyone feel good about doing that? What's the point?

The problem I see with strictly RaW players is that rationality is generally left out in favor of exact wording.

It does seem that the Dark-Eldar's vehicles will not benefit from a 5 up invul going strictly off of RaW, but if we apply logic to this matter, why would a vehicle be given a constant save if it did nothing?

Clearly, it is meant to do something, give the vehicle a 5 up save from whatever hits it. Now I must ask those really fighting over this, how hard of a concept is this to understand?

Brother-Thunder wrote:why would a vehicle be given a constant save if it did nothing?

Lilith(Hormagaunts/etc.) has BS9 and no ranged attacks.
Raveners have Acute Senses.
Monoliths have a rule that lets them fire weapons while moving.

I could go on, but there is a multi-page thread covering rules that make little or no sense as written.

Saying that people who prefer to use the rules in their rule books are missing the point, is missing the point.

If GW was really as blindly ignoring what is written in favor of biased arbitrary assertions, they would explain themselves so those assertions are not so biased and arbitrary.

Instead they publish hundreds of pages for people to. . .ignore?
. . .use as a spring board for their own system?
. . .kill trees?
. . .read the rules for the game they make?

im confused....how is it that raw takes away a vehicles 5++ invun save when the dex says it gets a 5++ invun?? pay the points = invun save. plain and simple.... unless there is some rule in the brb stating vehicles cant have invuns. but then dosent 'dex trump brb anyway?

Sure, Lilith might have BS9, but that might be for a "Ballistic Skill Test" from some psychic power that's yet to be made. Ghazkull has an initiative value higher than 1 for the purposes of JOWW initiative tests, but he still always strikes at Initiative 1.

That stuff doesn't *hurt* anything. What's clear is how flickerfield was put in as it's own rightful wargear entry, and clearly is meant to do *something*.

Whether that something is a 5++ invunerable that works against melee, or a 5++ obscured vehicle save is unknown, but common sense would tell you that it would mean *something*.

Magnalon wrote:Ghazkull has an initiative value higher than 1 for the purposes of JOWW initiative tests, but he still always strikes at Initiative 1.

Actually, in 4th, you could choose to not use the Power Fist, so it made sense.

But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

Magnalon wrote:But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

RaW, it does make sense. He has I4. That means when he Sweeps or Takes an initiative check, he uses I4.

What about Normal Terminators? They always have a Power Fist. They still have I4. Is this nonsensical RaW? No, because they use their Initiative for other things.

Magnalon wrote:That stuff doesn't *hurt* anything. What's clear is how flickerfield was put in as it's own rightful wargear entry, and clearly is meant to do *something*..

Which is true about many other listings as well.

Admittedly there is a much better case to be made for such a new codex (as opposed to the monoliths rule that really does not do *something*).

I do not (generally) play vehicle invuln saves as worthless, but they do (generally) read that way.

Saves apply to wounds, unless the special rule says otherwise--which iirc Bjorn's does. (I cannot locate that book to check atm. rarrr)
The annoying part is that the people writing the rules apparently know this, as they have written clear versions before.
Using rules with different words makes it hard to assert that the rules are the same.

olympia wrote:

puma713 wrote:
True. And I'm not sure that I've ever had a judge rule in favor of absurd RAW vs. logical RAI.

GW's own errata and FAQs consistently support RAI over RAW as well.

Actually, there's no "consistently" about it. GW's FAQ answers are generally equal parts of RAW, RAI/changes and answering questions about stuff that was perfectly clear to begin with. If anything they lean slightly more to the RAW side usually.

Gwar! wrote:

Magnalon wrote:But it hasn't been errated, so RAW in 5th, it doesn't make sense.

RaW, it does make sense. He has I4. That means when he Sweeps or Takes an initiative check, he uses I4.

What about Normal Terminators? They always have a Power Fist. They still have I4. Is this nonsensical RaW? No, because they use their Initiative for other things.

By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass.

Also I've yet to meet a raw player who'd find a clever loophole(That wasn't from DD), kindly point it out on the table when it came into play, then wave it off as "Oh GW are so silly, so how many orks do you kill with that hull-mounted flamer?"

It's usually just trolling irl, and usually it's answered by me laughing as them then coughing up blood after the convulsions become violent as I fathom how sad a person one must be to hold that as a point of pride. That or I say "Neat." Followed by a glassy stare as I focus on something more interesting, like the color of the walls, ceilings, or various other socially polite things I can stare at behind them while mimicing the sentiment that I am listening to the golden gate bridge troll.

