11194
Post by: Krellnus
Scott-S6 wrote: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.
They have cup holders in the 40k universe, what do they put in the cups than?
8261
Post by: Pika_power
Krellnus wrote:Scott-S6 wrote: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.
They have cup holders in the 40k universe, what do they put in the cups than?
Permissive ruleset does not give permission for anything to be put in cups. Nothing gets put in cups.
99
Post by: insaniak
Little lord Fauntleroy 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).
Games Workshop wrote:The Daemonhunters army list uses the Standard Force Organisation chart, which you'll find on page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.
From here.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
That isn't Rules though, that's some random person on some website.
This is the Silly RAW thread after all, and RaW, the PDFs don't work.
99
Post by: insaniak
Gwar! wrote:That isn't Rules though, that's some random person on some website.
Yeah, just some random website that is totally not connected with the game at all.
Ignoring it isn't silly RAW. It's just silly.
17799
Post by: Oshova
A PDF codex is just as RAW as a book one, the only bits you CAN use of there are the PDF codices and the errata (at a push), because FAQs -and in some eyes errata- are just House Rules. And so not RAW.
But PDFs still stand with the 'proper' rules =p
Now come on, back to the books to find more sillyness =D
Oshova
22704
Post by: CalasTyphon216
u guys missed one:
blood angels dex, psychic powers: The Sanguine Sword
and i quote: 'This power is used at the start of either player's Assault phase. The Librarian's close combat attacks are made at Strength 10'
Notice it doesn't say when it ends?
Therefore, logically speaking you only cast it once and it lasts for the rest of your life.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Genius
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
I'm very happy to see this still going! Any day now, I'll go through the last few pages and make changes to the big list on the front page. Fantastic! 
12134
Post by: Oscarius
Is the librarian's storm shield on the list?
I find it hilarious that you can use it against perils of the warp. 
It might not be game-breaking nor very silly though...
22704
Post by: CalasTyphon216
it isn't
34698
Post by: dswanick
Basic Rulebook @ Pg.86 wrote:
FORCE ORGANIZATION - First paragraph - "Once you have agreed to a points limit, the players will pick forces. The best way to do this is to use the full army lists in the relevant Codex book for each army, but players just starting out can use any models that they have in their collection.
Nowhere does the BRB specify that a single army must be from a single Codex, and in fact implies that the opposite is OK. The rule actually uses the plural of the word, "lists". So a force lef by Eldrad, consisting of 2 Grey Hunter squads, and supported by a Hammerhead looks to be a viable RAW force.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
"codex BOOK" disagrees with you. In addition the rules within each codex, which actually tell you how how many units are required etc tell you you may only pick from within the army book.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Agreed with nosferatu.
Lists being pluralized is rather awkward, perhaps the author looks at each entry in a codex as a list, rather then the entirety of the codex as one list. Later in that sentance "Codex book for each army" is not pluralized, indicating each player is restricted to a single codex.
14680
Post by: croggy
just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex
dunno if thats already been said
21170
Post by: Klawz
croggy wrote:just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex
dunno if thats already been said
Yes it has. But he still only counts as one person.
14680
Post by: croggy
Klawz wrote:croggy wrote:just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex
dunno if thats already been said
Yes it has. But he still only counts as one person.
sorry i am not used to this over the top RAW thing( i do like that all aliens can't draw line of sight though, go guard)
can you explain as to why he only counts as one when it clearly says - nork deddog, ogryn body guard on pg 67 of the codex and on pg 42 it also says each ogryn counts as two models for the purpose of transport capacity
so is he not an ogryn?
i dunno lol i'm confused
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.
If that's not confusing enough, just look into what other models you think are a certain type, but actually aren't 
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.
That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...
26142
Post by: HamHamLunchbox
FlingitNow wrote:
That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...
fluff is fluff,rules are rules.
just because its mentioned in the fluff doesnt make it a rule.
read space marine books/codex/short stories....a lot of fluff proofs that they are almost invincible,which they clearly are not in the game
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
FlingitNow wrote:Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.
That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...
Only Fluff states that Nork is an Ogryn; he has no rules stating he is an Ogryn, in fact not even does his name call him an Ogryn in any way, shape or form(His name is simply "Nork Deddog" in all instances).
yes, he has the "bulky" Special Rule; and the bulky Special rule tells you that ogryns take up 2 spaces. That is all well and good; he is bulky but not an ogryn, therefore he takes up 1 space in a transport.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
fluff is fluff,rules are rules.
just because its mentioned in the fluff doesnt make it a rule.
read space marine books/codex/short stories....a lot of fluff proofs that they are almost invincible,which they clearly are not in the game
Only Fluff states that Nork is an Ogryn; he has no rules stating he is an Ogryn, in fact not even does his name call him an Ogryn in any way, shape or form(His name is simply "Nork Deddog" in all instances).
yes, he has the "bulky" Special Rule; and the bulky Special rule tells you that ogryns take up 2 spaces. That is all well and good; he is bulky but not an ogryn, therefore he takes up 1 space in a transport.
2 perfect examples of "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Sorry where exactly does it say that the top of his unit entry is not rules? Please point me to the section of the codex that tells you this is not rules. Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".
I'm guessing you can't...
31781
Post by: Enginseer
If anyone has the Chaos Codex handy, could you check Lucius the Eternal?
I remember him to have special ability which works when he passes a "power armour" save. Yet, he doesn't have any regular power armour, but a special "Armour of ...", rendering his special ability useless.
Not a 100%, but could anyone check?
12157
Post by: DarkHound
No Enginseer, it is just when he passes a save. That could be his 3+ armor or his 5+ invulnerable.
31781
Post by: Enginseer
Ah, too bad. Thanks for checking though!
5873
Post by: kirsanth
FlingitNow wrote:Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".
Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!
33891
Post by: Grakmar
kirsanth wrote:FlingitNow wrote:Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".
Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!
Yeah, he "kills" them. But, that isn't a "wound" and it doesn't say to remove them from the board. So, my Eldar are all "dead", but that won't stop them from shooting you to pieces and claiming the objectives to win!
It's the Orks that you really need to worry about auto-winning.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!
He did once but there is no in-game effect to that passage of rules so why would you be auto-winning? Where does it say that if you take Doom you auto-win?
It doesn't. It does say that Nork is an Ogryn and whilst that doesn't have huge effects on the game for his bulky rule it does have an effect.
It is the same as the CSM Daemon Prince being a daemon thing. By strict RaW he is and that is undeniable. Just like the rules for Necrons say they can't die it however does not prevent them from being removed as casualties... Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Kirsanth that is in no way an argument against the RaW it just is an argument that RaW is Silly...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Huh? No, ther daemon prince is NOT a daemon. You have been told why repeatedly, and your belief otherwise is unfounded.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
FlingitNow wrote:Also Kirsanth that is in no way an argument against the RaW.
Correct, and neither was yours. Although I recognize that mine is a silly statement.  Automatically Appended Next Post: Grakmar wrote: So, my Eldar are all "dead", but that won't stop them from shooting you
So you think Daemon Hunter force weapons do not cause casualties when the cause a model to be "slain outright"? There is no addendum to remove the model as a casualty.
6769
Post by: Tri
There are Rules and there are descriptions. The rules are what we play with. The descriptive text (fluff) tells us about the character/model. In any good rule set rules should have no bearing on the descriptive text and descriptive text should have no bearing on the rules.
The problem is GW did not write a perfect rule set. Often we have to flick to the descriptive text to know what something is. Phoenix lords can use Exarch powers because they are the oldest most powerful Exarches; Space Wolves characters don’t loose ATSKNF by taking wolves and/or servitors as they are Space marines.
There is also technically no real distinction between the rules and descriptive text. The only thing is the 40k rarely calls us to perform an action based on the descriptive text.
26142
Post by: HamHamLunchbox
FlingitNow wrote:
2 perfect examples of "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Sorry where exactly does it say that the top of his unit entry is not rules? Please point me to the section of the codex that tells you this is not rules. Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".
I'm guessing you can't...
because its obvious that fluff =/= rules.
11
Post by: ph34r
FlingitNow wrote:It is the same as the CSM Daemon Prince being a daemon thing. By strict RaW he is and that is undeniable.
Heh, sorry, no.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
because its obvious that fluff =/= rules.
It's obvious that a Daemon Prince is a Daemon...
The obvious game has no bearing on RaW. Because you choose to beleive the text above an entry is just fluff and that below it is the rules is your choice. That is not RaW, RaW is what is written and what is written says that Nork is an Ogryn.
The RaW is there choosing to ignore parts of the rules is playing RaI not RaW and if you're going down that path then you can use common sense to work out that Nork is an Ogryn and hence why the rule is there.
Saying "we don't know what the writter intended we only have what is written to go by" is fine. But then claiming that you have to ignore certain parts of what is written under the rules section smacks of picking and choosing Raw and RaI to come to the conclusion you want.
RaW however does not change Nork is an Ogryn a CSM Daemon Prince is a Daemon. Regardless of what you claim unless you have:
a) Some rule that states that Nork isn't an Ogryn (or a CSM DP is not a Daemon).
b) Some section that tells us the written text above the stat line is not rules.
Please tell me where either of the above are. If you can't then RaW is clear on these issues.
11
Post by: ph34r
Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Lets not forget that Tri will never win against Orks... 
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.
It is not what I'm saying it is what the codex says. Once again your argument against it being RaW has no actual rules in it.
So please provide an example that states that what I've said is not a rule or a counter rule that overrides what I've stated. I've told you where the rule is that says he is a Daemon please provide rules to back your oppinion.
Again I'm guessing you can't. RaW is clear he is a Daemon no mater how much you may want him not to be.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
FlingitNow wrote:Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.
It is not what I'm saying it is what the codex says. Once again your argument against it being RaW has no actual rules in it.
So please provide an example that states that what I've said is not a rule or a counter rule that overrides what I've stated. I've told you where the rule is that says he is a Daemon please provide rules to back your oppinion.
