2187
Post by: Beer40k
Alright! After I think 10 minutes of arguing this, I figured Dakka would know what's up.
Check it, you have to have a commander (Master, Chap., or Librarian) to run a command squad?
I'm just sorta confused with the whole TEXT ( Inderpendent Characters in Terminator armour may NOT lead a Command squad, they may join it during the course of play, however.) reads Codex: Space Marines.
Is it stating that you may have a 2 Independent Characters in the same squad (Being it that another came with the command squad)?
OR
Is it saying you can throw a Captain in Terminator armour and take a Command squad, but they don't have to fight along eachother?
OR
If the Independent Character (Leading the Command squad) died during the course of play the other can take charge?
Thanks
99
Post by: insaniak
Check it, you have to have a commander (Master, Chap., or Librarian) to run a command squad?
Yes. That's what the command squad is for. I'm just sorta confused with the whole TEXT ( Inderpendent Characters in Terminator armour may NOT lead a Command squad, they may join it during the course of play, however.) reads Codex: Space Marines.
It simply means that you can not take a power armoured Command Squad to accompany a character in Terminator Armour. If you want a Command Squad for a Terminator character, it has to be a Terminator Command Squad.
157
Post by: mauleed
Actually, I see no text that insists you have an IC to have a command squad. It's obviously intended, but that's not the way they worded it. You could, technically, take just a command squad with no IC as an HQ choice.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Actually it does. From page 29 of Codex Space Marines: You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.
That tells me that if I take a Command Squad, it is taken to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. It is not taken as a standalone unit.
226
Post by: blue loki
Actually, it does not.
The quote says that you may take a command squad to accompany an HQ character. It states nothing, positively or negatively, about the command squad being used on its own.
The "command squad on its own" argument is based on the fact that the command squad is listed as a seperate independent HQ choice, and that there are no rules explicitly stating that you cannot use it by itself.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Yes, it does. How may you take a Command Squad? You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. Where does it say you can take a Command Squad as a standalone unit?
226
Post by: blue loki
Where does it say that you can take a Tactical Squad as a stand alone unit?
Nowhere. Its very presence in the Codex as a unit type allows you to take it.
Similarly, the command squad exists in the Codex as a unit type without any restrictions. Its presence makes it a valid HQ choice.
The only quote on the subject is:
"You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain."
The quote does not say:
"You may ONLY take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain."
14
Post by: Ghaz
You can take a Tactical Squad as a standalone unit because it has no restrictions on it. The Command Squad does. What are the Command Squad's restrictions? That it accompany a Commander, Chaplain or Librarian. That's why they tell you that you MAY take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain or Librarian because you MAY NOT take a Command Squad any other way.
They don't have to use the word 'only' because of the very nature of the rules. If it's not specifically permitted, then it can not be done. They've specifically permitted the Comand Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain or Librarian. Where have they specifically permitted you to take a Command Squad as a standalone unit?
226
Post by: blue loki
Its just a difference in how we are reading the line.
You see it as "may only" and I see it as "may also".
I don't see it as a restriction, I see it as an optional way in which to field the unit.
You are correct when you say "If it's not specifically permitted, then it can not be done."
However, the simple inclusion of the unit as an HQ choice is all of the permission that you need to field the unit. You are permitted to field it, the addition quote simply tells you an additional way in which to field the unit.
None of this really matters though, as I also believe the intent was to only field command squads along side a character.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Ghaz, you're in the wrong here. Most of us assume that's what GW MEANT, but it's certainly not what they wrote.
1823
Post by: MegaDave
I still like the fact that some GT judges ruled that you can have 6 characters in 2 command squads and be legal. Anybody want 2 Chapter Masters? These people can be so slowed. 
383
Post by: bigchris1313
I still like the fact that some GT judges ruled that you can have 6 characters in 2 command squads and be legal. Anybody want 2 Chapter Masters? These people can be so slowed
Venerable MegaDave, your post leaves me confused: which is slowed: GW, the judges, or the players?
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By MegaDave on 04/20/2006 5:30 PMI still like the fact that some GT judges ruled that you can have 6 characters in 2 command squads and be legal. Anybody want 2 Chapter Masters? These people can be so slowed.
Considering that it IS legal, what's the beef?
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted By Mannahnin on 04/20/2006 2:33 PM
Ghaz, you're in the wrong here. Most of us assume that's what GW MEANT, but it's certainly not what they wrote.
And again, it is what they wrote. The subject of the sentence is the Command Squad, not the Independent Character. It tells you when you may take a Command Squad. When may you take a Comand Squad? You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. Posted by blue loki on 04/20/2006 11:45 AM
Its just a difference in how we are reading the line.
You see it as "may only" and I see it as "may also".
Except the rules don't work that way. By your reading, I could do anything that the rules don't forbid. Posted by blue loki on 04/20/2006 11:45 AM
However, the simple inclusion of the unit as an HQ choice is all of the permission that you need to field the unit. You are permitted to field it, the addition quote simply tells you an additional way in which to field the unit.
No, because the line in question places a restriction on how the unit can be fielded, just like a '0-1' or a '1+' changes how you can filed one of those units. The restriction is that the unit is fielded to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain and not as a standalone unit.
157
Post by: mauleed
Ghaz, politely: your reading comprehension skills suck. (at least on this issue). No idea how to put it more gently than that, but the rules simply don't say any of what you claim they say. They almost say it and should say it, but don't actually say it. If you like, I throw out a few premises and a conclusion and show that a command squad is a legal HQ choice, but it's awefully self explainatory.
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By skyth on 04/20/2006 8:11 PM Posted By MegaDave on 04/20/2006 5:30 PMI still like the fact that some GT judges ruled that you can have 6 characters in 2 command squads and be legal. Anybody want 2 Chapter Masters? These people can be so slowed.
Considering that it IS legal, what's the beef?
No offense MegaDave, but Skyth is absolutely correct, and the Codex is incredibly clear on the subject. Check the section in the Codex about Characters which appears on the same page as the Drop Pod special rules.
You can have a maximum of 2 HQ squads, each consisting of one Master, one Chaplain, one Librarian, and the command squad retinue. Thats 12 models per squad. Its incredibly expensive, but legal.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By blue loki on 04/21/2006 7:30 AM
You can have a maximum of 2 HQ squads, each consisting of one Master, one Chaplain, one Librarian, and the command squad retinue. Thats 12 models per squad. Its incredibly expensive, but legal.
That's also incorrect. You can have 2 HQ squads, each with 3 characters, which can have two chaplains or two librarians.