If you are capable of managing that impossible feat of being the bare minimum of a human being while explaining with a mirthful air that according to the rules flamers cant fire over cars, then you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.(And a shark, presumably)

And he supplied a bad example of extraneous statistics and rules.One might be something like, Fabius Biles entire statline as it's never seen on the field of play.

As for the dark eldar, they were given an invul save so GK can rape the evil clean out of them

LordWaffles wrote:By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass

Errm... What?

Ghazgul can sweeping advance...

Well, he can SA as he doesnt have a rule preventing it...

But the point is this ISNT real life. This is an out of game place to discuss rules. Despite pumas assertion it is worth arguing to find what the rules ACTUALLY say, so you know when you are playing houserules. Unfortunatley puma doesnt seem to understand the value of knowing the actual rules, namely it helps you when playing outside of your group - those unconscious houserules you play within a group that can cause confusion between different groups.

Gwar! wrote:

LordWaffles wrote:By "sweep" you mean "Do nothing" right? He's a fatass

Errm... What?

Ghazgul can sweeping advance...

Woah this one is totally on me, I keep forgetting Phil Kelly wrote the codex and thus basic logic should be followed(By us, not him)

IE) Ghazghull is a terminator equivalent, only shittier due to SaP. Somehow this makes him faster at chasing people then regular, well-built terminators. Lolwat.

Ah. Always good to come to the boards and see Gwar question someones maturity. Coming from the man who squirms whenever he does get proven wrong and starts waxing philosophical about how "one can never be proven wrong, they can just be proven not right". Good stuff.

I really missed being on Dakkadakka and it's posts like the one above that make me glad I came back

Doomenbot - care to provide a quote or 3 to back up that OT assertion?

Not really. I have seen it multiple times, but this isn't a courtroom. I know its true, and even were I to provide quotes, what does that accomplish exactly? You can choose to believe it or not, doesn't make any difference to me.

I simply made the assertion because I found his hostility and personal attack uncalled for, and humorous in light of the aforementioned fact.

If you found it uncalled for, then the mod alert button is there for a reason.

Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you found it uncalled for, then the mod alert button is there for a reason.

Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

Reporting someone with nearly 20,000 posts:
"Oh lawdy"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unfortunatley puma doesnt seem to understand the value of knowing the actual rules

lol

You dont, however. You stated that it is pointless understanding the rules unless you actually play that way. Which is showing you DONT value the idea of knowing the full rules. Not a personal attack at all.

Lordwaffles - yes, why not? Number of posts doesnt mean anything than, like me, he gets bored easily

nosferatu1001 wrote:You dont, however. You stated that it is pointless understanding the rules unless you actually play that way. Which is showing you DONT value the idea of knowing the full rules. Not a personal attack at all.

That's not true. Knowing the rules and "playing by certain rules" are not the same thing. I can know that it is legal to mount Ko'sarro Khan in a Land Raider and still not do it. And, therefore, not argue about it because I would never play it that way to begin with. There's a vast difference of arguing what people would play and why they do. However, when RAW purists such as yourself and Gwar! post in the YMDC forums, it's never stamped with a "but this isn't how people play" disclaimer. It's straight RAW. So, the innocent person that is new to YMDC asks how you play something and the RAW purists say, "Nope, Bjorn doesn't get a save." then that person goes to the table, faces Bjorn and feels slighted when the judge rules against him.

Ignorance is bliss, in this case. If you're not privy to asking "Why doesn't Bjorn get a save?" then it'll never come up in a game and everyone is happy. However, as soon as someone reads, "Well, vehicles don't take wounds so. . yadda yadda yadda," suddenly that person is confused about a rule that shouldn't have been confusing in the first place. Same thing with flickerfields. You bought flickerfields? Great! You get a 5+ invulnerable save. Who cares why it doesn't work. The point is it does when it comes to game time. You can sit here and debate it all day long, but are you going to deny your opponent's their flickerfield that they bought? I doubt it.

And if you're not, then you're sitting in YMDC saying that denying them the save is the correct way to play it, but you don't play it that way. Well, who cares what the "correct" way to play it is, if no one plays it that way? You just want them to know that, in the back of their mind, they're cheating? Thank you, oh Moral Paragon. Or that they shouldn't apply logic because everyone's interpretation could be different than the person's next to him?

The value of knowing the rules and the value of knowing RAW vs. RAI is different. Someone won't stop applying logic to a ruleset until you show them where they can stop applying it. And, at that point, they can't unlearn what you've taught them.

Two problems with your statement nosferatu.