Again I'm guessing you can't. RaW is clear he is a Daemon no mater how much you may want him not to be.
Where does it say that a Daemon Prince is a Daemon?
I see that "The ultimate ambition of all Champions of Chaos is to achieve Daemonhood" and that they are "Made of Daemonic energy", but no where in the Chaos Space Marine codex does it state "A Daemon Prince is a Daemon".
To hold your point, you need to find one of the following lines:
a) "A Daemon Prince is a Daemon"
b) "All creatures made of of Daemonic energy are Daemons"
6769
Post by: Tri
Gwar! wrote:Lets not forget that Tri will never win against Orks...
^_^ well Gwar I'm not stating that the 'fluff' is rules what I'm saying is that it tells us what things are. Your Orks are a race that doesn’t think they can loose.
If I had a model called boat and a special rule ‘float’ (which states that all boats float on water) and then I had a yacht with the rule float, well it couldn't use ‘float’ as it is not a boat. However if the descriptive text on yacht stated it was a type of boat then I'd know that it could use the rule, as it is a sub group of boat.
17799
Post by: Oshova
Sadly the rules of YMDC state that:
a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point
b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules
c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook)
This means that Tri's previous statement is null and void, that we must use RAW, and the RAW states that Nork Deddog is no more an Ogryn than Marneus Calgar, a Trygon, or Lelith Hesperex (unless there's a MASSIVE rules change )
Oshova
6769
Post by: Tri
Oshova wrote:Sadly the rules of YMDC state that: a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook) This means that Tri's previous statement is null and void, that we must use RAW, and the RAW states that Nork Deddog is no more an Ogryn than Marneus Calgar, a Trygon, or Lelith Hesperex (unless there's a MASSIVE rules change ) Oshova
Ah but … A) I'm not using real life I'm using an analogy. There is nothing that say this is rules and this is not. We start with the BGB and then start calling individual rules as they are come up. B) Its not RAI if the model is an Exarch and has Exarch powers. C) There is no distinction, from a game point of view, in anything in the codex. We categorise the content into rules and descriptive text but nothing say to do this. We only know that SM can all use ATSKNF since they are all in codex SM, there is no rule Space marine … and don’t say that sound stupid as Necrons have exactly that.
99
Post by: insaniak
Oshova wrote:Sadly the rules of YMDC state that:
a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point
b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules
c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook)
The rules of YMDC only say one of those things.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"
Nitpick ftw!
17799
Post by: Oshova
Well I'm sure you both know what I mean though . . . and I meant rules in the loosest term possible
Now come on, lets get back to pointing out silly RAW =D
Anyone noticed anything in the Dark Eldar yet?
Oshova
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Flickerfield does nothing. It gives a Vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, but no permission of doing so against Penetrating/glancing hits and no description of what that does. So like Bjorn's it is entirely useless.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"
Nitpick ftw!
tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith
source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.
Nitpick that.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
FlingitNow wrote:Flickerfield does nothing. It gives a Vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, but no permission of doing so against Penetrating/glancing hits and no description of what that does. So like Bjorn's it is entirely useless.
Awwww. I had this included in my local draft here, but I was really hoping they had fixed it (not seen the codex yet).  Automatically Appended Next Post: MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"
Nitpick ftw!
tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith
source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.
Nitpick that.
Sure.
You could start by using a real dictionary, not some made up rubbish.
Come back when you have the OED definition please.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Automatically Appended Next Post:Gwar! wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"
Nitpick ftw!
tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith
source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.
Nitpick that.
Sure.
You could start by using a real dictionary, not some made up rubbish.
Come back when you have the OED definition please.
From the Oxford:
Tenet:
noun
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy: example: the tenets of classical liberalism
ergo, again from the Oxford:
Principle:
noun
1 a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning:the basic principles of justice
- a rule or belief governing one's behaviour:struggling to be true to their own principles [mass noun] :she resigned over a matter of principle
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Seriously? We're bringing this crap up again? Weren't these topics all done a long time ago?
Daemon Princes are not Daemons. They do not have the "Daemon" special rule, nor do they have any special rule identifying them as their codex's definition of a "Daemon." In fact, if they were a Daemon in Codex: CSM, they'd have to arrive via Deep Strike. Do you want your Daemon Prince to be forced to arrive via Deep Strike?
On the other hand, the Daemon Prince of Chaos in Codex: Chaos Daemons is a Daemon, because he has the "Daemon" special rule.
Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, because he does not have a special rule identifying him as such.
Furthermore, the Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, Old One Eye is not a Carnifex, and the Parasite of Mortrex is not a Gargoyle.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
MeanGreenStompa wrote:From the Oxford:
What's the 6th Tenet?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Seriously? We're bringing this crap up again? Weren't these topics all done a long time ago?
Daemon Princes are not Daemons. They do not have the "Daemon" special rule, nor do they have any special rule identifying them as their codex's definition of a "Daemon." In fact, if they were a Daemon in Codex: CSM, they'd have to arrive via Deep Strike. Do you want your Daemon Prince to be forced to arrive via Deep Strike?
On the other hand, the Daemon Prince of Chaos in Codex: Chaos Daemons is a Daemon, because he has the "Daemon" special rule.
Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, because he does not have a special rule identifying him as such.
Furthermore, the Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, Old One Eye is not a Carnifex, and the Parasite of Mortrex is not a Gargoyle.
Selective RaW, Daemon does not mean has daemon special rule. That is your definition not the English definition, nor a definition offered by the rule book. Daemons don't HAVE to enter play from DS. Just because you choose to ignore parts of the RaW labelling it as fluff doesn;t stop the RaW being the RaW.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Rites of Battle says "all other Space Marine units". Oh no, none of my units have the Space Marine special rule.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Scott-S6 wrote:Rites of Battle says "all other Space Marine units". Oh no, none of my units have the Space Marine special rule.
In Codex: Space Marines, this is not true, since everything in that codex are Space Marines. In Codex: Blood Angels, you're out of luck, though, since there's no rules as far as I'm aware of which says the units are Space Marines (only fluff, and that doesn't count - *haha*)
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
This entire thread would be empty if many of you read things in 40k the way every Warmachine player does: if it is written anywhere in their description that they are a certain type of model, then they are. A different culture, I suppose, but a small group of extremely vocal posters have taken over this subforum to set up forum martial law.
It seems YMDC has constructed an elaborate ruleset for itself, involving the ability to immediately dismiss things by calling forth random phrases like, 'Permissive ruleset!!!1' and 'Oh, but that's in the fluff section'. It is a rulebook, read it and stop twisting language around to make yourself seem clever. You are not.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except permissive ruleset isnt a random phrase, it has meaning and describes how the ruleset is constructed.
6769
Post by: Tri
Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule. It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel is a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
Try just using, 'rules'.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
And knowing how to interpret them is helpful, no? Or is understandng context not important?
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Tri wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.
It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel are a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.
Exarchs are half-way there. RAW they are affected by Exarch powers due to the wording of Disciples since they are of the corresponding Aspect.
6769
Post by: Tri
Mahtamori wrote:Tri wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.
It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel are a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.
Exarchs are half-way there. RAW they are affected by Exarch powers due to the wording of Disciples since they are of the corresponding Aspect.
If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^
15579
Post by: Fearspect
You aren't allowed to move your models because they don't describe what grip to use or if you can even use your hands.
You can't roll dice because 'roll' is not described in the rulebook.
etc.
Permissive Ruleset, amirite?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Never did I say that.
For starters, the Chaos Space Marine codex does not have a rule that says "all Daemon Princes are Daemons."
The Tyranid codex never says "all Deathleapers are Lictors, all Dooms of Malan'tai are Zoanthropes, and all Old One Eyes are Carnifices."
The IG codex never says "all Nork Deddogs are Ogryn."
Therefore, there must be a special rule present for that unit to be considered a unit of the desired type.
On the other hand, the IG codex DOES specifically tell you what Ogryn are (spoiler alert: they're Ogryn). The Chaos Space Marine codex DOES specifically tell you what Daemons are. And so on.
A single broad sweeping statement regarding every model in the codex (or every model with a special rule, such as Necrons) does not mean that you can arbitrarily decide that other units in unrelated codices are a unit type they vaguely resemble. If you can, then can I call all of my Scarab Swarms "Necrons," even though they don't have the "Necron" special rule? So they count towards Phase Out? Hell, for that matter, by your logic, I can call all of my Boyz Painboys without paying for an upgrade or an IC that actually IS a Painboy. All my Boyz have FNP!
8261
Post by: Pika_power
I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.
If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Pika_power wrote:I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.
If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)
To be more accurate, it has a list of what it defines a Daemon as for the purposes of weapons and wargear that affect Daemons. This essentially means that if you're playing a DH player, he can tell you what is and is not a Daemon as it interacts with HIS codex.
Since you can't just take rules from one codex and apply them to another, the DH codex's definitions of what constitutes a "Daemon" have no bearing whatsoever on Codex: Chaos Daemons or Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
Or Codex: Eldar, for that matter.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
99
Post by: insaniak
Fearspect wrote:This entire thread would be empty if many of you read things in 40k the way every Warmachine player does: if it is written anywhere in their description that they are a certain type of model, then they are. A different culture, I suppose, but a small group of extremely vocal posters have taken over this subforum to set up forum martial law.
It seems YMDC has constructed an elaborate ruleset for itself, involving the ability to immediately dismiss things by calling forth random phrases like, 'Permissive ruleset!!!1' and 'Oh, but that's in the fluff section'. It is a rulebook, read it and stop twisting language around to make yourself seem clever. You are not.
The opinions of individual posters, however vocal they may be, are the opinions of those posters, and are not necessarily representative of the opinions of the overall community, nor do they comprise any sort of ' YMDC group identity'...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fearspect wrote:You aren't allowed to move your models because they don't describe what grip to use or if you can even use your hands.
You can't roll dice because 'roll' is not described in the rulebook.
etc.