330
Post by: Mahu
On a side note, I wonder if anybody has tried the double Fear the Darkness or Fury of the Ancients yet?
226
Post by: blue loki
Right Ed, my bad.
14
Post by: Ghaz
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, thank you. It doesn't say who can take a Command Squad, but when you can take a Command Squad.
So when do the rules allow you to take a Command Squad?
You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.
So where do the rules allow you to take a Command Squad in any other situation?
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
mahu said:
On a side note, I wonder if anybody has tried the double Fear the Darkness or Fury of the Ancients yet?
Don't you mean four times? Two Librarians in two Command Squads. Nasty.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Ghaz on 04/21/2006 9:15 AM
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, thank you. It doesn't say who can take a Command Squad, but when you can take a Command Squad.
So when do the rules allow you to take a Command Squad?
You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.
So where do the rules allow you to take a Command Squad in any other situation?
Space Marine Codex, page 27 pretty clearly shows that anything listed in the army list can be taken to fill the force org chart.
Your argument is contingent on the premise that the heading of "command squad" would over-ride that, but clearly it does not. Hence my slam on your reading skills. Because frankly, if you read that and see it as an exclusive list of the only times you may take the unit, you need some remedial reading instruction.
330
Post by: Mahu
Well, I was only considering a sibgle command squad (Termie command squad with 2 Librarians and 2 Assault Cannons of coarse). I would think it would be harder to get two squads in range close enough to cause that many tests.
But you HAD to think of that Stu-Rat, huh?
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted by mauleed on 04/21/2006 10:48 AM
Your argument is contingent on the premise that the heading of "command squad" would over-ride that, but clearly it does not.
Why not? Anything else in an army list entry will override the general rules, but this won't? It's no different than the sidebar for the Assassin that requires you have an Inquisitor to be fielded. Additionally, the entire rules set is exclusive. If it doesn't say that I can, then I can not. That is one of the basic rules of the game. Why is this one suddenly different?
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Yeah Mahu, someone did try that. Remember the dude with the Drop Pod army in Tampa? I think he played Salamanders. He had a Librarian Command squad with two librarians. Both had fury and fear. Capt K
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By Ghaz on 04/21/2006 10:09 AM Posted by mauleed on 04/21/2006 10:48 AM
Your argument is contingent on the premise that the heading of "command squad" would over-ride that, but clearly it does not.
Why not? Anything else in an army list entry will override the general rules, but this won't? It's no different than the sidebar for the Assassin that requires you have an Inquisitor to be fielded. Additionally, the entire rules set is exclusive. If it doesn't say that I can, then I can not. That is one of the basic rules of the game. Why is this one suddenly different?
My guess is because that is how mauleed wants to play, so he will argue it to death. Ghaz is correct, the same way a rhino can only be fielded as an attachement to a unit (because that is the only way it says it can be fielded) the command squad can only be fielded with a listed character.
mauleed, please do the premise and conclusion explination that is so obviously lets you field the unit alone.
614
Post by: cypher
You can only take a rhino for a squad because it has no entry of its own (it is always described in a different way from the squads). A closer analogy would be a land raider. In the terminator entry it says you can buy a land raider for 5 termies as a ride (not taking up a HQ choice) or you could use the entry in the HS section and buy a seperate land raider for your army without the termies.
The command squad has a spesific entry in the codex hence most people's ruling on this.
330
Post by: Mahu
Posted By CaptKaruthors on 04/21/2006 10:17 AM
Yeah Mahu, someone did try that. Remember the dude with the Drop Pod army in Tampa? I think he played Salamanders. He had a Librarian Command squad with two librarians. Both had fury and fear. Capt K
Really, how did it do, I can't for the life of me remember.
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By cypher on 04/21/2006 10:52 AM
You can only take a rhino for a squad because it has no entry of its own (it is always described in a different way from the squads). A closer analogy would be a land raider. In the terminator entry it says you can buy a land raider for 5 termies as a ride (not taking up a HQ choice) or you could use the entry in the HS section and buy a seperate land raider for your army without the termies.
The command squad has a spesific entry in the codex hence most people's ruling on this.
That is a better example, as it lists itself also being able to be taken alone.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Ghaz on 04/21/2006 10:09 AM Posted by mauleed on 04/21/2006 10:48 AM
Your argument is contingent on the premise that the heading of "command squad" would over-ride that, but clearly it does not.
Why not? Anything else in an army list entry will override the general rules, but this won't? It's no different than the sidebar for the Assassin that requires you have an Inquisitor to be fielded. Additionally, the entire rules set is exclusive. If it doesn't say that I can, then I can not. That is one of the basic rules of the game. Why is this one suddenly different?
Sure, if there were a specific rule that said "you may only take a command squad with" you'd be right, the specific would rule the general. But there isn't. There's simply a rule that says you may take a character with it. Nothing in the wording is at all exclusive.
But here's the argument: P1. Units listed in the space marine army list can be used to fill slots in the force org chart, SM Codex, page 27 P2. The command squad is listed as a unit in the space marine army list, SM Codex, page 29 Conclusion: you may take a command squad to fill a slot in the force org chart. Of course you're going to counter with "But it says you may take it with a character". Which, again, doesn't make your point. If you can somehow get it to say "may only take" you'll be right. Good luck with that. But please only rebutt with a refutation of some part of my argument or a proper argument of your own.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By snooggums on 04/21/2006 10:25 AM
My guess is because that is how mauleed wants to play, so he will argue it to death. Ghaz is correct, the same way a rhino can only be fielded as an attachement to a unit (because that is the only way it says it can be fielded) the command squad can only be fielded with a listed character.
mauleed, please do the premise and conclusion explination that is so obviously lets you field the unit alone.
That's a complete jackazz thing to say. I have never fielded a command squad without the attached IC, and frankly I don't care how it's played. . While I'm sure it's lots of fun to simply attack my character instead of come up with an intelligent argument, here it's only going to make you look like a moron. Remember, I'm the guy that doesn't let my Tigurius model fear out to 24" because fear has no range.
Anyone that ever questions my ethics in relationship to the rules is automatically a boob and a nitwit. I dare say your exactly the kind of [PERSON] that actually believes GW when they explain why they don't really need to make an unambiguous rule set.
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 12:57 PM
Anyone that ever questions my ethics in relationship to the rules is automatically a boob and a nitwit.
Obviously it couldn't be possible that personal views are clouding your judgement. 
P2 is missing the part of the entry that actually lists how it can be fielded with a character. Since it does not list both ways, you would not be able to field it on it's own.
