So as I was reading the section of rise of he primarch that describes how you field Guilliman and Voldus I realized it says that either character can be included in any armies of the imperium detachment. What exactly does that mean? Can either character just be added to a detachment regardless of their battlefield role? Nothing specifically explains that Guilliman must occupy a Lord of War slot and it just says "may be included." Would this allow Guilliman to just be added to a gladius strikeforce or any imperial decurion detachment for that matter?

I think they still have to adhere to battlefield role because we aren't given permission to ignore that. You can add a Space Marine Captain too but he's still X slot.

I believe is the intent that any IoM faction can use Rowboat in a LoW slot and Voldus in a HQ slot.

They would still take up the appropriate slot in the detachment, they'd just (potentially) be a different faction than the rest of the detachment. You'd have to have a Lord of War slot in the detachment in order to take him (not counting formations or detachments that already list him specifically - I know Fracture of Biel Tan has a formation for the 3 new characters that you can take as a formation; I imagine the same for the new supplement)

It's not automatically all detachments either, at least based on the earlier releases it looked like they were limiting it to CAD or Allied Detachments (or special detachments in the supplement itself).

 doctortom wrote:
They would still take up the appropriate slot in the detachment, they'd just (potentially) be a different faction than the rest of the detachment. You'd have to have a Lord of War slot in the detachment in order to take him (not counting formations or detachments that already list him specifically - I know Fracture of Biel Tan has a formation for the 3 new characters that you can take as a formation; I imagine the same for the new supplement)

It's not automatically all detachments either, at least based on the earlier releases it looked like they were limiting it to CAD or Allied Detachments (or special detachments in the supplement itself).

They were in the beginning, but a leaked shot of Primarch I saw just says any detachment for Voldus and Rowboat while Celestine/Cawl specifically say CAD/Allied only. So it seems like they're broadening it.

See that's why I asked. The first gathering storm characters specifically say CAD or Allied detachment, second gathering storm says they can be included in any Ynnari detachment and now guilliman and Voldus say may be included in any army of the imeprium detachment. Wouldn't RAW suggest that they can literally be included in ANY armies of the imperium detachment?

Gathering Storm II allows Yvraine, the Visarch and the Yncarne to be used in any Aeldari Detachment. Specifically it allows them to be used in any Eldar, Dark Eldar or Harlequins Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions, and they are of the Ynnari Faction, rounding out the four Factions that make up the Aeldari. A sort of parallel you could say to Armies of the Imperium.

So if Guilliman and Voldus (and Cypher?) can be used in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment it's nothing new after Gathering Storm II.

Wow, if this is true can Guilliman teleport into battle with the right detachment?

peirceg wrote:
Wow, if this is true can Guilliman teleport into battle with the right detachment?

the detachment still had to be able to take a lord of war

peirceg wrote:
Wow, if this is true can Guilliman teleport into battle with the right detachment?

I believe Roboute Guilliman is a Lord of War choice, so is there a Detachment with a Lord of War slot that allows all models to arrive by Deep Strike? If so, sure.

Grey Knight Nemesis Strike Force does and has the slot, but Rowboat doesn't have Deep Strike innately I don't think so he wouldn't be able to make use of it.

Audustum wrote:
Grey Knight Nemesis Strike Force does and has the slot, but Rowboat doesn't have Deep Strike innately I don't think so he wouldn't be able to make use of it.

Indeed, 'Rites of Teleportation' doesn't actually grant the Deep Strike special rule.

 son_of_osiris wrote:
See that's why I asked. The first gathering storm characters specifically say CAD or Allied detachment, second gathering storm says they can be included in any Ynnari detachment and now guilliman and Voldus say may be included in any army of the imeprium detachment. Wouldn't RAW suggest that they can literally be included in ANY armies of the imperium detachment?

No. Formations are a type of detachment. Saying that they can be included in any Imperial formation seems very dubious.

"Here, I'm putting these three named characters in an Imperial Knights formation."
"That's nothing. I'm putting them in a Raptor Wing formation."