Permissive Ruleset, amirite?
No, as you have missed out that it is not self contained ruleset, as it does not start with defining "a" and working upwards. Thus you can use the english language to tell you what "roll" means.
troll much?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tri wrote:Exarchs are half-way there. RAW they are affected by Exarch powers due to the wording of Disciples since they are of the corresponding Aspect.
If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^ And Orks can never lose.
No wonder DoP won so many tournaments with his!
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
You have no idea what you are talking about.
When it says under the unit profile: "Special Rules: Daemon"
it means that it has the special rule, "Daemon".
I don't think you read what I actually said. I never said having the special rule daemon did not mean you had the special rule daemon. I said that having the special rule daemon was a subset of what are defined as daemons in the rules. There are things without the Daemon special rule that are still defined as daemons in the ruleset was my point.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
SaintHazard wrote:Pika_power wrote:I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.
If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)
To be more accurate, it has a list of what it defines a Daemon as for the purposes of weapons and wargear that affect Daemons. This essentially means that if you're playing a DH player, he can tell you what is and is not a Daemon as it interacts with HIS codex.
Since you can't just take rules from one codex and apply them to another, the DH codex's definitions of what constitutes a "Daemon" have no bearing whatsoever on Codex: Chaos Daemons or Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
Or Codex: Eldar, for that matter.
Wait, why else does it matter what we define as Daemon? I thought the only thing that required definitions of Daemon was Daemonhunters. Is there another reason what a Daemon is matters?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Pika_power wrote:Wait, why else does it matter what we define as Daemon? I thought the only thing that required definitions of Daemon was Daemonhunters. Is there another reason what a Daemon is matters?
Runic Weapons, and until November 6th, there is a DE wargear that doesn't affect Daemons.
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?
Total BS...
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Tri wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.
It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel is a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.
Exactly. We know what units are Space Marines without a special rule to tell us so. Surely we can use the same method in defining Daemons for purposes of runic weapons?
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Phototoxin wrote:So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?
Total BS...
Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.
sad isn't it...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Phototoxin wrote:So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?
Total BS...
Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.
sad isn't it...
Its a lot less sad than "Orks always win because the fluff says so!" which is what a lot of people seem to consider acceptable.
99
Post by: insaniak
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.
sad isn't it...
It is what you make of it. Again, the opinions of a couple of posters are not representative of the opinion of the community at large.
I would also remind you that this thread that is specifically intended to point out obscure and odd holes people see in the rules rather than to be taken as a serious statement of how the game should be played. That was made clear from the outset.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
insaniak wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.
sad isn't it...
I would also remind you that this thread that is specifically intended to point out obscure and odd holes people see in the rules rather than to be taken as a serious statement of how the game should be played. That was made clear from the outset.
Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.
A daemon prince is a daemon. It is affected by weapons that affect daemons and isn't affected by weapons that don't affect daemons, because it is a daemon. Perhaps You Make Da Call should be replaced with or sat alongside another forum board called How would you play this?
Instead of what we currently have which is people claiming that the lack of a confirmation is equal to a denial, even if such a denial leads to a highly irregular and nonsensical outcome.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Firstly I feel likening this thread to the entirity of YMDC is highly unfair; How people choose to play the game is their issue as I'm sure you know, perhaps directing your worry to the player instead of the thread would have a more effective result. On another note, it is a fallacy when one assues a positive in the absence of confirmation. To do so borders on the presumptious. The only course to take is to say 'No it isn't.' to do otherwise would allow for a black cat to be white ('I have a black pussy in the other room') and other such sillinesses, because one has assumed in the absence of evidence - even thou our intuition may have led us right
99
Post by: insaniak
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.
You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?
Heaven forbid.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
insaniak wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.
You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?
Heaven forbid.
Don't forget insaniak, Following the rules is Heresy!
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Tri wrote:Mahtamori wrote:Tri wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.
Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.
It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel are a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.
Exarchs are half-way there. RAW they are affected by Exarch powers due to the wording of Disciples since they are of the corresponding Aspect.
If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^
No, that's what GW expects you to take and swallow so that they are exarchs.
Disciples, page 54 Eldar codex. "If the Phoenix Lord is leading their Aspect" "Phoenix Lords cannot join a squad of Aspect Warriors not of their Aspect"
If you are going strictly RAW on the Eldar Codex, Exarch powers may only affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs in the same squad if it is an Exarch using them (not if they come from a different source). Additionally, Exarch powers is legal for other models to have, but illegal for them to select if you get the option to select one, unless they are an Exarch. Essentially, it seems Phoenix Lords are just fine with Exarch powers since it's not an option, but it can't affect a squad unless that squad has an Exarch in it.
32765
Post by: Ordo Dakka
Don't the rules ask you to use the unit entry? Not the page of the codex? That would help with the fluff/rules thing.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Wow, this is getting rather heated. Here's how I see it:
1) YMDC can only sufficiently answer questions that the rules directly address.
2) Grey areas or rules that may be intended but aren't laid out (deployment?) simply don't have a "correct" answer. There's different equally valid interpretations and it's up to the players/judges to decide what to do. As such, there can be no group consensus.
3) This thread specifically is about finding those silly loopholes in the rules that don't make logical sense.
4) NO ONE ACTUALLY PLAYS THIS WAY! Everyone I've ever played a game of 40k with has "house ruled" that Phoenix Lords can use their Exarch powers, Nork is an Ogryn, armies are restricted to deploying in their deployment zones, models without eyes can still fire, etc. Usually, you don't even have to bring these up because everyone already assumes the house rule.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
FlingitNow wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
When it says under the unit profile: "Special Rules: Daemon"
it means that it has the special rule, "Daemon".
I don't think you read what I actually said. I never said having the special rule daemon did not mean you had the special rule daemon. I said that having the special rule daemon was a subset of what are defined as daemons in the rules. There are things without the Daemon special rule that are still defined as daemons in the ruleset was my point.
And for all you know, it could be intentional. Intentional example: Chaos Spawn (see Codex Chaos Daemons).
Would you say Chaos Spawn is a creation of the Warp? Would some argue that it is a Daemon ("It comes from the Chaos Daemon Codex!!!")?
Yet, in the rules, it is not listed as a Daemon. In fact, it specifically says that it is NOT a Daemon.
So that's all that matters. If the DP doesn't have it....bummer.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
insaniak wrote:MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.
You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?
Heaven forbid.
Yes insaniak, that's right... and as I just stated, taking it seriously.
Heaven forbid indeed... 
25139
Post by: micahaphone
I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Oh dear. You bugger off working for a few weeks and look what happens.
1. This thread is not representative of the rest of YMDC because 'You Make Da Call' asks you to 'MAKE DA CALL' on how you would do it. This thread is about what the strictest reading of RAW would make you do.
2. As pointed out in great big bold letters at the start of the thread twenty three pages ago, if you want to argue for pages about something, start a new thread!
And finally, in answer
3. A strict RAW reading of many of these codex entries relies on being able to tell which part of the codex is 'rules'. Usually, people who use a strict RAW reading would argue that descriptive text is not 'rules. Hence, Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, as he is not defined in the rules as an Ogryn, and he's not in an army list called 'Army List of Ogryns'.
Unlike, say, a Cannoness, who is clearly defined as Sororitas, as she has the rule 'Sororitas'. I'd argue that Space Marines and Daemons could be defined much more easily since they are in books named 'Space Marines' and 'Daemons'. A CSM Daemon Prince is not.
And finally, descriptive text is easy to disense with when it's in clearly defined places (like above the stat line) but even MORE fun when it's mixed in with the rules themselves. The 'descriptive text' about people firing lasguns from inside a Chimera is in the 'rules' section, therefore Guardsmen have to fire port lasguns and not their own weapons, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: micahaphone wrote:I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!
GENIUS
6769
Post by: Tri
ArbitorIan wrote:3. A strict RAW reading of many of these codex entries relies on being able to tell which part of the codex is 'rules'. Usually, people who use a strict RAW reading would argue that descriptive text is not 'rules. Hence, Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, as he is not defined in the rules as an Ogryn, and he's not in an army list called 'Army List of Ogryns'.
Just wish to point this out then I'm going to drop the issue but there is no distinction. SM do not have a SM rule but Chao Daemons do have a daemon rule. So one has a rule reference the other doesn't; I can't tell you why they did it two different ways but they do. Ignoring the descriptive text, when it tells you that the model is a type of X, is the same thing as ignoring that models in codex SM are SM.
99
Post by: insaniak
micahaphone wrote:I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!
No, Template weapons don't have a problem. You are required to use a tear-drop shaped template, that pack includes an appropriately shaped template. It's only Blast and large Blast weapons that have an issue... and they're inconsistently named throughout GW's rules. The rulebook calls them Blast Markers, while various codexes call them Blast Templates.
The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
insaniak wrote:The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
I was just reading the fantasy book and read this thinking "No, they even have a page of them that you can copy." But not in 40k!
That, sir, is wonderful.
99
Post by: insaniak
kirsanth wrote:I was just reading the fantasy book and read this thinking "No, they even have a page of them that you can copy." But not in 40k!
They did in the 3rd and 4th ed books. Just not the current one.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
insaniak wrote:They did in the 3rd and 4th ed books. Just not the current one.
Yea. . .I went and checked even.
It makes me a little sad I never noticed it until it was pointed out to me, what, 2 years later?
I love it.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
insaniak wrote:The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
Page 30, BGB under Large blasts: "There are two sizes of blast marker: the normal one (3" diameter) and the large one (5" diameter)."
But, I can't find anything that clearly defines the template shape.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Grakmar wrote:insaniak wrote:The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
Page 30, BGB under Large blasts: "There are two sizes of blast marker: the normal one (3" diameter) and the large one (5" diameter)."
But, I can't find anything that clearly defines the template shape.
And the size of the hole in the middle? That is needed too. . .
They do give approximations though, iirc they mention the template is roughly 8" long or somesuch.