226
Post by: blue loki
P1 tells how it can be fielded without a character.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By snooggums on 04/21/2006 1:31 PM Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 12:57 PMObviously it couldn't be possible that personal views are clouding your judgement.
P2 is missing the part of the entry that actually lists how it can be fielded with a character. Since it does not list both ways, you would not be able to field it on it's own.
It's my P2, and it'll include whatever I like. It's true, and supports my conclusion, and that ends that.
The rest of your idiotic input doesn't refute it. And that's the point captain [FRIENDLY]. You're supposed to refute one of my premises, or show how it doesn't support my conclusion, or else, and this is my favorite option, just shut [EDITED] up. And again, you [INAPPROPRIATE INSULT] I have no personal view on this. I don't care how it's played, and even if I did, I'd simply play it however the rules said.
99
Post by: insaniak
Edit: Turns out there's a page 2. Nothing new to add 
14
Post by: Ghaz
P1. The Command Squad has a specific limitation in it's entry on how it may be fielded.
P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.
Conclusion: The Command Squad entry specifically states you may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. They do not state that you may take a Command Squad as a standalone unit.
So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present.
263
Post by: Centurian99
The problem here is that it's not clear what rule the SM Command squad "you may" is overriding. It's obviously overriding the inability to combine two force org selections into one. The wording provides an additional option for the command squad, not a limitation.
You wonder how many problems would be solved if GW had only inserted the word, "only" into the rule...
1101
Post by: Thunderkiss
"So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present."
You really really need to drop this aspect of your argument; it has diddly to do with squat. All you are pointing out here is that in the witchhunters codex they elaborated appropriately, and in the SMC they didn't.
WH codex even has said elaboration boxed aside with IMPORTANT: in it. If the CS entry had such an obvious and clear cut qualification next to it, you'd be right, and moreover there'd be no argument. However such limitations are quite clearly not present, regaurdless of how much it irks you or anyone else.
May does NOT = may ONLY. and your own reference to the assassin entry quite clearly illustrates that.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Ed, stop the direct personal attacks. It's completely inapprpriate. You are free to say the argument is dumb, but not the person. Posts edited. You have been warned. Don't go down this road again.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
P1. The Command Squad has a specific limitation in it's entry on how it may be fielded.
P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.
Conclusion: The Command Squad entry specifically states you may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. They do not state that you may take a Command Squad as a standalone unit.
P1 is false. This is not a limitation. It's a option to buy a second unit attached to the first unit within the same force org selection. Just like you can take a Landraider with certain squads. The fact that you are given the option to take a Landraider with certain squads does not negate the Landraider's ability to be taken as a standalone HS choice, which it has due to having its own separate listing under Heavy Support. The command squad has its own separate listing under HQ units. It also may be taken as a unit upgrade/option as noted in the rule you are quoting. There is nothing in the rule you are quoting which contradicts (and therefore overrides) the option granted on page 27, which is to take the units listed to fill the appropriate force org slots. So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present.
Thunderkiss has already demolished this. Codex: DH has the exact kind of restriction you are pretending C: SM has, and when we look at the difference in wording the contrast is obvious.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted by Thunderkiss on 04/23/2006 8:54 AM
You really really need to drop this aspect of your argument; it has diddly to do with squat. All you are pointing out here is that in the witchhunters codex they elaborated appropriately, and in the SMC they didn't.
Wrong. Both show the circumstance required to take the unit in question. Just because one is worded a little more specifically doesn't mean that it has 'diddly do with squat', thank you. Just because you think it's unclear doesn't mean it does not exist. Posted by Mannahnin on 04/23/2006 1:44 PM
P1 is false. This is not a limitation. It's a option to buy a second unit attached to the first unit within the same force org selection. Just like you can take a Landraider with certain squads.
And exactly why isn't it a limitation. It tells you exactly when you may field a Command Squad. When may you field a Command Squad? As directly quoted from page 29 of Codex Space Marines "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain". Sure sounds like a restriction to me by telling you the only circumstances in which you can take a Command Squad, just like Codex Daemonhunters tells you the only circumstances in which you may take an assassin. Additionally, it is not an option to buy a second unit either. The option to buy the second unit is in the army list entries for the Commander, Librarian and Chaplain.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
You know what surprises me about this little argument? Nobody has actually looked at what's DIRECTLY ACROSS from the command squad entry in the codex. That being the Commanders.
Under every commander entry it states (in bold letters no less) Command Squad and then follows with rules saying they may lead command squads (of various types).
It's pretty darned obvious that the lead in paragraph of both the power armor command squad and terminator command squad are the other side to the same coin.
The commander rules state "he leads them"... and the command squad rules state "Yep, he leads us." I really can't see HOW anyone can argue otherwise. It's commonsense people (and anyone that argues there's no such thing as common sense should go play in the freeway right now and prove my point).
861
Post by: Gotchaye
A question: the Tactical Squad entry says that the squad 'may be equipped with...grenades'. Ghaz, would you mind stating whether or not you think that all Tactical Squads must be equipped with grenades, and, if not, how this situation differs from the Command Squad situation? Likewise, must they take Rhinos?
To adapt your argument -
P1. The Tactical Squad has a specific limitation in its entry on how it may be fielded - with Rhinos. (true insofar as your P1 is true)
P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.
Conclusion: The Tactical Squad entry specifically states that Tactical Squads may be fielded with Rhinos. They do not state that you may take a Tactical Squad as a standalone unit, and so you can't.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'. The use of the word 'may' in the Tactical Squad entry is pretty clear as it appears under the unit's options.
Additionally, there are no further qualifiers on the Tactical Squad as there are with the Command Squad. It simply states that they may take a Rhino, period. End of sentence. The Command Squad has the further qualifier that you may take a Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain".
99
Post by: insaniak
Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'.
Thank you for agreeing. What was the argument about, again?
862
Post by: General Nuke Em
Nowhere does it say that the squad is led by a commander. It says it "may accompany a commander, librarian, or chaplain."
46
Post by: alarmingrick
"What was the argument about, again?"
you know, one of those he said, he said deals.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted By General Nuke Em on 04/23/2006 7:49 PM
Nowhere does it say that the squad is led by a commander. It says it "may accompany a commander, librarian, or chaplain."
Uh, check the Commander army list entry.
1066
Post by: happypants
Posted By Ghaz on 04/23/2006 5:40 PM
Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'.
this is almost as good as Bill Clinton asking for clarification of the word 'is' @Ghaz: although I agree with you about how it SHOULD be played and would probably have an anurism if I were to see a tourney judge rule someone fielding a command squad without a commander was alright, this can be lawyered either way because of the fact that there is more than one meaning for the word may.