So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

There isn't a LoW slot in the War Convocation.

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

There isn't a LoW slot in the War Convocation.

Doesn't the War Con include an Oathsworn deatatchment?

 VoidLuster wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

There isn't a LoW slot in the War Convocation.

Doesn't the War Con include an Oathsworn deatatchment?

Yes, which is limited to Knights: "All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction"

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

There isn't a LoW slot in the War Convocation.

Doesn't the War Con include an Oathsworn deatatchment?

Yes, which is limited to Knights: "All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction"

Which makes it an Imperium of Man faction, and therefore eligible to include Guilliman.

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

As you note, there is an Oathsworn Detachment in the Adeptus Mechanicus War Convocation Formation, so you could put Roboute Guilliman in there.

For more fun you could take Belisarius Cawl in the Cult Mechanicus Battle Congregation as well.

 Happyjew wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 VoidLuster wrote:
So could I just put Guilliman in a War Con and he benefits from canticles?

There isn't a LoW slot in the War Convocation.

Doesn't the War Con include an Oathsworn deatatchment?

Yes, which is limited to Knights: "All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction"

Which makes it an Imperium of Man faction, and therefore eligible to include Guilliman.

I see where you're coming from, but Guilliman is Faction: Space Marines. I'm not sure if the "can be included in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment, regardless of their Faction" line overrules the Oathsworn restriction.

beast_gts wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but Guilliman is Faction: Space Marines. I'm not sure if the "can be included in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment, regardless of their Faction" line overrules the Oathsworn restriction.

If it didn't, then it also wouldn't override the restriction in the Combined Arms and Allied detachments that all models must be of the same Faction (or have no Faction at all).

 Ghaz wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but Guilliman is Faction: Space Marines. I'm not sure if the "can be included in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment, regardless of their Faction" line overrules the Oathsworn restriction.

If it didn't, then it also wouldn't override the restriction in the Combined Arms and Allied detachments that all models must be of the same Faction (or have no Faction at all).

True - honestly I'd never noticed that the line was also on the CAD

The Imperial Knight formations are a little different than others. None of them say "take 3 LoW's" or whatever. The most permissive ones say "Take 3-5 Knights". The Knights just happen to be LoW's, but there aren't LoW slots in their specific formations. There are Knight slots.

So no, you can't take the Primarch there.

Audustum wrote:
The Imperial Knight formations are a little different than others. None of them say "take 3 LoW's" or whatever. The most permissive ones say "Take 3-5 Knights". The Knights just happen to be LoW's, but there aren't LoW slots in their specific formations. There are Knight slots.

So no, you can't take the Primarch there.

The Formations may say that, but the Oathsworn Detachment has a requirement of 1-3 Lord of War choices.

Welp, I just opened the book and it appears you're right.

Compulsory
1 Lord of War
Options
2 Lords of War

The Household Detachment is the same and offers better cheese though, now that I'm looking at it with this lens.

Lord Baron: If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-Heavy Walker, Character) unit type and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the point cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord.

So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

Audustum wrote:
Welp, I just opened the book and it appears you're right.

Compulsory
1 Lord of War
Options
2 Lords of War

The Household Detachment is the same and offers better cheese though, now that I'm looking at it with this lens.

Lord Baron: If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-Heavy Walker, Character) unit type and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the point cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord.

So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

Yeah, that's not gonna fly... Anywhere.

What people and TO's house rule is one thing, but we're on YMDC. Is there any reason that doesn't work RAW? Cause IK's probably need a FAQ update if it does.

Audustum wrote:
What people and TO's house rule is one thing, but we're on YMDC. Is there any reason that doesn't work RAW? Cause IK's probably need a FAQ update if it does.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think GW expects us to apply a little bit of common sense here

Audustum wrote:
What people and TO's house rule is one thing, but we're on YMDC. Is there any reason that doesn't work RAW? Cause IK's probably need a FAQ update if it does.