Too funny.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
kirsanth wrote:Grakmar wrote:insaniak wrote:The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
Page 30, BGB under Large blasts: "There are two sizes of blast marker: the normal one (3" diameter) and the large one (5" diameter)."
But, I can't find anything that clearly defines the template shape.
And the size of the hole in the middle? That is needed too. . .
They do give approximations though, iirc they mention the template is roughly 8" long or somesuch.
Too funny.
Ah, I did forget the hole being important.
Yeah, I think this problem is the same issue as the lack of rules for deployment: The rule-writers have been playing 40k for so long they just assume players will instinctively "know" the rules that aren't spelled out in the BGB.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Hi guys, I lost my GW ones so I made my own its ok right let me just get my 9 leman russ army out real quick  Fun fact, they actually do tell you how to make the "Hellstorm Template", but not the normal one. Irony much?
4977
Post by: jp400
kirsanth wrote:Grakmar wrote:insaniak wrote:The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.
Page 30, BGB under Large blasts: "There are two sizes of blast marker: the normal one (3" diameter) and the large one (5" diameter)."
But, I can't find anything that clearly defines the template shape.
And the size of the hole in the middle? That is needed too. . .
They do give approximations though, iirc they mention the template is roughly 8" long or somesuch.
Too funny.
Gwar! wrote:Hi guys, I lost my GW ones so I made my own its ok right let me just get my 9 leman russ army out real quick
Fun fact, they actually do tell you how to make the "Hellstorm Template", but not the normal one.
Irony much?
And why should they?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1320000&_requestid=1124334
Oh gee, look at that. They make the templates in question. I guess now we all can stop crying that they don't give dimensions on the templates and the center hole and oh I don't know....use the ones MADE BY the game designers maybe?
Common sense is common sense people. God gave you all a brain for a reason.
Use it.
Cheers! 
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Oh gee, look at that. They make the templates in question. I guess now we all can stop crying that they don't give dimensions on the templates and the center hole and oh I don't know....use the ones MADE BY the game designers maybe?
Common sense is common sense people. God gave you all a brain for a reason.
You've missed the point about this thread it is not a place to argue common sense or by engaging your brain. It is about following what is written as if you were a computer program and seeing what stupid results you get by working from the theory that RaW = The Rules.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
jp400 wrote:God gave you all a brain for a reason.
Apparently it was given to the folks who wrote the current Fantasy rules, just not the 40k writers. . .see page 8 of the Fantasy rules.
99
Post by: insaniak
Grakmar wrote:[Page 30, BGB under Large blasts: "There are two sizes of blast marker: the normal one (3" diameter) and the large one (5" diameter)."
Ah, there it is
Well spotted.
jp400 wrote:Oh gee, look at that. They make the templates in question. I guess now we all can stop crying that they don't give dimensions on the templates and the center hole and oh I don't know....use the ones MADE BY the game designers maybe?
Common sense is common sense people. God gave you all a brain for a reason.
Use it.
God also gave me a button that suspends people for being needlessly rude.
I would recommend that you go back and re-read the original post in this thread. Nobody is 'crying' about it, and everybody understands which templates and markers we are supposed to use. That wasn't the point of the thread.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Vulkan CAN take a command squad because it states you can have one for a Space Marine Captain and in his rules it states he is a SM captain. The fact he's missed off the list in the unit entry is irrelevant as it doesn't state a " SM Captain with a combi-melta that I've called bob" can take a command squad but we all know he could. All SM Captains are alllowed and he is such RaW .
12265
Post by: Gwar!
FlingitNow wrote:Vulkan CAN take a command squad because it states you can have one for a Space Marine Captain and in his rules it states he is a SM captain.
What? No, it doesn't...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
What? No, it doesn't...
No you're right it says commander not Captain good spot.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
11731
Post by: The Bringer
Just a question, what happens when a USR contradicts another USR?
I had a unit of marine bikers turbo-boost, but they had relentless, so could ignore the movement for the purpose of fire heavy or rapid fire weapons. The rule for relentless then says that you can assault in the same turn you fire those weapons, so I preceded to assault after turbo-boosting and firing the bolters. Is this a really nice hole in the game?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
The Bringer wrote:Just a question, what happens when a USR contradicts another USR?
I had a unit of marine bikers turbo-boost, but they had relentless, so could ignore the movement for the purpose of fire heavy or rapid fire weapons. The rule for relentless then says that you can assault in the same turn you fire those weapons, so I preceded to assault after turbo-boosting and firing the bolters. Is this a really nice hole in the game?
Break no Rule.
Rule A says you can't fire and/or assault.
Rule B says you can fire and/or assault.
The only way to not break any rules is to not fire and/or assault.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
kirsanth wrote:And the size of the hole in the middle? That is needed too. . .
Especially since the small marker has a larger hole than the large marker. Rather counter-intuitive. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gwar! wrote:FlingitNow wrote:Vulkan CAN take a command squad because it states you can have one for a Space Marine Captain and in his rules it states he is a SM captain.
What? No, it doesn't...
P132 "You may take one Command Squad for every Space Marine Captain in your army" P93 "it is a burden borne by Captain He'stan" However, it goes on to say that "he set down his burdens as commander of the 4th company and don the mantle of ForgeFather" "As He'stan relinquished his old old titles and duties" So, is he still a captain if he's surrendered his command? All of the other captains are referred to as such in the page title - he's referred to as Forgefather. He used to be a captain but isn't one anymore. Can I take command squads for Chapter Masters? They used to be captains. Automatically Appended Next Post: jp400 wrote:Oh gee, look at that. They make the templates in question. I guess now we all can stop crying that they don't give dimensions on the templates and the center hole and oh I don't know....use the ones MADE BY the game designers maybe?
The rule book doesn't say that you use those. That's the same argument people use to say that books with "Games Workshop" and "Warhammer 40,000 expansion" logos on them aren't official unless mentioned in the BRB. (e.g. Planetstrike or Imperial Armour)
34605
Post by: spireland
This is the best thread I've ever read.
9580
Post by: LordWaffles
jp400 wrote:
Common sense is common sense people. God gave you all a brain for a reason.
Common sense ANGERS RAWBOT. RAWBOT SMAAAASH.
30542
Post by: Hallowed_Da'Credo
Has anyone mention the DA codex allowing you to buy "five additional [tactical] space marines for 75 points" but to no max limit?
99
Post by: insaniak
Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Has anyone mention the DA codex allowing you to buy "five additional [tactical] space marines for 75 points" but to no max limit?
It allows you to buy 5 additional marines. It doesn't say you can do that more than once.
This on is also clarified in the DA FAQ.
11731
Post by: The Bringer
Gwar! wrote:The Bringer wrote:Just a question, what happens when a USR contradicts another USR?
I had a unit of marine bikers turbo-boost, but they had relentless, so could ignore the movement for the purpose of fire heavy or rapid fire weapons. The rule for relentless then says that you can assault in the same turn you fire those weapons, so I preceded to assault after turbo-boosting and firing the bolters. Is this a really nice hole in the game?
Break no Rule. Rule A says you can't fire and/or assault. Rule B says you can fire and/or assault. The only way to not break any rules is to not fire and/or assault.
EDIT - Nevermind, wording wasn't as I remembered for Relentless.
30542
Post by: Hallowed_Da'Credo
insaniak wrote:Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:Has anyone mention the DA codex allowing you to buy "five additional [tactical] space marines for 75 points" but to no max limit?
It allows you to buy 5 additional marines. It doesn't say you can do that more than once.
This on is also clarified in the DA FAQ.
By GW's own admittence, the FAQ is not RAW
It also only offers to add 5 more for 75, and being as RAW as possible, you could buy more
99
Post by: insaniak
Being as RAW as possible, you could only add more than the first 5 if it specifically said you could.
It says you can add 5 Marines for 75 points. That doesn't mean you can add as many more as you want at a cost of 75 points for each 5. It means you can add 5 for that cost.
30542
Post by: Hallowed_Da'Credo
I guess that's where we diverge on what the definition of "is" is. For the sake of not repeating a single argument over nothing more than semantics, I will drop my argument.
If others feel that the issue has merit I encourage you to continue it.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
See, you're allowed to add 5 marines for 75 points. Once you've done that you've done it. Do you have permission to do it again?
9580
Post by: LordWaffles
ChrisCP wrote:See, you're allowed to add 5 marines for 75 points. Once you've done that you've done it. Do you have permission to do it again?
Do I have to ask the codex "mother may I?" first?
And I don't see how this is too terribly broken, marines are bad.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Given it is a permissive ruleset, yes, yes you do.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Dark Eldar Codex, the Drazhar entry states that Drazhar is equipped with an "Ancient Incubi Warsuit". There is no mention as to what an Ancient Incubi Warsuit actually does.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
It's not really "fun" since it doesn't have to do anything. His armor save is listed in his profile which is all that really matters.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
But the Ancient Incubi Warsuit could have extra abilities which have not been mentioned. It could have a 2++ re-rollable save and allows any fire to be directed back at the user at strength D. Or it could just be a 2+ save. If GW didn't include the rules for it, then the rules are open for interpretation.
99
Post by: insaniak
Valkyrie wrote: If GW didn't include the rules for it, then the rules are open for interpretation.
They're really not. If there are on rules for it, then it has no rules. It's just a pretty name for a piece of equipment that doesn't actually do anything special.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
insaniak wrote:Valkyrie wrote: If GW didn't include the rules for it, then the rules are open for interpretation.
They're really not. If there are on rules for it, then it has no rules. It's just a pretty name for a piece of equipment that doesn't actually do anything special.
Like Fangir.
26765
Post by: Bangbangboom
There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
You follow the rules for shooting as everything is delineated into 'shots' and resolve it as normal... Look at the "TYPE" paragraph on page 27.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Bangbangboom wrote:There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
Multiple Blasts isn't a problem. But there is an issue for a single Barrage weapon firing multiple blasts.