2517
Post by: Tacit
Ghaz, I agree that the word 'may' has different meanings in different situations. However, the word 'may' never excludes possibilities by itself. You are implying that the word 'may' by itself excludes other possibilities, when in reality the word 'may' must be used with exclusive or negative modifiers such as 'only' or 'not' in order to exclude possibilities..<? Here is the actual wording in the codex: "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain." Here is what you are trying to imply: "You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain." This shows exactly why the use of the Inquisitor/Assassin combination actually supports the belief that you may take a Command Squad by itself. Here is the actual wording in the Daemonhunters codex: "Death-Cult Assassins may only be chosen if an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor is also part of the force." Page 27 of the Space Marine codex shows the exact set of permissive rules that allow us to select a unit. The codex permits the player to select any entry in the codex army list subject to the restrictions of the FOC and any restrictions or limits for choosing that specific unit. I'm sure we can all agree up to this point, and the main debate comes when determining the specific rules for the Command Squad. At this point, the Command Squad is a valid choice according to the rules listed on page 27 subject to restrictions listed within the army list entry. Your claim is that the Command Squad selection is restricted in the first sentence describing the entry, but the use of the word 'may' in that sentence does not exclude the possibility of taking the Command Squad by itself. Here is a quick breakdown of the logic, with the use of a permissive rules set, that shows how you may to take the Command Squad as a separate choice. In this case all selections will represent a general example. Rule: You may select any color crayon from this box subject to the specific rules of the crayons. Crayons in the Box: red crayon, blue crayon Specifc Rule for Red Crayon: A red crayon may be accompanied by a blue crayon, and this will count as one choice. Specific Rule for Blue Crayon: You may take a blue crayon to accompany a red crayon. So using the rule set here, which are analogous to the rules in the codex, I am going to choose my crayons. I choose a blue crayon. No where in the rules does it say that I may not choose a blue crayon by itself, or that I may only choose the blue crayon to accompany a red crayon, and the permissive nature of the first rule allows me to select it as a choice in the first place. So in premise/conclusion form: P1: You may select any entry in the army list to fill a slot in the Force Organization Chart, subject to the restrictions and limitations listed for that choice and the army as a whole. Support for P1: All of Page 27 in the SM Codex. P2: The listing in the Command Squad entry does not state any restrictions or limitations that would prevent taking the unit by itself. Support for P2: Here's where reading comprehension becomes important. It is imperative that you understand the fundamental difference between the phrases 'may' and 'may only'. The entry specifically states that "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Command, Librarian, or Chaplain." There is no exclusion at all within that sentence. Here is what a sentence looks like when it excludes the possibility of taking a unit unless a condition is met: "Death-Cult Assassins may only be chosen if an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor is also part of the force." Conclusion: You may take a Command Squad as a separate HQ choice. If you think otherwise it is probably because you either don't believe that was the intention of the developers, and that is obscuring your judgment, or you don't understand the difference between 'may' and 'may only' or the difference between the Command Squad entry and the Assassins entry.
2517
Post by: Tacit
[And exactly why isn't it a limitation. It tells you exactly when you may field a Command Squad. When may you field a Command Squad? As directly quoted from page 29 of Codex Space Marines "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain".] - Ghaz By that same logic: When may you field a Veteran Squad? As directly quoted from page 32 of Codex Space Marines ".........." When may you field a Tactical Squad? As directly quoted from page 34 of Codex Space Marines ".........." When may you field a [general entry]? As directly quoted from page [x] of Codex Space Marines "........." Your logic leads to the conclusion that you may only take a unit when it permissively states that within the unit entry, in which case, you cannot take any of the selections in the army list. The fact that you can take any of those choices in the first place is located on page 27. The answer for the question: "When may you field a [general entry]?" is found on page 27. The specific entries list limitations on the selection. The fact that they are in the army list in the first place is what allows you to take them. So again the order of logic is this: 1.) Page 27: You may field entries listed in the army list. 2.) Page 29: Command Squad entry in the army list. Summary of Rules for the Command Squad: 1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27) 2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29) You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place. [When may you field a Command Squad?] This question never appears in the codex. And it's fortunate that it doesn't, otherwise questions like [When may you field a Tactical Squad?] would not be specifically answered and imply you cannot take those units.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted by Tacit on 04/26/2006 11:14 PM
Summary of Rules for the Command Squad:
1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27)
2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29)
You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place.
Because 2 is the more specific rule and therefore it overrides 1. End of discussion
2517
Post by: Tacit
[Summary of Rules for the Command Squad:
1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27)
2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29)
You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place.] - Me [Because 2 is the more specific rule and therefore it overrides 1. End of discussion] - Ghaz You totally missed the point. (2) must prevent (1) or state that (1) is not allowed. You have no evidence or support to show that you may not take a Command Squad separately. (2) is definitely more specific. But does (2) state that (1) is false, or does (2) preclude the possibility of (1)? Absolutely not. (2) Applies to the interaction of a Command Squad with a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. No where in the entire sentence that you hold as your sole support does it state that you may not take a Command Squad separately. From a rules compliance standpoint taking a Command Squad alone is legal. Here's how it works: 1.) I field a Command Squad. 2.) I comply with rules on page 27 and 29. 3.) Done. Look at these statements: 1.) I may field entries in the army list 2.) The Command Squad is an entry in the army list 3.) I field the Command Squad. 4.) I may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain. Statement (4) does not negate statements (1), (2), or (3). Statement (4) tells me how I may take the Command Squad to accompany another HQ choice. Here is what you want statement (4) to say and what it explicitly does not say: I may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain. I may not take a Command Squad separately. Unless you can show where those statements are explicitly made within the codex, then it truly is "End of Discussion".
963
Post by: Mannahnin
2 has to CONTRADICT 1 to override it. It does not contradict it. The fact that it says "may" as opposed to C: DH's "may only" only makes it even more clear. Ghaz, are you okay? Seriously.
You don't have to be right all the time. Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
Posted By Mannahnin on 04/26/2006 11:32 PM Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.
Oh, horse hockey. I don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
I don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.
I do. It has happened. Perhaps rarely. Regardless, in the 6 Ven Dread thread, IIRC, he initially thought it was cheating, but upon further review, it was discovered that it was at least dubiously legal.
515
Post by: snooggums
If the marine command squad doesn't need a leader then neither does a Hive Tyrant Retinue, since it only says that a Non-winged Tyrant MAY choose them to form a unit with the Tyrant, but they are listed as a seperate entry. And you can take two of them!