1. My assertion is not unfounded. I have not given evidence for it here. That simply means it has not been proven right here in this thread. The fact of the matter is that it did happen. Again, this isn't a courtroom, Gwar isn't on trial, I am not a lawyer, and there is no judge. Whether you choose to believe me or think that I am bitter over some trivial matter and making it up really doesn't make a lick of difference to me. Nor does it make a difference to how true the statement actually is.

2. I did not make the statement for some sort of vague notion of internet justice. Making a mod alert would have no purpose, and I am a strong proponent of free speech. If Gwar wants to be make a personal attack on someone because they choose not to play a game intended for fun when they believe their opponent is attempting to make it less fun on a technicality, he has that right to. I didn't report Gwar for it, I don't think it would make any difference if I did, and even if I did think it would make a difference I wouldn't.

All that doesn't mean I have to sit here and nod my head and think to myself what a great guy he is attempting to call someone out for immaturity when I myself have witnessed his immaturity first hand.

All that being said, I believe we are well on our way to a mod locking and perhaps a stern slap on the wrist yes?

Well... Now there's a vehicle that can make a save against a destroyer weapon.....


Survivability in apoc

Land raider<DE vehicles>

That's not true. Knowing the rules and "playing by certain rules" are not the same thing. I can know that it is legal to mount Ko'sarro Khan in a Land Raider and still not do it. And, therefore, not argue about it because I would never play it that way to begin with. There's a vast difference of arguing what people would play and why they do. However, when RAW purists such as yourself and Gwar! post in the YMDC forums, it's never stamped with a "but this isn't how people play" disclaimer. It's straight RAW. So, the innocent person that is new to YMDC asks how you play something and the RAW purists say, "Nope, Bjorn doesn't get a save." then that person goes to the table, faces Bjorn and feels slighted when the judge rules against him.

Ignorance is bliss, in this case. If you're not privy to asking "Why doesn't Bjorn get a save?" then it'll never come up in a game and everyone is happy. However, as soon as someone reads, "Well, vehicles don't take wounds so. . yadda yadda yadda," suddenly that person is confused about a rule that shouldn't have been confusing in the first place. Same thing with flickerfields. You bought flickerfields? Great! You get a 5+ invulnerable save. Who cares why it doesn't work. The point is it does when it comes to game time. You can sit here and debate it all day long, but are you going to deny your opponent's their flickerfield that they bought? I doubt it.

And if you're not, then you're sitting in YMDC saying that denying them the save is the correct way to play it, but you don't play it that way. Well, who cares what the "correct" way to play it is, if no one plays it that way? You just want them to know that, in the back of their mind, they're cheating? Thank you, oh Moral Paragon. Or that they shouldn't apply logic because everyone's interpretation could be different than the person's next to him?

The value of knowing the rules and the value of knowing RAW vs. RAI is different. Someone won't stop applying logic to a ruleset until you show them where they can stop applying it. And, at that point, they can't unlearn what you've taught them.

+1

Especially the part about being able to put Khan on bike in a LR. People need to use some sense. There was a thread recently about how Njal's terminator armor doesn't have the terminator armor rules so he can go in a rhino. Come on people.

I understand providing the RAW answer is very interesting to talk about, but as it's been said, the hardcore RAW bunch aren't bringing it up to have a laugh or two. They are bringing it up to advocate playing that way. To go into a pickup game with a stranger and say "Oh RAW you can't take those saves on your Raiders, but I'll let you house rule it cause I'm so nice" isn't a way to make friends. It rubs people the wrong way and the intent is someone trying to prop them self up. Again, what's the real point of acting that way? I understand that people do, but if some guy tried to put terminator Njal in a rhino I'd play the game out and probably never want to play them again.

Apply common sense where RAW fails.

A vehicle with a flicker Field gets a 5+ invunerable save

From the codex.

Am i missing something here? Is the argument really that you need to WOUND to take a save? Really? the 5+ would save the vehicle from any damaging attack, be it a missle or powerfist. the word invunerable means it even works against flamers, and as someone stated, "D" weapons in apocalypse! (good catch there!)

If people want to say "It does nothing because a vehicle cannot be wounded", let them.
i don't know anyone jerky enough to pull that...
every tournament i go to would not try to pull that...
And if somehow i got paired against someone who tried, i would hope the player was a girl, because in the rulebook, when it states your opponent, it say "Him", so she is not allowed to play. OBVIOUSLY, we need to play by RAW, so no women allowed!
(MIGHT have been last edition, i will have to check...)