26765
Post by: Bangbangboom
Grakmar wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
Multiple Blasts isn't a problem. But there is an issue for a single Barrage weapon firing multiple blasts.
Seems like the same problem to me.
ChrisCP wrote:You follow the rules for shooting as everything is delineated into 'shots' and resolve it as normal... Look at the "TYPE" paragraph on page 27.
? I don't see how that paragraph helps.
Both rule sets contain instructions for firing a single shot from a single weapon (Blast pg30 / Barrage pg32) and rules for firing multiple weapons from a unit at once (Multiple blasts pg30 / Multiple barrages pg32) Neither rule set explains what to do with multiple shots from a single weapon.
You could follow the Multiple blasts or multiple barrages rules but strictly these are rules for firing a multiple number of these weapons from a unit not a multiple number of shots.
lets say I am firing my grotzooka, I have only one, do I:
a/ Follow the rules for multiple basts and treat it as firing separate blasts. choosing a target, checking target is in range, rolling scatter dice and then working out hits for the first shot before doing it all again for the second shot. (this gives me the option of targeting a different miniature if say the first target turned out to be out of range or just because I feel luck might scatter it onto a unit I can't reach or see)
b/ Or how about choosing one target, checking the range and then rolling the scatter dice from that chosen target for two different shots.
c/ Or maybe I choose a target, check range, roll the scatter dice, workout hits then just double the result.
See it sucks, we need rules for firing Blast2 etc weapons. I might be missing something because I'm new to the game but I am 99.9% sure the rules don't cover them.
99
Post by: insaniak
Let's keep it on topic, folks...
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Bangbangboom wrote:Grakmar wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
Multiple Blasts isn't a problem. But there is an issue for a single Barrage weapon firing multiple blasts.
Seems like the same problem to me.
ChrisCP wrote:You follow the rules for shooting as everything is delineated into 'shots' and resolve it as normal... Look at the "TYPE" paragraph on page 27.
? I don't see how that paragraph helps.
Both rule sets contain instructions for firing a single shot from a single weapon (Blast pg30 / Barrage pg32) and rules for firing multiple weapons from a unit at once (Multiple blasts pg30 / Multiple barrages pg32) Neither rule set explains what to do with multiple shots from a single weapon.
You could follow the Multiple blasts or multiple barrages rules but strictly these are rules for firing a multiple number of these weapons from a unit not a multiple number of shots.
lets say I am firing my grotzooka, I have only one, do I:
a/ Follow the rules for multiple basts and treat it as firing separate blasts. choosing a target, checking target is in range, rolling scatter dice and then working out hits for the first shot before doing it all again for the second shot. (this gives me the option of targeting a different miniature if say the first target turned out to be out of range or just because I feel luck might scatter it onto a unit I can't reach or see)
b/ Or how about choosing one target, checking the range and then rolling the scatter dice from that chosen target for two different shots.
c/ Or maybe I choose a target, check range, roll the scatter dice, workout hits then just double the result.
See it sucks, we need rules for firing Blast2 etc weapons. I might be missing something because I'm new to the game but I am 99.9% sure the rules don't cover them.
Well, to start with there’s no such thing as a ‘Blast 2’ weapon they are ‘assault two, blast’ obviously one fires a Grotzooka in the same fashion one fires any assault 2 weapon, you have two rolls to hit and perform the actions, being a blast marker just means "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit,
instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle." and you'll do it twice.
I'm not sure if there is an actual issue with the Multi barrages or if it's just ugly, if one fired a barrage type weapon with two shots, there is nothing to stop you following the directions through for the additional markers and then doing the second shot after. That is in fact how the rules tell one to do it.
8261
Post by: Pika_power
ArbitorIan wrote:
Oh, and the golden rule is, if you want to argue about things for pages, start a new thread!
Thanks, ArbitorIan! Without that golden rule, I might have started arguing in this thread! It's sure a good thing I read the main topic first!
6769
Post by: Tri
ChrisCP wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:Grakmar wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
Multiple Blasts isn't a problem. But there is an issue for a single Barrage weapon firing multiple blasts.
Seems like the same problem to me.
ChrisCP wrote:You follow the rules for shooting as everything is delineated into 'shots' and resolve it as normal... Look at the "TYPE" paragraph on page 27.
? I don't see how that paragraph helps.
Both rule sets contain instructions for firing a single shot from a single weapon (Blast pg30 / Barrage pg32) and rules for firing multiple weapons from a unit at once (Multiple blasts pg30 / Multiple barrages pg32) Neither rule set explains what to do with multiple shots from a single weapon.
You could follow the Multiple blasts or multiple barrages rules but strictly these are rules for firing a multiple number of these weapons from a unit not a multiple number of shots.
lets say I am firing my grotzooka, I have only one, do I:
a/ Follow the rules for multiple basts and treat it as firing separate blasts. choosing a target, checking target is in range, rolling scatter dice and then working out hits for the first shot before doing it all again for the second shot. (this gives me the option of targeting a different miniature if say the first target turned out to be out of range or just because I feel luck might scatter it onto a unit I can't reach or see)
b/ Or how about choosing one target, checking the range and then rolling the scatter dice from that chosen target for two different shots.
c/ Or maybe I choose a target, check range, roll the scatter dice, workout hits then just double the result.
See it sucks, we need rules for firing Blast2 etc weapons. I might be missing something because I'm new to the game but I am 99.9% sure the rules don't cover them.
Well, to start with there’s no such thing as a ‘Blast 2’ weapon they are ‘assault two, blast’ obviously one fires a Grotzooka in the same fashion one fires any assault 2 weapon, you have two rolls to hit and perform the actions, being a blast marker just means "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit,
instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle." and you'll do it twice.
I'm not sure if there is an actual issue with the Multi barrages or if it's just ugly, if one fired a barrage type weapon with two shots, there is nothing to stop you following the directions through for the additional markers and then doing the second shot after. That is in fact how the rules tell one to do it.
rubbish ... To fire an Assault 2 blast weapon you must ...
Place one blast, roll for scatter count how many models are under the blast,
1) Pick a target unit
2) Place a blast template over the unit (with one model under the central hole)
3) Roll for scatter
4) Count how many models are hit (placing dice next to the unit works well)
5) Repeat step 2-4 for all other blasts
6) Roll to wound
7) Roll saves
Barrage works fine, if badly written.
33843
Post by: Shenra
What, no daemon rules?
13620
Post by: Gwyidion
One thing i can't believe I never noticed, and I believe I am correct...
I was playing a game with my Iyanden list and my opponent brought up the LoS thing snarkily (obviously we didn't play that way, but we had a laugh).
It was casual, we didn't have the rulebook there.
If the LoS rule for shooting really does say "Trace a line from the model's eyes"...
How does any helmeted marine shoot?
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
From the eye lenses?
Common sense people
99
Post by: insaniak
Gwyidion wrote:If the LoS rule for shooting really does say "Trace a line from the model's eyes"...
How does any helmeted marine shoot?
Fairly sure that one was pointed out earlier in the thread. The 'model's eyes' requirement technically causes issues for any number of models in the game.
13620
Post by: Gwyidion
it was. bottom of p1 in fact.
Still, keeping it in the arsenal for the insane arguments that crop up when new people come into the local store.
LoL @ the common sense statement. This is RaW!
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
Yes, but if they clearly have modeled eye holes with or without lenses, those are where their eyes would be.
I understand wraithguard having no eye locations, but not SM.
17661
Post by: greenbay924
Orks can Waaagh! on the first turn, as the book only states "it does not normally waaagh" and doesn't state that it *can't*
99
Post by: insaniak
I have removed a series of off-topic posts from this thread, since people chose to ignore the previous public reminder.
Further wandering off-course will result in suspensions.
I would also suggest that, while a certain amount of back-and-forth is inevitable if people disagree on the validity of a suggested RAW issue, if it goes past a post or two it's worth starting a separate thread for it rather than hashing it out in this one.
35637
Post by: Ixias
greenbay924 wrote:Orks can Waaagh! on the first turn, as the book only states "it does not normally waaagh" and doesn't state that it *can't*
That's actually pretty interesting. The exact quote is "This may not normally be declared on the fist turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it". Is that only to cover up for things like the Weirdboys Waaagh! Actually, that's the only circumstance I can think of that's not "normal", but that power also states that it can be used on the first turn. Are they trying to be clear or is there a loophole here?
13620
Post by: Gwyidion
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Yes, but if they clearly have modeled eye holes with or without lenses, those are where their eyes would be.
I understand wraithguard having no eye locations, but not SM.
I have to disagree. This is RAW, the rule says "eyes". "eye lenses" or "visor" are not eyes. No eyes, no shooting.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
Gwyidion wrote:battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Yes, but if they clearly have modeled eye holes with or without lenses, those are where their eyes would be.
I understand wraithguard having no eye locations, but not SM.
I have to disagree. This is RAW, the rule says "eyes". "eye lenses" or "visor" are not eyes. No eyes, no shooting.
Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
I'm done here. Enjoy your arguments over models having eyes and vehicles getting invulnerable saves.
99
Post by: insaniak
Ixias wrote:[The exact quote is "This may not normally be declared on the fist turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it". Is that only to cover up for things like the Weirdboys Waaagh! Actually, that's the only circumstance I can think of that's not "normal", but that power also states that it can be used on the first turn. Are they trying to be clear or is there a loophole here?
No loophole. It's exactly as you suggest... you can't normally call it on the first turn, so would need something (in this case, the Wierdboy) to specifically allow it. Automatically Appended Next Post: battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I'm done here. Enjoy your arguments over models having eyes and vehicles getting invulnerable saves.
I suspect that you have missed the point of this thread.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
insaniak wrote:Ixias wrote:[The exact quote is "This may not normally be declared on the fist turn as a proper Waaagh! needs some momentum behind it". Is that only to cover up for things like the Weirdboys Waaagh! Actually, that's the only circumstance I can think of that's not "normal", but that power also states that it can be used on the first turn. Are they trying to be clear or is there a loophole here?