No I personally don't think the command squad can, the reason has been explained by others already and doesn't need repeating.
1450
Post by: rank
Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By rank on 04/27/2006 7:28 AM
Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.
Separate page, it has it's own title. How is this different than the marine command squads separate HQ Choice?
405
Post by: Antonin
Posted By bigchris1313 on 04/27/2006 1:56 AMI don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.
I do. It has happened. Perhaps rarely. Regardless, in the 6 Ven Dread thread, IIRC, he initially thought it was cheating, but upon further review, it was discovered that it was at least dubiously legal.
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with. To keep myself out of the Mauleed fan club, I must also note that he does at times cherry pick the debates he gets into. Of course, that also meets a good rule of "if you don't have something intelligent to say, don't talk." Tacit - bravo. Four posts, and an excellent breakdown of this matter.
2517
Post by: Tacit
You said that you personally think it's wrong, and that others have stated the reasons for you. Unfortunately none of those reasons stand up to any amount of scrutiny. So if the Tyrant Guard has similar wording, isn't it possible that you may take them as a separate choice by the RAW? Does the interpretation of the RAW concerning a Tyrant Guard or a Command Squad give the owning player an undue advantage? If you take two separate Tyrant Guard squads as your HQ, you have two less synapse possibilities, and two units that create no practical threat to your enemy and can be ignored, which results in wasted points. So taking Tyrant Guard as a separate choice will definitely not give the player an advantage and most likely hinder his army as a whole. If you take two separate Command Squads, do they represent a way to improve your ability unfairly or in a way that you otherwise wouldn't be able to achieve? Look at the Command Squad options carefully and you will realize that they are not really unique. Command Squad Options: BP/CCW - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads, standard for Assault Squads. Multi-Melta, Missile Launcher, Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, Plasmagun, Meltagun, Flamer - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads and Tactical Squads, where the heavy weapons cost significantly less. Even dual Plasma/Melta is possible using traits. Frag/Krak - Can be accomplished by all other infantry units in power armor or carapace armor, and in some cases are free. V.Sarge - Possible for all other infantry units within the codex, and standard for Terminators. Terminator Honors - Veteran Squads can also take T.Honors for the entire squad, and Terminators already have that bonus. Veteran Skills - Can be accomplished by Veteran Squads and Terminators, and by using traits all infantry models can gain access to a wider range of Veteran Skills that the Command Squad has access to by itself. Transport Options: Land Raider / LRC / Rhino / Razorback / Drop-Pod - not unique in the slightest. Specialists: Company Champion - Give a V.Sarge a power weapon and a combat shield. Veteran Squads have better CC options than the Command Squad by itself. Apothecary - Using traits you can actually have more than just two Apothecaries from your HQ. Company Standard - This is the only option that I know of that is unique. If you think that getting access to a Company Standard or Holy Relic without a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain provides such a benefit that the loss of a Commander providing leadership for the entire army, a Fear and Fury Librarian, or a Chaplain with Jump Pack leading an Assault Squad is more than outweighed, then you know how to use Company Standards or Holy Relics better than anyone else in the game. By the strictest, most literal interpretation of the rules, "by the RAW", you may take a Command Squad, and apparently even Tyrant Guard, as separate choices. Does this literal interpretation of the rules provide undue advantage to the owning player? Most definitely not.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Posted By Mannahnin on 04/26/2006 11:32 PM 2 has to CONTRADICT 1 to override it. It does not contradict it. The fact that it says "may" as opposed to C: DH's "may only" only makes it even more clear. Ghaz, are you okay? Seriously.
You don't have to be right all the time. Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.
Again, it does contradict it by giving a specific requirement to field a Command Squad. That specific requirement is that the Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain" exactly as the entry states. The lack of the word 'only' does not change the basic tenet that you can only do what the rules permit. Not in the least. So far you've not proven that you can take a Command Squad in any other way than to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By Tacit on 04/27/2006 10:25 AM You said that you personally think it's wrong, and that others have stated the reasons for you. Unfortunately none of those reasons stand up to any amount of scrutiny. So if the Tyrant Guard has similar wording, isn't it possible that you may take them as a separate choice by the RAW? By the strictest, most literal interpretation of the rules, "by the RAW", you may take a Command Squad, and apparently even Tyrant Guard, as separate choices. Does this literal interpretation of the rules provide undue advantage to the owning player? Most definitely not.
Wether it gives an avantage or not has nothing to do with the discussion.
I personally think they cannot be fielded because both list themselves as being able to be taken with a command model (HT or IC), not either or. Saying 'I think' is different that 'They can't' because I have enough respect for fellow posters not to act like I know everything, and I leave it open to further debate. Neither says they can be fielded by themselves, nor does either one say 'You cannot' literally either, but if it did not have that specific option I would think they could be separate. I'll check the wordingon a Chimera tonight, but it lists itself as being able to be taken as a transport option, but is in a box in one of the force org chart areas, does that mean a Chimera can be taken by itself as that type of choice? I sure don't think so. I'm just posting that as a point, the Tyrant guard has the same kind of wording, yet I expect someone to pipe in with the Tyrant Guard not being able to be taken seperately, but the Marine Command Squad can. I forsee someone saying that having 'Retinue' in the name will disqualify it yet that same person doesn't allow Marine Scouts to Scout move even though that is in their name. I'm just trying to point out that other things in the game work in a similar fashion, which could be applied to this unclear situatiuon.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
To keep myself out of the Mauleed fan club
Damn right. You know why? Because WhiteDragon and I didn't invite you, damnit!
405
Post by: Antonin
Hmm... that makes the club more attractive. As Sam Clemens said, he only wanted to be part of clubs that wouldn't admit him. Is there a secret handshake? Do you get to wear fez?
1450
Post by: rank
Posted By rank on 04/27/2006 7:28 AM
Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.
Separate page, it has it's own title. How is this different than the marine command squads separate HQ Choice?
The tyrant guard are not a HQ choice. Nor are they under troops, elite, fast attack or heavy support. While the SM command squad is under the HQ heading, the tyrant guard is not. Notice that HQ is printed along the side of the entry for the hive tyrant, broodlord, and warriorbrood. There is no indication of what FO slot the tyrant guard would field. Also look at the tyrant guard entry. It is lacking a brood entry. There is nothing in their rules to indicate what the squad size would be, if it was possible to field them alone. We are only given, "A Hive Tyrant without the Wings biomorph may choose to be accompanied by up to 3 Tyrant Guard at +45 points each." No where is it specified what the size of the unit would be without the hive tyrant. Follow me here for a second. If the tyrant guard are their own separate unit, available to be taken as a HQ choice without the hive tyrant, then a hive tyrant with guard would take up two choices, correct? Unlike the SM codex, I cannot find anywhere in the nid book that states a hive tyrant and its guard take up only one slot.