Sorry, but i will let women play.. (they are nicer to look at across the table), and RAW be da*ned!
-Anglacon

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

Yes, they do.
Normally, a saving throw is taken against a wound. Passing the save lets you ignore that wound.
Bjorn's Ward rule lets you take an invulnerable save against a glancing or penetrating hit instead. So you use the same mechanics as you would for any other saving throw, substituting 'glancing or penetrating hit' for 'wound'...

That really is the argument here Anglacon.

We peons are so simple, we attempt to use that which is known to be useless the world over, sometimes referred to as "common sense". Everybody knows that 38,000 years hence, when a chaos space marine fires a missile launcher at a Raider with Flickerfield, he will accompany it with bellowing "YOU KNOW BY RAW THAT INVULNERABLE SAVE DOES NOTHING FOR YOU RIGHT?". After which, the dark eldar pilot will reply with "oh noooooo" and explode in a fiery ball of flames.

JGrand wrote:
To go into a pickup game with a stranger and say "Oh RAW you can't take those saves on your Raiders, but I'll let you house rule it cause I'm so nice" isn't a way to make friends. It rubs people the wrong way and the intent is someone trying to prop them self up. Again, what's the real point of acting that way?

Apply common sense where RAW fails.

This is the crux of my initial post.

Technically right or not, you're not making the game enjoyable in the slightest by doing something like this, and the vast majority of human beings are not going to be happy with you acting like that. If you go to a friendly local hobby store, odds are you are either going to be "that guy", or one of a group of "two guys who are 'that guy'".

How about we drop the RAW vs Actually Playing the Game discussion as it's been done to death elsewhere, and return to the topic, mkay?

The topic *is* RAW vs. RAI ;D

RAI, if it's really a 5++, and not a 5+ obscured save, then you get it for melee, even - to add to the discussion of how awesome this wargear piece is.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

Yes, they do.
Normally, a saving throw is taken against a wound. Passing the save lets you ignore that wound.
Bjorn's Ward rule lets you take an invulnerable save against a glancing or penetrating hit instead. So you use the same mechanics as you would for any other saving throw, substituting 'glancing or penetrating hit' for 'wound'...

I find it positively insane how often the "Bjorn" rule problem is quoted, when there is no problem. Thank you insaniak for consistently pointing out to people that the "Bjorn" issue is non-existant.

I really don't understand how some people who I've seen you correct on this time and again can still refer to it in the same way.

this still going on? lol
thought everyone knew the answer to this already...

trolling aside, c'mon ladies and gents, we all know how we will play the rule on the TT, even the RAW crowd will play it the same way.. which is.. it gets the save.
you can all argue on but t he point is, despite what is said here, it will get the 5++

Dracos wrote:I really don't understand how some people who I've seen you correct on this time and again can still refer to it in the same way.

Here you go, I explained part of that on the previous page.

kirsanth wrote:The annoying part is that the people writing the rules apparently know this, as they have written clear versions before.
Using rules with different words makes it hard to assert that the rules are the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lordwaffles - yes, why not? Number of posts doesnt mean anything than, like me, he gets bored easily

With post count comes recognition, with recognition in hand you can slowly build a career of clout with other people on the board. So long as Rawr has good standing with the mods, and judging from his post count and general non-dickish attitudes(From what I've seen), I'm pretty sure he's goddamn Air Force One level bullet proof.

Very no.

Formosa wrote:even the RAW crowd will play it the same way.. which is.. it gets the save.

I think we all know the RAW crowd well enough to know they won't, that's why people are getting heated over it.

They can say they will online, but if it's not even going to affect the vast majority of games in that case then why even bring it up? If you know how it's supposed to work then why even make a point that the rules aren't written clearly enough to begin with, if you weren't going to try and bring it up during a game and hold people to it? Is it just so everyone can say "you're right"? lol

Well okay, you're right. We're never going to play it that way because we clearly know that's not what GW meant, but you're still right. Enjoy your cookie.

Actually, you have NO idea how the "RAW" crowd will play, as you havent played them *in real life*

Stop conflating board with real life. It isnt. Thats the GREAT thing about boards - you can discuss those areas that seem obvious to people (that ramming is a type of tank shock) but are not obvious to others.

Which brings me onto Puma: in this case the rules are clear, but still some people dont understand them. In other cases that understanding is even less broad. Discussing what you consider to be stupid topics has merit, despite your claims otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which brings me onto Puma: in this case the rules are clear, but still some people dont understand them. In other cases that understanding is even less broad. Discussing what you consider to be stupid topics has merit, despite your claims otherwise.