No loophole. It's exactly as you suggest... you can't normally call it on the first turn, so would need something (in this case, the Wierdboy) to specifically allow it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I'm done here. Enjoy your arguments over models having eyes and vehicles getting invulnerable saves.
I suspect that you have missed the point of this thread.
Not missed the point.
If someone is wearing eyeglasses, can you still trace LoS from their eyes? Yes
99
Post by: insaniak
battle Brother Lucifer wrote:If someone is wearing eyeglasses, can you still trace LoS from their eyes? Yes
Absolutely. That doesn't help with other models like the Wraithlord, who don't have eyes at all.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
I know. I was agreeing with Gwyidion about wraithlords etc
I still say even RAW, you can trace LoS from helmet's with eye slits, because the eyes are behind them.
If not, That would be like saying if a model is blindfolded (I think some old Witch hunters models are), they can't trace LoS.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Tri wrote:ChrisCP wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:Grakmar wrote:Bangbangboom wrote:There are no rules for firing a multiblast weapon (Grotzooka comes to mind).
We have rules for firing a single shot from one blast weapon, and rules for a unit firing "more then one blast weapon".
But no rules for a blast weapon that fires more then one shot.
Multiple Blasts isn't a problem. But there is an issue for a single Barrage weapon firing multiple blasts.
Seems like the same problem to me.
ChrisCP wrote:You follow the rules for shooting as everything is delineated into 'shots' and resolve it as normal... Look at the "TYPE" paragraph on page 27.
? I don't see how that paragraph helps.
Both rule sets contain instructions for firing a single shot from a single weapon (Blast pg30 / Barrage pg32) and rules for firing multiple weapons from a unit at once (Multiple blasts pg30 / Multiple barrages pg32) Neither rule set explains what to do with multiple shots from a single weapon.
You could follow the Multiple blasts or multiple barrages rules but strictly these are rules for firing a multiple number of these weapons from a unit not a multiple number of shots.
lets say I am firing my grotzooka, I have only one, do I:
a/ Follow the rules for multiple basts and treat it as firing separate blasts. choosing a target, checking target is in range, rolling scatter dice and then working out hits for the first shot before doing it all again for the second shot. (this gives me the option of targeting a different miniature if say the first target turned out to be out of range or just because I feel luck might scatter it onto a unit I can't reach or see)
b/ Or how about choosing one target, checking the range and then rolling the scatter dice from that chosen target for two different shots.
c/ Or maybe I choose a target, check range, roll the scatter dice, workout hits then just double the result.
See it sucks, we need rules for firing Blast2 etc weapons. I might be missing something because I'm new to the game but I am 99.9% sure the rules don't cover them.
Well, to start with there’s no such thing as a ‘Blast 2’ weapon they are ‘assault two, blast’ obviously one fires a Grotzooka in the same fashion one fires any assault 2 weapon, you have two rolls to hit and perform the actions, being a blast marker just means "When firing a blast weapon, models do not roll to hit,
instead just pick one enemy model visible to the firer and place the blast marker (see diagram) with its hole over the base of the target model, or its hull if it is a vehicle." and you'll do it twice.
I'm not sure if there is an actual issue with the Multi barrages or if it's just ugly, if one fired a barrage type weapon with two shots, there is nothing to stop you following the directions through for the additional markers and then doing the second shot after. That is in fact how the rules tell one to do it.
rubbish ... To fire an Assault 2 blast weapon you must ...
Place one blast, roll for scatter count how many models are under the blast,
1) Pick a target unit
2) Place a blast template over the unit (with one model under the central hole)
3) Roll for scatter
4) Count how many models are hit (placing dice next to the unit works well)
5) Repeat step 2-4 for all other blasts
6) Roll to wound
7) Roll saves
Barrage works fine, if badly written.
That's what I was saying with the quote from the rulebook?
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
Just a reminder about what an eye is, before someone makes the mistake of saying something like "aliens don't have eyes": an eye is a sensory organ which convert light to electro-chemical impulses. It's NOT a human eye, and it's not even necessarily a biological eye. There's also a broader interpretation of eye than the strictly biological one you'll find on wikipedia, where it is simply a sensory organ (biological or otherwise) which detect electromagnetic radiation (it mustn't necessarily be light - i.e. detectable by the human eye).
This means that a Space Marine might just have a neural graft linked into his helmet (or you could simply argue that there's eyes behind the helmet, you're drawing line of sight from them, but since the helmet is part of the model's own unit you can ignore it for purposes of line-of-sight), but it still does not help the Wraithguard which has no form what-so-ever of eyes and isn't even described as having sensory organs at all.
6766
Post by: nostromo
The eldar psychic power eldritch storm doesn't need to hit vehicles, touching them with the template triggers the effect. It also doesn't specify when to check touching so before, during or after scatter, it's all good. The more scatter the better
Edit, just tought of one more:
You can use the power doom on your own units and reroll successfull wounds in the hopes of making them fail.
22289
Post by: EmilCrane
Not sure about this one but according to the 40k in 40 minutes rules Hydra Flak Tanks and Medusa's with Bastion breacher shells are perfectly fine for combat patrol games.
So are all of the DE vehicles, even the void raven and the other fighter.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Yes, that's correct. 40K in 40mins allows low armour vehicles.
ETA, it's supposed to be mini-40K - not Kill Team.
22289
Post by: EmilCrane
I just think its funny that you can get a medusa in one of those games.
13620
Post by: Gwyidion
All of those arguments about eyes are well and good, and I agree. But this is a list of fun RAW absurdities.
If someone ever actually says my wraithlords and wraithguard can't shoot because they lack eyes to draw from, i'm going to ask him to point to the eyes on his SM models. They don't have eyes, and behind those eye slits or visors is plastic.
17799
Post by: Oshova
Well Gwidion if you're going to use that argument, then no models have eyes. As plastic doesn't act as a suitable material to make ocular sensory organs out of.
Oshova
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Oshova wrote:Well Gwidion if you're going to use that argument, then no models have eyes. As plastic doesn't act as a suitable material to make ocular sensory organs out of. Oshova
most if not all "electric Eyes" and many Web Cameras/ some Digital cameras would beg to differ with you there(the lenses are often poly-acrylic, a type of plastic, instead of Glass) Contact lenses would also apply here.
17799
Post by: Oshova
But is that grey polystyrene, or white metal, with layers of paint over the top?
Also most contact lenses now are a high percentage water =p
. . . Maybe this is all a little off-topic
Oshova
13620
Post by: Gwyidion
it is off topic, and the argument isn't that the models don't have actual eyes, its that most marine models (the ones with helmets) aren't modeled with the required "eyes" they are modeled with "visors" or some equivalent thereof. The characters and non-helmeted marines are modeled with eyes, so they can shoot. However any model in the game with a helmet that covers the face (such as eldar dire avengers) and provides eye-slits of some kind, but precludes the model from exhibiting eyes, cannot shoot.
Its a rule that, when applied in the common "rules as written" framework, basically breaks the game.
99
Post by: insaniak
Either way, it's a silly point which does cause issues with some models. Moving on.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Che-Vito wrote:
"Pg. 50: "...if a psyker targets a unit with a psychic shooting attack, then he can only Assault that unit in the ensuing assault phase"
[Emphasis mine]
The "ensuing" assault phase is the one that happens in the same turn as the shooting phase.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
The "ensuing" assault phase is the one that happens in the same turn as the shooting phase.
Exactly so he could not assault that unit if a subsequent turn. Say a Hive Tyrant with wings deepstrikes in and Paroxysms a Devastator squad so they won't kill him with shooting. He can't assault that turn as he's deep struck and due to the quoted rule he can't ever assault them again, they are now immune to the Hive Tyrant ...
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
In the ensuing assault phase, he can only assault that unit [at which he shot].
Same sentence structure.
17799
Post by: Oshova
I understand what FlingItNow is saying.
Because it says ONLY and doesn't define the fact that it should be "This is the only unit the psyker can assault this turn" it says "This is the only turn in which the psyker may assualt this unit"
Pure genius on GW's part as always =p
Oshova
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Except that isn't what it says.
6500
Post by: MinMax
From the new Dark Eldar codex:
Drazhar's Master of Blades special rule (page 52) states that "Drazhar also has the Klavex powers 'Onslaught' and 'Murderous Assault' (see page 31)". However, as Drazhar is not a Klavex himself, he cannot take advantage of these rules. His Incubi would still gain the benefit of Onslaught - but he wouldn't, himself.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
And you're not reading it correctly still.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It is either only [assault that unit in the ensuing phase] OR [only assault that unit] in the ensuing phase.
It can be read either way around, as there is not sufficient sentence structure to tell you otherwise.
17799
Post by: Oshova
And therefore is RAW fail as it doesn't explicitly say one way or the other. So for all we know GW intended for you to only be able to assault a unit the turn you use a psychic power on it (in that circumstance) . . . and we have been playing with a House Rule for it all this time
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It is either only [assault that unit in the ensuing phase] OR [only assault that unit] in the ensuing phase.
It can be read either way around, as there is not sufficient sentence structure to tell you otherwise.
A comma would separate for the 2nd reading the first read is the most accurate to the written text.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I would read it the first way round, but see how it can be read the other way - the ownership of "only" is not 100% explicit.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I would read it the first way round, but see how it can be read the other way - the ownership of "only" is not 100% explicit.
Agreed.
4560
Post by: Balzac
...and "may assault only that unit in the ensuing Assault phase." would resolve the entire issue.
"Only" is a logical limiter, and "in the ensuing Assault phase." is a grammatical modifier (and a vaguely dangling one at that). The sentence structure used in the Codex fails to make it clear whether the limitation and the modification apply to the same or different parts of the sentence structure, or possibly even to each other.
6846
Post by: solkan
It made me laugh when I read the codex, even if it is a silly claim.
"Vect seizes the initiative on the roll of a 4+ ..."