2517
Post by: Tacit
[Again, it does contradict it by giving a specific requirement to field a Command Squad. That specific requirement is that the Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain" exactly as the entry states.] - Ghaz So it used to be: "You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain." No you say the entry reads: "You take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain." It's unfortunate that the exact wording has to be restated, but you keep cutting out words or implying words that don't exist. This is what it actually states: "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain." See how that is fundamentally different from the two previous statements? And this is "exactly as the entry states." This includes the entire sentence, not only the part that you think supports your position. Please stop saying "specific requirement", that clearly has not been established and is not written within the unit entry on page 29. [The lack of the word 'only' does not change the basic tenet that you can only do what the rules permit. Not in the least.] - Ghaz Consider this: 1.) You may eat food. 2.) You may eat pizza. 3.) You may only eat pizza. (1) is obviously the general rule. (2) is more specific, but (2) does not prevent you from eating an apple. (3) prevents you from eating an apple. Step by step, this will explain the difference between the phrases 'may' and 'may only'. (1) permits me to eat food, so I eat an apple. So far I'm complying with the rules. (2) permits me to eat pizza. I eat an apple as is allowed in (1). Again, I'm still complying with the rules. (3) permits me only to eat pizza. I eat an apple. Now I am breaking the rules, and all because of that little word missing in the codex: 'only'. [So far you've not proven that you can take a Command Squad in any other way than to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain.] - Ghaz Page 27 permits me to field entries in the army list. Page 29 marks the Command Squad entry in the army list. There, I just proved you can take a Command Squad separately. If page 27 doesn't permit me to take entries in the army list, then I can't possibly field an army. The rules are permissive, and page 27 permits me to field a Command Squad. The onus is yours to point to the evidence that "You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain". Look at the entries for transports. The Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod are all entries in the army list. Page 27 permits me to take entries in the army list. Then on the transport page, it states that I may not take a transport listed on that page to fill a slot in the Force Organization Chart. The page specifically restricts taking the Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod to fill FOC slots. It even makes note that the Land Raider is a different case, which may count as a dedicated transport for the purposes of FOC slots, but it counts as a scoring vehicle during the game. There was an entire paragraph detailing how you can only take a Rhino, Razorback, or Drop-Pod as a dedicated transport, and you are trying to pull the same meaning out of one sentence. The paragraph made use of restrictive language, which is entirely absent in the sentence you claim contains equivalent meaning. So here are the things that are proven: 1.) I may field entries in the army list. 2.) The Command Squad is an entry in the army list. Can you prove that either of those statements are not true? What is the difference between those statements and these? 1.) I may field entries in the army list. 2.) The Tactical Squad is an entry in the army list.
2517
Post by: Tacit
[Wether it gives an avantage or not has nothing to do with the discussion.] - Snooggums [When we discuss rules, it may not always be clear which argument has weight. If you have any question, or you have any doubt in a claim, there is a simple system to follow to ensure you get yourself into the least amount of trouble and make the least amount of people unhappy:
If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.
So if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don?t take it. But it?s important that this is only reserved for situations where there is a legitimate grey area. Simply because some people might not see or understand an argument doesn?t make that argument false, so you must choose carefully when this applies. And remember, the onus is on the person taking the action. If you don?t stop your opponent from taking advantage of a shaky rule, or at least discuss it, then you?re just letting yourself be taken advantage of. But if he's got a good argument, be prepared to let him take the action.] - Centurian99 I think determining whether it gives an advantage is very important. And this exact sentiment happens to be reinforced in the big stickied post titled "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate". [I personally think they cannot be fielded because both list themselves as being able to be taken with a command model (HT or IC), not either or. Saying 'I think' is different that 'They can't' because I have enough respect for fellow posters not to act like I know everything, and I leave it open to further debate. Neither says they can be fielded by themselves, nor does either one say 'You cannot' literally either, but if it did not have that specific option I would think they could be separate. I'll check the wordingon a Chimera tonight, but it lists itself as being able to be taken as a transport option, but is in a box in one of the force org chart areas, does that mean a Chimera can be taken by itself as that type of choice? I sure don't think so. I'm just posting that as a point, the Tyrant guard has the same kind of wording, yet I expect someone to pipe in with the Tyrant Guard not being able to be taken seperately, but the Marine Command Squad can. I forsee someone saying that having 'Retinue' in the name will disqualify it yet that same person doesn't allow Marine Scouts to Scout move even though that is in their name. I'm just trying to point out that other things in the game work in a similar fashion, which could be applied to this unclear situatiuon.] - Snooggums For a similar comparison like a Chimera, all you need to do is look in the marine codex at the transport options. The Rhino, Razorback, and Drop-Pod are entries in the codex. The page where they are listed specifically restricts you from taking them as anything other than dedicated transports. It specifically states that they cannot be used as an FOC choice. "Neither says they can be fielded by themselves". Look at Page 27, the rules there permit you to field entries in the army list. That is exactly where it says you can field a Command Squad. The Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guard difference is explained best by rank.
515
Post by: snooggums
Posted By Tacit on 04/27/2006 3:51 PM [< Command field can says where exactly That list. army entries there permit rules 27, the at Page themselves?. Look by fielded Neither>
I'm not sure how your post got butchered in the quote but this was all I was addressing at this time anyway.
I think determining whether it gives an advantage is very important. And this exact sentiment happens to be reinforced in the big stickied post titled "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate". Your fallacy is that you think it is allowed because you believe it is the lesser option. I don't think that a Command Squad is a lesser option to take that a Commander or other IC in general, and therefore not allowing them to be taken separate option. See, if you take it seperately, then field it next to the IC, you can keep the IC from getting fired at, but have him join the squad later on. You can also get an extra Terminator squad that the IC you do field does ot have to lead, and can therefore take other equipment: You can now take your Commmander with a jet pack or hide him the whole game, and take a 4th unit of Terminators as an HQ choice. That is NOT the less effective choice.
263
Post by: Centurian99
I have to agree with Snoogums here...
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.
I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...