Did I say stupid? What I said was in those "other cases" in which understanding is less broad, the RAW crowd doesn't give a clear answer. They give a RAW answer, no matter how widely accepted it is. And, while you may think a RAW answer is as clear as it gets, the constant RAI vs. RAW threads should prove otherwise.

That and my post was a rebuttal to your assuming I place no value on the importance of knowing the rules (or something to that effect), which isn't true. Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules "should" be played (but still aren't - ie., RAW fun thread), is less so and simply clutters the issue.

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

Isnt' there a precedent that specific rules (codex) always overrites the general rules (rulebook)? If that were the case, wouldn't the 5+ invulnerable save work.

And fyi, if I was playing a game with you, and you pulled that, I'd make sure to never play you again. I don't play 40k to nit-pick sentence structure and correct usage of pronouns in the rules.

If the damned wargear says it gives the vehicle a 5+ save against glancing and penetrating hits, then it gets the damn save.

Vehicles get cover saves don't they? Doesn't passing a cover save ignore the glancing/penetrating hit? Why wouldn't an invulnerable save fuction in the same way.?

All you're doing is trying to look "intelligent" by making snide points about loopholes in writing. In the end, you look like a jerk.

envy - well, specific DOES override general. However there is no specific rule stating that you can take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits in the same way as wounds. So you HAVE a 5++, but can only USE it against Wounds, as that is all you have been given permission for.

Vehicles get cover saves that are useful by being obscured (e.g. KFF) - because the rules on page 62 say how they work against hits.

RAI is a hideous term. Even less consistent than peoples attempts at reading the rules that are written. Hence the deffrolla issues - too much attempt at RAI

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules should be played. . .is less so and simply clutters the issue.

It seems to read that you are saying the rules are very important but the way people should apply them is clutter.

Did I mis-read that?

Editing to add:
Sorry for adding to the off-topic, undeserved derailment--that part confused me.

Except that lo and behold, the errata turned RAI into RAW in just the way that most common sense people used it.

One of the real problems is that people like to try and stealth RAI and claim it as RAW. I have actually seen Gwar comment on this very phenomenon in the INAT faqs.

At least with RAI people, they are open about saying that they believe this is how the rule intended. Often times the RAW fundamentalists as they have been called just attempt to paper over their RAI and pass it off as RAW in unclear situations. This doesn't apply to all people who like to argue RAW, nor does it apply to that subset that does all the time. But it does happen, and thats where a great deal of the frustration comes from.

ZepherZealot257 wrote:I agree with Sidstyler, GW must know there own rules (or so reason would have us believe!)

Sure they do............ So they gave the DE Baron the same ability to add +1 to the roll for deployment zone that they gave SW Bjorn, and then had to FAQ the puppy ability. 'Oh wait, we meant the roll to go first because we've already pointed out in the FAQs that there is no such thing in standard rulebook scenarios as a roll for deployment zone'. So yeah, sure they do.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules should be played. . .is less so and simply clutters the issue.

It seems to read that you are saying the rules are very important but the way people should apply them is clutter.

Did I mis-read that?

Editing to add:
Sorry for adding to the off-topic, undeserved derailment--that part confused me.

Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules "should" be played (but still aren't - ie., RAW fun thread), is less so and simply clutters the issue.

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. Several things are lost in transition and they dont have time to look at the specific wording of it all. This is also why some people have merit when they use RAI since, due to deadlines, the writers of the individual codex has to use whatever wording that sounds about right, and hope that nitpickers wont notice the difference (which, of course they do, since a few people seem to make it their sole purpose in life to point out the flaws of others without consideration). There is also the issue of layout. If they did reprint the exact way they wanted you to use the rule in there with no other way of interpreting it, it could result in a lone word or even a whole sentence falling on a separate page, and a whole blank page with a lone sentence is not a good thing. They could also exceed the page count and possibly make playing the game even harder as the players now have to go through the large block of text just to find the point they are refering to. This is mainly why Disclaimers are so goddamn long and why no one likes to read them (except when you're trying to sue someone or prove your innocence, but who likes courtroom antics in a game?).

puma713 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

I left that out on purpose as hyperbole neither helps nor adds anything.
Telling someone what the rules state is closer to telling them how to play than telling them what you think the rules
should be stating.

kirsanth wrote:

puma713 wrote:Yeah, I noticed that it read weird and so I edited my post. You also left out a bit of context:

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

I left that out on purpose as hyperbole neither helps nor adds anything.
Telling someone what the rules state is closer to telling them how to play than telling them what you think the rules
should be stating.