So Vect gets the first turn. What about the two people playing the game, who gets the other turn?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Going over and over a different issue, this thought came up.
If a model is 'considered to occupy the area of it's base' (page 3), does this mean models don't occpy the space that the model is made of? As in, if one needs to draw LOS to a model, one has to do it to the base as this is the only place we are actually told where a model is... Bit of a stretch maybe, but it seems to be valid
17799
Post by: Oshova
But then surely by the technical meaning of the word area, it is a 2D shape, and therefore one base 'looking' at another on the same level, it won't be able to see it, as a 2D shape has no height.
Is there such a thing as taking something too far?
Oshova
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Aww, you can still draw a LineOS to another plane and intersect it, it's not that bad
99
Post by: insaniak
ChrisCP wrote:If a model is 'considered to occupy the area of it's base' (page 3), does this mean models don't occpy the space that the model is made of?
No. 'Considered to occupy' is not the same as 'considered to only occupy' ...
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Awww come- ooooon
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Here's quewstion one shot weapons? Where is the rule that defines they are one shot per game? I can't find it anywhere. Hence all one shot weapons can be fired as often as you want. Unless I'm mistaken for instance, the one shot rule in the DE codex could refer the missiles having one shot per turn rather than one shot per game or it could mean 1 shot ever...
99
Post by: insaniak
FlingitNow wrote:Here's quewstion one shot weapons? Where is the rule that defines they are one shot per game?
Depends on the weapon you're talking about. Space Marine combi-weapons, for example, quite clearly state once per battle.
Imperial Guard demo charges just state 'One Shot Only'... which to me, says that they get one shot only. Doesn't seem to really need any further clarification.
35637
Post by: Ixias
I would agree with insaniak. "One shot only" seems to need no real clarification as only one shot is only one shot. I understand what FlingitNow means though.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Depends on the weapon you're talking about. Space Marine combi-weapons, for example, quite clearly state once per battle.
Imperial Guard demo charges just state 'One Shot Only'... which to me, says that they get one shot only. Doesn't seem to really need any further clarification.
OK I'll talk specifically about the DE missiles. They just have the words "one shot" in their weapon type with no further explaination. Whilst "one shot only" seems to require no further explaination likewise for the SM combi-weapons and HK missiles, having "one shot" as your weapon type requires that one shot to refer to something. They are all assault 1 so perhaps that means 1 shot per turn. RaW is doesn't define itself enough to have a direct impact on the game. So DE players with their flyers can fire all 4 missiles every turn . Suddenly the implosion missile seems worth the points...
99
Post by: insaniak
FlingitNow wrote:... having "one shot" as your weapon type requires that one shot to refer to something.
I don't think it really does. We know it's not one shot per turn, as that's already defined by the 'Assault 1' part. So without any specific game-defined definition, we go with the normal meaning of the words. So the weapon gets one shot. Adding 'only' onto the end might make that a little more blatant, but I still think it's clear enough, to be honest.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
We know it's not one shot per turn, as that's already defined by the 'Assault 1' part.
I disagree GW are forever repeating rules and double confirming. Like the SM codex saying SM Captains can take a command squad and then listing most of the Captain spec characters but they've already been given permission by the first part (likewise Vulkan can still take a command squad despite not being listed).
Whilst I don't for one second think their intention here was to repeat that the weapon gets one shot a turn. I also don't think for one second that when GW said Shrike can infiltrate with his unit they meant shrike can't infiltrate with his unit. However the RaW still disagrees, likewise here the RaW on one shot is not defined enough to limit you to 1 shot per game.
It is a case of the intention being clear but the wording not defining the in game impact in a rigorously enough to acheive what they wanted.
24020
Post by: vitki
I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.
You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.
"New GW rules brought to you by the masterminds in the GW marketing department."
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.
You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.
This is just as valid an interpretation as mine or Insaniak's for eth rule. Hence RaW it does nothing, as it has no definable impact on the game, thus you revert to the rules you do know (I'm given permission to fire it once a turn by the Assault 1 weapon type).
35171
Post by: Jwalker52
The Drunken Spleen is correct
99
Post by: insaniak
vitki wrote:I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.
You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.
That doesn't work. The 40K rules deal with a single game as a stand-alone entity. There are no rules that require you to carry over what happens in one game into the next, outside of playing in a campaign.
Otherwise, you would have exactly the same problem with any model removed as a casualty.
31501
Post by: ThatMG
Space Wolves Codex
Page 81
Leaders of the Pack
"No two characters may blah blah"
There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though
So in theory you can make all your guys the same.
INB4 Flames (You broke SW QQ).
99
Post by: insaniak
ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though
There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.
31501
Post by: ThatMG
insaniak wrote:ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though
There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.
Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)
E.g. DH codex it says what Daemons ARE meaning most their rules dont work vs Chaos Daemons.
Anyways your right so no flames just was not being serious at all (as you may of guessed I hardly read that section of the BRB)
99
Post by: insaniak
ThatMG wrote:Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)
Sorry, but... what?
There's nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you any of the basic rules of the game. That's not what the codex is for.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
ThatMG wrote:insaniak wrote:ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though
There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.
Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)
Codex does not overrule the rulebook. A more specific rule, however, overrules a more general one.
6769
Post by: Tri
ThatMG wrote:insaniak wrote:ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though
There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.
Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)
E.g. DH codex it says what Daemons ARE meaning most their rules dont work vs Chaos Daemons.
Anyways your right so no flames just was not being serious at all (as you may of guessed I hardly read that section of the BRB)
.... Specific > General … And in this case the codex tells you that no two characters can have it, BGB tells you the two types of characters. Both are working in harmony
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Yes, I'm commiting the cardinal sin of threadnecromancy, but I think I've found a suitable entry:
Ork Codex, under the entry for Zogwort's Curse:
If the target model is within 18", both players roll a dice. If the Ork player rolls higher, the target model is replaced with an angry Squig
It doesn't specify that the Ork player has to be the one controlling Zogwort. If both players are using Orks, then "an Ork player" will always win the roll-off, therefore the transformation is inevitable.
Discuss?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Valkyrie wrote:Yes, I'm commiting the cardinal sin of threadnecromancy, but I think I've found a suitable entry:
Ork Codex, under the entry for Zogwort's Curse:
If the target model is within 18", both players roll a dice. If the Ork player rolls higher, the target model is replaced with an angry Squig
It doesn't specify that the Ork player has to be the one controlling Zogwort. If both players are using Orks, then "an Ork player" will always win the roll-off, therefore the transformation is inevitable.
Discuss?
They could still roll equal...
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
Ok, maybe an equal will prevent a metamorphoses.
37833
Post by: Captain Pain
Oh, great, this was not the thread to read for someone trying to learn the 40k rules (clarification: learn the rules as they were meant to be interpreted). Now I'm utterly confused >.<
10746
Post by: Corrode
FlingitNow wrote:Like the SM codex saying SM Captains can take a command squad and then listing most of the Captain spec characters but they've already been given permission by the first part (likewise Vulkan can still take a command squad despite not being listed).
That's not true at all is it? Vulkan isn't listed so he doesn't get a command squad.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Captain Pain wrote:Oh, great, this was not the thread to read for someone trying to learn the 40k rules (clarification: learn the rules as they were meant to be interpreted). Now I'm utterly confused >.<
It's not too bad. This thread makes you realize that the rules aren't written with the intention of being 100% complete. They are guidelines for how 40k should be played, but can't be considered to stand alone without player interpretation.
On YMDC, there's two types of rules issues:
1) The simple one that has a straightforward answer that is clearly covered by the rules and the board members agree on.
2) The complex one that can be interpreted in many ways and creates countless arguments. In these situations, it's best to think back on this thread and realize that trying to interpret a rule by the strict wording presented doesn't always work. Sometimes, interpretation and "house rules" are the only way to play 40k.
36786
Post by: Ulver
I admit I haven't read the full 27 pages (yet), so apologies if these have already been addressed.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Main Rulebook
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
It states "closest visible enemy" - the rule doesn't mention anything about line of sight.
- There are no rules for deployment. You can therefore deploy wherever you like, including on the bookshelf in the next room.
No - e.g. Pitched Battle deployment says "on his half of the table, more than 12" from the table's middle line."
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur when hitting enemy models. DS occurs in the Movement phase, which requires you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
It states, "...would land ... on top of or within 1" of an enemy model..."; it doesn't state that the model has to physically end up there.
- Independent Characters cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. This makes it very hard for them to embark/disembark - they must be EXACTLY 2" away.
- ICs who can repair vehicles cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. The vehicle must move to them or they must run to it.
The IC rules say "must remain more than 2" away at the end of the Movement phase..." so embarking/disembarking is fine, as long as the IC or the vehicle can still move before the end of the current movement phase. RAW they cannot be exactly 2" away either.
Repairing vehicles, the vehicle would not be allowed to move to the IC in the movement phase; the IC would have to run to it, as stated. If they wanted to continue repairing the vehicle next turn, they'd have to move more than 2" away and then run back to it, of course.
Imperial Guard
- Nork Deggog (sic) only counts as one model for the purpose of transports...
Not in my Codex: the 'Bulky' rule applies to Nork Deddog; it refers you the Ogryns' page which details the rule.
Additionally, on the subject of running to vehicles to repair them: the player would have to roll the exact distance for the IC to get to the vehicle, no more, no less: "...it is always simply D6"..."
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Ulver:
Rage does state closest visible enemy. But, how do you know what's visible without checking LOS?
Deep strike does state would land, but you wouldn't land there since approaching an enemy model would force you to stop 1" away, meaning that you wouldn't land on top of it.
Nork does have the rule "Bulky". But, Bulky refers specifically to Ogryns. Nork isn't technically an Ogryn (he's a Nork), so he has the rule, but it doesn't impact him in any way.
36786
Post by: Ulver
Grakmar wrote:Ulver:
Rage does state closest visible enemy. But, how do you know what's visible without checking LOS?