2517
Post by: Tacit
"Your fallacy is that you think it is allowed because you believe it is the lesser option." - Snooggums. Wrong. I think it is allowed because of what is stated explicitly in the rules. "See, if you take it seperately, then field it next to the IC, you can keep the IC from getting fired at, but have him join the squad later on." - Snooggums. You can do this with any other unit. I could field an IC and a Veteran Squad, or a Tactical Squad, or a Scout Squad, or any other infantry squad in the entire codex and the IC will still not get shot at and still be able to join the unit when the time comes, and I don't have to waste an HQ slot to do that. That is a function of the IC not being able to be shot at, and in this case you are burning 2 HQ slots so you can have one IC and one squad that is very similar to a Veteran Squad. "You can also get an extra Terminator squad that the IC you do field does ot have to lead, and can therefore take other equipment" - Snooggums Extra Terminator Squad?!? The maximum number of Terminator Squads in any vanilla list is 5. If you take an IC with Jump Pack, you still only have 4 options left for Terminators, regardless of the current debate. You don't gain an extra Terminator Squad. "You can now take your Commmander with a jet pack or hide him the whole game, and take a 4th unit of Terminators as an HQ choice. That is NOT the less effective choice." - Snooggums You can take a Commander with a Jump Pack and hide him the whole game with the current rules as well. So whats new? You can have 4 units of Terminators? Whoa, impressive... except for the fact that you can do that in any vanilla list, and you can throw in a Librarian with Fear and Fury as well, which is probably the most effect choice in the entire codex. Taking a Command Squad separately burns an important HQ slot, and you aren't doing anything with that unit that you couldn't do with a 10 man Tactical Squad with a tooled up V. Sarge or traits. In fact, the V.Sarge in the Tactical Squad can become an Apothecary and have Terminator armor if you take the right traits, and the Veteran Skills purchased with traits cost just as much as the Veteran Skills for the Command Squad. Basically, if you take a separate Command Squad, you waste one of your two HQ choices instead of one of your six Troops. You thought that the ability to have an IC and a separate squad was more effective, but you don't need a separate Command Squad to do that. And if you do take that option, instead of burning one HQ for the IC and one separate squad, you burn 2 HQ's, which means less Terminators, not extra. It also means no deep striking Fear and Fury Librarians.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By skyth on 04/27/2006 6:25 PM Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.
I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...
6 times, huh? Lay them out.
2078
Post by: thelosttau
Never one to praise GWs rules writing but if you read the last section of the Command Squad description:
"Independent Characters in Terminator Armor may not lead or be attached to a Command Squad, they may join it during the course of play, however."
This could now be used to create a themed SPace Marine Army, by allowing a player to have an Independant Character in Terminator Armor lead the army, and say for instance because of a lack of Terminator armor in the Chapter the command squad is in power armor.
Ok, its a reach and I feel like a GW apologist, but well, it could work that way. Course that would ascribe a lot to the GW rules writers.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
Not so much a rules debate issue, but going along with the "Ed doesn't admit being wrong", I distinctly remember being lambasted by you and others for thinking the Armored Company was completely pants, even with their new rules. You changed your tune later on though. Never admitted being wrong though.
On a side note, to add further fuel to the fire... I happened to be thumbing through the Dark Eldar Codex recently... and the retinue entry doesn't require an archon/dracon to lead them... according to the line of reasoning going on here.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By KiMonarrez on 04/28/2006 7:34 AM
Not so much a rules debate issue, but going along with the "Ed doesn't admit being wrong", I distinctly remember being lambasted by you and others for thinking the Armored Company was completely pants, even with their new rules. You changed your tune later on though. Never admitted being wrong though.
On a side note, to add further fuel to the fire... I happened to be thumbing through the Dark Eldar Codex recently... and the retinue entry doesn't require an archon/dracon to lead them... according to the line of reasoning going on here.
I was wrong, Armored company are very average now. (and I have been very open that I was wrong on that point. You just want to hear me say you were right. So here you go: you were right)
But to be specific, you also said even in V3 they weren't that good, which was ridiculous.
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By mauleed on 04/27/2006 10:16 PM Posted By skyth on 04/27/2006 6:25 PM Posted By Antonin on br>
He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.
I've seen at least 6 times, though he only admitted being wrong twice, and a couple others, he just started singing the other tune months later...
6 times, huh? Lay them out.
As you wish-
1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later. 2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards 3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that 4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that. 5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong. 6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
Posted By mauleed on 04/28/2006 9:43 AM
I was wrong, Armored company are very average now. (and I have been very open that I was wrong on that point. You just want to hear me say you were right. So here you go: you were right)
But to be specific, you also said even in V3 they weren't that good, which was ridiculous.
Oh, I didn't need to hear you say that, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not savoring it. 
And I still stand by them being bad in V3. I think they're far better in V4, actually... but still suck.
2583
Post by: Sister Stern
To get this straight, my friends had a similiar arguement where he wanted to have a IC commander lead a command squad with a Librarian and a Chaplain attached count as one HQ slot. Scary H-t-H, shudder. Is this correct?
Here's my 2 cents. It sounds like you could just run the Command Squad by itself and have it be led by the Sarge, it would cost you one HQ slot. Why can't the Sarge just lead the Command Squad, or upgrade him to a Apoth.? I guess you could have 2 HQ Termie squads just to have more Termies but is that an unstoppable uber army (eh, doubtful). I don't see a huge advantage, it'll all come out in the points.
99
Post by: insaniak
To get this straight, my friends had a similiar arguement where he wanted to have a IC commander lead a command squad with a Librarian and a Chaplain attached count as one HQ slot. Scary H-t-H, shudder. Is this correct?
Yes. Check page 21 of the Codex.
157
Post by: mauleed
6 times, huh? Lay them out.
As you wish-
1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later. 2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards 3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that 4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that. 5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong. 6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.
You just making them up as you go?
1. is definitely correct. I did think it granted a cover save, and did admit my mistake. 2. is from V3, where I was correct. 3. You've just made this one up. 4. Again, you're wrong. I said that to get a second attack, you need two weapons. It was in relation to the kroot rifle goof up in the new Tau book. Obviously if you can't get your facts straight you're going to make some silly assumptions like this. So how about less complaining and a little more focus on accuracy in what you intend to complain about. I'm sure I've been wrong more than 6 times, but you certainly don't get a pass to say I don't admit them when they happen.