First, what part of my post is hyperbole? I don't think I exaggerated on anything. . .

Secondly, you're making a gross overgeneralization. You're suggesting I simply state the way I think it should be played and that's that, when that is incorrect. I take my experiences, the tournaments that I go to, documents like the GW FAQs and the INAT, the different playerbases I come in contact with and discussion here and elsewhere and then form an opinion not only on what the rule does, but how it should be played based on how it is being played. Not simply me stating, "This is what I think!"

The RAW point-of-view doesn't even do you that favor. It doesn't even give you a glimpse into how it is being played, rather exactly what the rulebook says and how a handful of people think it should be played based on a sacrosanct text to which logic shouldn't be applied. Perhaps instead of simply reading off the rulebook and saying, "There! I've done it! Thank me." You should have a discussion with the person and come up with a solution that satisfies their question. Giving your opinion and the opinion of people you've played with is much more valuable, imo, than simply reciting the text and telling them they're wrong (even if they are).

Of course, YMMV.

@the whole issue;
Nah, it's pointing out that after ten years of the old DE codex and over two years of 5th, Games workshop chooses not to implement the strategies needed to produce coherent documents.
Why they do this and how they manage to magle the apparently complex task of writing a book when they have teams of people assigned to task, is up for debate, if we should buy product off a company with this ethos towards the market, is up for debate, that GW "do not write rules good, like", isn't.

puma713 wrote:First, what part of my post is hyperbole? I don't think I exaggerated on anything. . .

I was refering to the part I quoted:

puma713 wrote: not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

That read to me as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.” Apologies if I mistook that.

puma713 wrote:I take my experiences, the tournaments that I go to, documents like the GW FAQs and the INAT, the different playerbases I come in contact with and discussion here and elsewhere and then form an opinion not only on what the rule does

This is generally refered to as learning, and I daresay most folks do that.

puma713 wrote:The RAW point-of-view doesn't even do you that favor. It doesn't even give you a glimpse into how it is being played, rather exactly what the rulebook says and how a handful of people think it should be played based on a sacrosanct text to which logic shouldn't be applied

Emphasis mine--that part applies equally to RAI "rulings".

Again though, to reach for the topic at hand. . .knowing what the rules actually state is the only place to start any kind of discussion regarding the rules. Telling people "we play xxxx" does not help if people near you use house rules because you think the rules as written are incorrect, if people near you simply mis-read rules, or if folks are wanting to know why something that has been covered in one FAQ is not covered in another--despite the text in each being identical, which happens.

The invuln saves for vehicles were clarified in Bjorn's text. For other vehicles to lack that clarification is. . .awkward at best.

As for the written rules not giving a glimpse into how the game is played. . .I am not sure whether that was another exageration or you really think folks cannot figure how to play a game by utilizing its rules.

Wow this one has gone to the dogs. We have the raw purists claiming moral high ground while those who advocate rai only want to play fun games using the rules as intended. Bjorn has been thrown under the bus yet again to obfuscate the issue at hand - very poor form indeed. I think we all know that the flickerfield is intended to prove a save versus shooting attacks. Why else would it be there? Does anyone honestly think GW will FAQ or Errata the flicker field such that it doesn't work? I mean seriously please get a life and stop with the reading too much into the rules. It may pain you but you'll be a lot better for it.

Despite the spite, if you actually read my posts my pain has more to do with people discount what the game designers wrote than discounting fun.

Assuming anyone other than game designer's know the intention of game designers takes. . .hubris.
To accuse people that follow the rules of claiming MORALS as the basis is ignorance.

The fact that they may need to errata Flickerfield is exactly the point. The same rules have been written clearing WITHOUT errata before--and yet GW did NOT duplicate those rules.
Yet folks claim the rules are intended to be duplicate.

Stop assuming so much of the rules and read them. It may pain you but you'll be a lot better for it.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.



Seems pretty simple to me. Whether you're shooting at it with a weapon or psychic power or punching and kicking it in close combat it get's a 5+ save against those attacks unless the weapon or psychic power you happen to be attacking with ignores invulnerable saves.


In the case of the mega dread, that seems more than fair. It's a large model and the chance of it getting cover are pretty slim (other than from a kff).

I don't wish to challenge arguments of anybody here; I'm much too new to the game to be either an authority on the rules or to contend on the RAW/RAI debate. Nor do I wish to defend Gwar! untowardly, seeing as I've only been reading his posts for the last few weeks.