It doesn't say to whom the enemy should be visible, so I would say whichever model(s) that the player can see
Grakmar wrote:
Deep strike does state would land, but you wouldn't land there since approaching an enemy model would force you to stop 1" away, meaning that you wouldn't land on top of it.
But the Deep Strike Mishap rule also states 'if the model cannot be deployed because {of what we've said above}' - it's not that you (or rather, the model) wouldn't land there, the rule covers the eventuality that the model cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy, even if the 2D6" scatter wants to place them there
Grakmar wrote:
Nork does have the rule "Bulky". But, Bulky refers specifically to Ogryns. Nork isn't technically an Ogryn (he's a Nork), so he has the rule, but it doesn't impact him in any way.
Good point, I didn't read 'Bulky' so missed that technicality
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
ulver; most of your retorts were correct excepting a few.
The only way to determine whether an enemy is visable to a model is to check LOS. Of course just because the LOS rules are found in the Shooting section does not limit those rules and checking them to be only in the Shooting phase, you can check LOS anytime. (in other words you are correct that this RAW-Fail is wrong, just not for the right reasons)
The IC rules do state that you cannot end the movement phase within 2" of a unit you do not intend to join(unless you are within 2" of multiple units and DO join one of them); however as you cannot join vehicles and always 1 model units you are free to move and end your movement phase as close or as far as you want to those units; this is because there can be no confusion as to whether or not you are joined to those units since you cannot join them anyways. Also you are always free to move near those units if you are already joined to another unit. For embarkation/disembarkation; those rules specifically allow the end of movement phase distance(for disembarkation) and of course ending the movement phase inside a vehicle is not ending the movement phase within 2" anyways(embarkation is part of a unit's move, so moving a lone IC within 2" and then embarking would never violate the 2" rule to begin with).
For Nork Dedogg; yes he has the "Bulky" Special rule, although technically it does nothing from a rules-as-written standpoint. Bulky states Ogryns count as 2 models, Nork is not an Ogryn(rules-wise); therefore it is a useless special rule(Similar to Fangir on Canis Wolfborn, which is a peice of wargear that tells you it grants characteristic bonuses to the model but never specifies what those bonuses are nor does the profile show any altered characteristics).
Captain Pain: Grankmar is correct; the easiest way to tell which Post on YMDC is of which type is to look at how many pages the discussion has gone on for; if it is 2 or more pages the question is ambiguous(or the posters are having fun posting garbage); this thread is a good example of both a thread full of ambiguities and posters posting garbage.
Edit: Damned lengthy explanations got ninja'd 3 times over.
36786
Post by: Ulver
How about:
An IG company commander cannot issue the Bring it Down! and Fire on my Target! orders.
Wording inconsistency - the Orders rules say, pick an order, pick a unit, then test for Ld. The rules for the orders above state, "If the order is issued successfully, pick a unit..."
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
36786
Post by: Ulver
Che-Vito wrote:Reading fail on your part:
Orders: Pick an Order, Pick a Unit, Test Ld
Wording for Bring it Down: Pick an Order, Pick a Unit, Test Ld, "choose one enemy unit/vehicle" [aka; pick a target].
Did you fail to read the tail end of the sentence describing what those Orders actually do?
 Yes I did completely
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
From the recent BRB FAQ v1.2:
Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
So Nid players who drop troops in via Mycetic Spores can drop them in difficult terrain without fear of their troops having to take dangerous terrain tests upon disembarking as a Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle.
6846
Post by: solkan
Maelstrom808 wrote:From the recent BRB FAQ v1.2:
Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
So Nid players who drop troops in via Mycetic Spores can drop them in difficult terrain without fear of their troops having to take dangerous terrain tests upon disembarking as a Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle.
See the Tyranid FAQ which states that a Tyranid Alpha can't get into a unit's Mycetic Spore because the Mycetic Spores aren't vehicles. And that the spore pods HAVE TO be used by the unit if purchased.
9808
Post by: HoverBoy
solkan wrote:See the Tyranid FAQ which states that a Tyranid Alpha can't get into a unit's Mycetic Spore because the Mycetic Spores aren't vehicles.
No it just says they can't, with no justification given after that.
It's a "cuz GW said so" situation.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
solkan wrote:
See the Tyranid FAQ which states that a Tyranid Alpha can't get into a unit's Mycetic Spore because the Mycetic Spores aren't vehicles. And that the spore pods HAVE TO be used by the unit if purchased.
I am painfully aware of the FAQs ruling.
HoverBoy wrote:No it just says they can't, with no justification given after that.
It's a "cuz GW said so" situation.
Yeah, the "because it's not a vehicle" was player's justification for it, not GWs...although it probably had a hand in the decision.
99
Post by: insaniak
Maelstrom808 wrote:From the recent BRB FAQ v1.2:
Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
So Nid players who drop troops in via Mycetic Spores can drop them in difficult terrain without fear of their troops having to take dangerous terrain tests upon disembarking as a Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle.
The fact that the Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle means nothing more than that rules that apply to vehicles don't apply to it. Tyranids climbing out of it into difficult terrain will still have to take a Dangerous Terrain test because the Mycetic Spore's rules entry points out that those Tyranids are Deep Striking. So it winds up working the same way as it would for a transport vehicle.
31879
Post by: rogersss
Warboss Ghazgalls Furious charge and Stikk bombs are both useless to him as his strength cant go past 10 and hes allways inititive 1.
99
Post by: insaniak
rogersss wrote:Warboss Ghazgalls Furious charge and Stikk bombs are both useless to him as his strength cant go past 10 and hes allways inititive 1.
That's because his rules were written for an edition in which he didn't have to use his power klaw in close combat.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
insaniak wrote:Maelstrom808 wrote:From the recent BRB FAQ v1.2:
Q: Does a unit being transported by a vehicle that has
arrived by Deep Stike that turn also count as having
arrived by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: Yes.
So Nid players who drop troops in via Mycetic Spores can drop them in difficult terrain without fear of their troops having to take dangerous terrain tests upon disembarking as a Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle.
The fact that the Mycetic Spore is not a vehicle means nothing more than that rules that apply to vehicles don't apply to it. Tyranids climbing out of it into difficult terrain will still have to take a Dangerous Terrain test because the Mycetic Spore's rules entry points out that those Tyranids are Deep Striking. So it winds up working the same way as it would for a transport vehicle.
Good catch. I won't let it dampen my spirits though as I'll simply look at it as GW doing at least a little to bring some sort of parity to drop pods and spore pods...even if that had nothing to do with the ruling
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
insaniak wrote:rogersss wrote:Warboss Ghazgalls Furious charge and Stikk bombs are both useless to him as his strength cant go past 10 and hes allways inititive 1.
That's because his rules were written for an edition in which he didn't have to use his power klaw in close combat.
Ahem!
He can use the stikkbommz if he only wants to inflict a single S4 attack on a vehicle! Useful if you don't want a Walker dead in your turn because of exposure to enemy fire! 
11731
Post by: The Bringer
AlmightyWalrus wrote:insaniak wrote:rogersss wrote:Warboss Ghazgalls Furious charge and Stikk bombs are both useless to him as his strength cant go past 10 and hes allways inititive 1.
That's because his rules were written for an edition in which he didn't have to use his power klaw in close combat.
Ahem!
He can use the stikkbommz if he only wants to inflict a single S4 attack on a vehicle! Useful if you don't want a Walker dead in your turn because of exposure to enemy fire!
That is actually a good idea...
36738
Post by: Brood Lord
ArbitorIan, you should check the FAQs for most of these, since Doom of Malant'ai counts as a Zoanthrope in all respects to any special rules he uses, as well as the swarmlord counting as a hive tyrant for porposes of powers and rules, same for old one eye.
Q: Tyranid Special Characters. Are Tyranid Special
Characters considered to be special versions of the
standard creatures of their type for the purposes of
using psychic powers, biomorphs and special rules? For
example, is the Swarmlord considered to be a Hive
Tyrant for the purposes of using Hive Tyrant psychic
powers? Similarly, is Deathleaper considered to be a
Lictor for the purposes of Chameleonic Skin and
Pheromone Trail, is the Doom of Malan’tai considered
to be a Zoanthrope for the purposes of Warp Field, is
Old One Eye considered to be Carnifex for the
purposes of Living Battering Ram and are Ymgarl
Genestealers considered to be Genestealers for the
purposes of Brood Telepathy?
A. Yes in all cases. -Tyranid FAQ
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Brood Lord wrote:ArbitorIan, you should check the FAQs for most of these
FYI initial post wrote:Last update was at Sat, 29/May/2010 04:49:12
OT--the Parasite of Mortrex cannot join a unit DSing via spod--it has to wait until everyone gets settled in and then go join them.
/sigh
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
The OP points out that the FAQs are not official anyway with an eyeroll emoticon, so saying "They FAQ'ed it though" is kinda ignoring a huge point he is making.
My buddy pointed out that the Venom Cannon has it's own pair of eyes, which creates problems when drawing LOS by pure RAW for shooting.
45391
Post by: Chuck Norris
About the (outdated) DE one, DE jetbikes aren't actually classes as jetbikes so they are still T4
99
Post by: insaniak
Chuck Norris wrote:About the (outdated) DE one, DE jetbikes aren't actually classes as jetbikes so they are still T4
Not sure which codex you're looking at, but in both Dark Eldar codexes so far Reavers have been classed as Eldar Jetbikes.
38955
Post by: mpangelu
One thing on Dark Angels. The Ravenwing Bike Squadron..
This is if you don't take Sammael.
You buy the 6 bikes, 1 attack bike and 1 land speeder.
The 6 bikes are not scoring, however the attack bike and the speeder will be.
If you take Sammael then the 6 bikes will be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Rule book page 3.(big one) ... if the model bought from gw is supplied with a base you must glue it to tte base. No pinniing, no modifying, no leaving flying bases unglued.
Also if your using anything other then the base gw supplied, you must have opponents permission.
|
|