2583
Post by: Sister Stern
Thx, Insaniak. 2 command squads with a commander, chaplain, and librarian each are downright scary if they got into H-t-H (shudder...). Well, I take back my hunch earlier about the Command being taken byitself. The hangup is GW left the door of vagueness slightly open , when they have the separate entry for the command squad. I don't have direct access to all the codices to research their command squad choices. I do have the DH and WH codices and in both of them there is no separate entry for the Command Section, they just use the regular elite entries which make no mention of a command squad. The Inquisitor Lord for both codices must have 3-12 henchmen for the retinue. The Inquisitor (Elite choice) can have 0-6 henchmen for the retinue, but I believe nowhere in either codex doesn't it allow the 0-6 henchmen to be taken separately. The DH codex has more of a "must" for the Grey knight Hero if chooses a command squad that he is joined to them and that's it. The Sisters Heroine may choose a retinue, of Celestians, for a command squad that's chosen from the Elite section and that she is joined to that squad. I know I shouldn't use example of precendent when trying to answer wacky GW rules, because everything is a special case, but if everyone in the 40K universe can't have a separate command squad run around by itself, then the SM probably can't pull that off. Whew, I didn't think I would ramble on that long.
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 7:11 AM 6 times, huh? Lay them out.
As you wish-
1)Old Dakka- you claimed that Psycannons allowed cover saves. Proved wrong. No response, but changed tune later. 2)Old Dakka- claimed you could remove casaulties from outside of range/los from ordnance blasts. Changed tune on new boards 3)Claimed you didn't have to have a sergeant for a terminator squad-no response to that 4)(Memory a little hazy here on exact wording here)-Claimed that to count as a second weapon in hth, you must have a pistol.-No response to that. 5) Bio-plasma vs skimmers. Admitted to being proved wrong. 6) 6 Venerable dread thread. Admitted to being wrong.
You just making them up as you go?
1. is definitely correct. I did think it granted a cover save, and did admit my mistake. 2. is from V3, where I was correct. 3. You've just made this one up. 4. Again, you're wrong. I said that to get a second attack, you need two weapons. It was in relation to the kroot rifle goof up in the new Tau book. Obviously if you can't get your facts straight you're going to make some silly assumptions like this. So how about less complaining and a little more focus on accuracy in what you intend to complain about. I'm sure I've been wrong more than 6 times, but you certainly don't get a pass to say I don't admit them when they happen.
First off, you never said another word in the psycannon discussion after just stating that they grant cover saves with no supporting argument. You never admitted to being wrong there. Only later did you start saying that they denied cover saves. No admissision of being wrong, simply a stealth switch in beliefs.
The ordnance discussion was about the 4th edition rules. The terminator sergeant you definitely did say that you didn't have to buy one in a command squad. You probably meant to say something else, but that is what you said. I went to go look up the post but it was right after the changeover and the oldest posts I could find were from Febuary. And you definitely claimed something about a pistol being required for a 2nd attack in hth. (Same time frame as the terminator sergeant issue.) I absolutely did not make these up. I'll err on the side of the optimist saying that you just don't remember correctly rather than saying that you are lying to cover yourself.
157
Post by: mauleed
Then you'll have no trouble linking to them, right? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up out azzzes.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
Ed, it's entirely possible that all of that happened before the last move... so the info would be lost. Not taking sides, just pointing out facts.
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 5:16 PM Then you'll have no trouble linking to them, right? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up out azzzes.
If you bothered to actually READ what I wrote, then you would have noticed that two were on old dakka before the meltdown and the other two were right after the switchover, so are past recovery for me, as the boards only go back to Febuary (I looked before I posted or else I would have linked to them). I know I called you on both issues, but never got a response.
157
Post by: mauleed
Well how convenient for you. I call shenanigans on you my friend.
330
Post by: Mahu
I find it interesting that people are trying to find your flaws. It probably has nothing to do with your abrasive personality, I'm sure.
Now, I personally haven't seen you admit that you are wrong. I have admitted to being wrong on more than one occasion (mostly just to end a bad thread). So people don't understand the nature of this forum and gnerally don't agreed with the nature of this forum. If there was more of a friendly atmosphere here, maybe things would change. Until then anybody acting stupid will be called on and anybody acting like an jerk will not be appriciated.
157
Post by: mauleed
Well, you might be right. But you can't deny that the upside of the present YMDC attitude is that we don't have to suffer as many idiots as other boards. Well we suffer them, but they usually figure out that they should quit posting and/or provide us with plenty of laughs.
226
Post by: blue loki
HEY!!!! EVERYBODY!!!!! Take a second to chill. All of this Mauleed mauling  , warrented or not, has no place in YMDC. Take it outside. (And by outside I mean the DCM forums, or at least Dakka Discussions. You are no longer discussing rules.) I said, cool it! And I mean it. \ You best listen, else I call out the brute squad...
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By mauleed on 05/03/2006 6:07 AM Well how convenient for you. I call shenanigans on you my friend.
How convenient for you that of all the times I've called you on your statement that you always admit when you're wrong, you wait until the evidence has disappeared to challenge my statement...
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By blue loki on 05/03/2006 3:26 PM HEY!!!! EVERYBODY!!!!! Take a second to chill. All of this Mauleed mauling , warrented or not, has no place in YMDC. Take it outside. (And by outside I mean the DCM forums, or at least Dakka Discussions. You are no longer discussing rules.) I said, cool it! And I mean it. \ You best listen, else I call out the brute squad...
Heh...Probably should read the whole thread before replying...Well, take it to Dakka Discussions if you want to keep on falsely perclaiming your innocence for whatever reason, be it failing memory or ego...
226
Post by: blue loki
I did read the whole thread. It is supposed to be about fielding SM command squads.
Mauleed's ability to and track record of admitting defeat and/or error has nothing to do with fielding a command squad.
287
Post by: Zubbiefish
Mauleed's ability to and track record of admitting defeat and/or error has nothing to do with fielding a command squad.
You're right but it's the other favorite passtime of YMDC frequenters. They figure if they can discredit the source then the argument must be false. It's ineffective and a complete waste of time but it sure is fun! Just for good measure though, "Yeah, that guy's point sucks 'cause it's argumennan... argumintu... He's a jerk!" So there.
443
Post by: skyth
Posted By blue loki on 05/04/2006 7:28 AM
I did read the whole thread. It is supposed to be about fielding SM command squads.
Mauleed's ability to and track record of admitting defeat and/or error has nothing to do with fielding a command squad.
No, I was saying that I should have finished reading the rest of the thread. I wasn't saying that you should have. I was agreeing with your sentiment that the other stuff belongs elsewhere.
226
Post by: blue loki
Oh..... oops 
346
Post by: Gaaargh
I remember on old Dakka when Tortoise professed his undying love for BigChris. I think they even talked about adopting an albino armadillo.
Prove he didn't.
|
|