However, from what I've gleamed in his august judgements, where The Rules As Written contradict (perhaps through typo) The Rules AS Intended (e.g., vehicles not having "wounds" to be saved against) one must rely on a House Rule; that that House Rule may change from place to place; and be ready to defend yourself against challenges in tournaments, which will presumably have an equavalent set of House Rules.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. ...

with no editorial oversight and control.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of the problems are instantly obvious to the most cursory inspection.

Kilkrazy wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This is the kind of problem when you have multiple writers working in a large corporation. ...

with no editorial oversight and control.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of the problems are instantly obvious to the most cursory inspection.

I would love to know how work and responsibilities flow at Games Workshop. Know that lawyers proofread pretty close across a lot of material, and when they write they tend to use templates, etc. Games Workshop doesn't really generate all that much in terms of words written, rules made.

Assuming they aren't just plain moronic -- and I don't, seeing as they must have corporate guidelines, etc. -- I do wonder whether they make mistakes purposefully to keep the game alive in game places and on forums such as these. What I'm saying is, Could all this oversight and mishmash actually be a market strategy?

I sincerely doubt that its a marketing strategy. You have to make a rather heroic leap that they are pretending to be morons where its much easier (and more likely) that they just make mistakes and have learned to say "This is just a game, and I don't care if some people rules lawyer over it or not."

It isn't a marketing strategy, it is just amateurism.

The whole background of GW was amateur from the earliest days. That was a good thing in many ways, because it led to a lot of creativity and doing stuff because it would be fun, not because it would be positive on the bottom line. Wargames isn't the kind of business you go into to make reliable profits.

It has changed a lot, of course, in other areas of the business.

It isn't even a problem now to employ designers who aren't editors or technical writers. There aren't any specific qualifications for being a rule designer.

The mistake is not adding a small technical writing team to edit what comes out of the studio. It would only need a couple of people. The company produces rules and codexes at about the rate of one every two months, which is about as much effort as publishing WD. Everything is done using standard layout templates, and much of the stuff in each book is recycled from the one before.

olympia wrote:My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

I disagree entirely. I find the RAW fundamentalists to be quite useful: it helps to know when there is potentially going to be an argument before it happens. Because of Gwars opinion (which, incidentally, I find correct) I know that if I am a DE player, and I have this wargear, as soon as I put down my bag, I had better discuss this with my opponent right up front - that GW wrote something in the Codex which as-written makes no sense, and that this is how I'd like to play it. The great part here, is no matter what then happens, it's a win for you!

A.) no reasonable opponent will say say you can't take the save, so fight averted. Win.

B.) If they argue that we're playing RAW that strictly, then you know before even putting a mini on the table that you're going to spend more time arguing then playing, and can just play with someone else without even unzipping the bag. Win!

I think the problem is that you're assuming that Gwar endorses the positions he espouses. I take them as dispassionate judgements, and they are a good way to defuse landmines before the game starts.

so wait... the brb says nothing about vehicles taking invun saves for hits... however, dreadnoughts in CC counts 'each roll on the damage table as wounds for purpose of close combat results"

why would this same theory not apply to to other vehicles? a "roll on the damage result (or a glance/pen hit)" is the same or equal to for all intents a "wound".

since nothing in the brb mentions vehicles and invun saves either way, specific 'dex rules apply, and allow the 5++. its treated as an invun, meaning they get the save regardless, and thats that.

now to keep this in retrospect, a 5+ invun is hardley a sure bet. also, if it was meant to be an "obscured save" then it would be a 4+ save, or simply "counts as obscured", or "provides cover" etc. clearly the dex wanted to provide an invun save to the vehicle, but made it worse or harder to make then the standard obscured/cover save.

Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.

Now I'm stupid, someone help me here, what's an attack? Is that like a hit.. or like.. something that could potentially damage or destroy the model on the receiving end..

Sarcasm aside it seems pretty clear to me, the mega dread is so badass that it doesn't have to care about cover because it always get an invul against attacks... unless those attacks are from a psycannon or warscyth or any other weapon or power that ignore invul saves....

Yes, and SAVES save against wounds, as defined in the rules on pages 21/22 (from memory) - so it gets a save that works against wounds against any attack. The "attack" is when you decalre you are shooting / hitting it.

Find something that states it works against penetrating hits.

Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because it is for combat resolution, and nothing else?

There is NO specific rule stating that the invulnerable save works against hits - nothing at all. Which is the point.

Ramshackle Monster: the mega-dread is a smoke-belching monstrosity, heavily plated with ablative armour and is a difficult machine to stop once it has gotten going! It has a 5+ invulnerable save against attacks.

Now I'm stupid, someone help me here, what's an attack? Is that like a hit.. or like.. something that could potentially damage or destroy the model on the receiving end..

Sarcasm aside it seems pretty clear to me, the mega dread is so badass that it doesn't have to care about cover because it always get an invul against attacks... unless those attacks are from a psycannon or warscyth or any other weapon or power that ignore invul saves....

Look at what the BRB defines as attacks as well. They are close combat. Pg vii, page 6, and a couple of others.

Yup - in theory the dread only gets an Inv against close combat, and only saves wounds....

FW sloppier at writing rules than GW main? nah

Again with the strawman. No-one is going to gloat and go "Haha you are stupid for wasting points!" No, I am going to point out, exactly as I said before, that it technically doesn't work, and leave it at that.

But people *do* gwar! - there are rectums out there that get a kick by wining by being tools. Its sad but it happens.

Also I've yet to meet a raw player who'd find a clever loophole(That wasn't from DD), kindly point it out on the table when it came into play, then wave it off as "Oh GW are so silly, so how many orks do you kill with that hull-mounted flamer?

I''ve done that - 'technically it canot fire but it's obvious that it can. go on and burn those nids'

whatever....ive made my point, and thats how my gaming group plays it, or will once the models and dex are avalable for sale. and for all those RAW purists... take a look at pg 2 of the brb. i do believe that with the rules lawyering and pissing about that rule has been broken. and thats all i have to say about that.

Ouze wrote:

olympia wrote:My point is that you and your RAW fundamentalist ilk serve a limited purpose.

I disagree entirely. I find the RAW fundamentalists to be quite useful: it helps to know when there is potentially going to be an argument before it happens.

On the flickerfield - only jerk would say to you that they don't do anything (ie not save your vehicle on 5+), or even begin discussion after you just say that its 5+ invul. save

DarthSpader wrote:whatever....ive made my point, and thats how my gaming group plays it, or will once the models and dex are avalable for sale. and for all those RAW purists... take a look at pg 2 of the brb. i do believe that with the rules lawyering and pissing about that rule has been broken. and thats all i have to say about that.

Much like the tenets of this forumhave been broken by yourself, you mean?

In my opinion, if this situation happened to me, e.g. My lascannon penetrates the raider and I discover there´s a 5++ save then that would be fine with me, common sense should prevail people! You wouldn´t walk into a store, buy something for 3.99, discover you get a 10% discount for something and say "sorry, price as written on the shelf is 3.99, I have to pay that". And to all the RAW players and indeed the RAI players also, we have to remember that this is a GAME. when you think about it this is just a game for all people to play toy soldiers. And always in games there has to be a room to breathe regarding the rules.

As far as the editorial quality of the GW games and writing staff goes vis their publications, calling them slip-shod or fraught with the perils engendered by a lack of oversight or editorial syncopation is hilarious at worst and unjust at best. 5th edition is well over two years old, and a lot of the continuity errors or rules contradictions are only coming out after hundreds of fine-tooth readings and thousands of games of 40k. The game is open-ended and has infinite variables. There's no reason to expect that, in a game with a limited rule-set, an editorial staff of people just like you and I can cover those variables with any gradient of accuracy or anticipate them when producing new editions. They can't comb every 40k forum and every WAAC gamers' blog to find out exactly how many rules are being mis-played. Even if they could, and did, that's a vast body of information that would have to be synthesized and incorporated into the already existing rules framework.

Perhaps someone might suggest, "That's their job."

To which I reply: go work in publishing and see how weekly deadlines work.

Under the circumstances, I think they do a pretty awesome job.

To me this thread is one of the classic silly ones you see here so often. Personally I doubt most of the RAW purists would have the gumption to actually tell another player that the 5++ is void, but here we have page after page of people telling us this is the way it is and even going so far as to say we are cheaters. Like I said it's silly and in reality a non issue. Let the RAW purists thump their chests here and go on about it, I doubt you will ever here it mentioned in a store or at a well run tournament.

/sarcasm

In a thread asking for implications of a rule, people are. . .complaining that folks respond with rules?

Also, regarding trying to work with weekly deadlines. . .really?! These rules are not published weekly--and there are weekly [daily!] publications with very strict publishing restrictions that have nowhere near the assinine oversights. And even those can publish 'errata' in a timely manner. No need to be an apologist because of that.

On topic:
The implications really are that they will need to FAQ something that is written clearly elsewhere.
Also, I agree it seems to be making bonus points for GKs.>