There's a line between RAW, even if it's a little bit silly, and RAW that no one would ever allow at any table pretty much ever.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Audustum wrote:
What people and TO's house rule is one thing, but we're on YMDC. Is there any reason that doesn't work RAW? Cause IK's probably need a FAQ update if it does.

There's a line between RAW, even if it's a little bit silly, and RAW that no one would ever allow at any table pretty much ever.

Not really. RAW is RAW. That's why it's RAW. You're trying to say RAW is RAI, which it isn't. I'm sure if we canvassed enough we'd find places (and tournaments even) that would do it. We look for RAW so people know what they need to house rule and GW knows what it needs to FAQ/Errata. We can't just assume everyone is 'on the same page' with interpretations that aren't literal (are RAI) because we're all gonna have subjective opinions on that. It's much better say "That's RAW and here is how my playgroup/tournament/whatever deviates" through something like the Nova or ITC FAQ.

EDIT: Basically, what I'm getting at is that RAW makes your underlying game assumptions. I don't go to a FLGS and assume they're gonna run ITC rules, for example, I assume they're going to RAW until someone tells me what they do instead. It forms our underlying beliefs as to what a 'game of 40k' entails in such a way we can all be sure we're thinking of the same thing at the start and thus know where to discuss deviations.

If I was at a friendly game and someone plunked this tactic down, for example, I'd blame myself for not asking the group to prohibit it before we started and roll with it. It's RAW so the person is allowed to do it till the group says otherwise. Conversely, if it's not RAW, then it's on the person bringing the list to clear it with the group in advance.

Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

Audustum wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

I think this has some game-crashing implications when for example you come to shoot him and are forced to use the rules say Shooting at Vehicles, and find he doesn't have an Armour Value etc.

RAW doesn't necessarily properly work or make sense, though, which leads us to...

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think GW expects us to apply a little bit of common sense here

...absolutely this.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

If Roboute Guilliman can be used in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions, what does that mean for the Oathsworn Detachment?

Oh, look, under its Restrictions:

"All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction."

It is the very definition of a Faction restriction. The rule would be meaningless if it did not allow Roboute Guilliman to be taken in the Oathsworn Detachment, silly as it may be.

Basically almost every Detachment has either a specific Faction restriction, or requires all models to be of the same or no Faction. By your logic Roboute Guilliman could not be taken in almost any Detachment, which is plainly wrong.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

I'm not sure of any way to read his rule except as overriding that. Care to elaborate?

Because if you're right, then we can't take him in CAD or Allied Detachments either unless they're Ultramarines:

Restrictions
All units chosen must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).

Using Celestine, Cawl or Greyfax in them would also make the CAD/Allied be illegally formed if that's the reading unless it's of their own faction(s). Their rule gives them permission to join one of any faction similar to the Primarch's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

I think this has some game-crashing implications when for example you come to shoot him and are forced to use the rules say Shooting at Vehicles, and find he doesn't have an Armour Value etc.

RAW doesn't necessarily properly work or make sense, though, which leads us to...

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think GW expects us to apply a little bit of common sense here

...absolutely this.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

If Roboute Guilliman can be used in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions, what does that mean for the Oathsworn Detachment?

Oh, look, under its Restrictions:

"All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction."

It is the very definition of a Faction restriction. The rule would be meaningless if it did not allow Roboute Guilliman to be taken in the Oathsworn Detachment, silly as it may be.

Hmm, he'd technically still also be a Monstrous Creature though, right? I wonder if it'd break that hard since he'd have two unit types (reminds me of when people used to debate if WK's were Jump Creatures or Jump Gargantuan Creatures).

So it looks like you can take RG in that oathsworn and make him the warlord thus qualifying for the benefits of being the warlord. He TECHNICALLY does gain the benefits of being the warlord from that knight formation. This makes him stupidly strong and fixes all of his problems. He can now move 12, roll 3d6 doubled for move through cover and stomps. Do super heavies also ignore moving through cover for initative as well? That would fix his grenade problems. Oh yeah and WS10

So, RAW guilliman can be taken in an oathsworn detachment. However, the rules for the oathsworn say that it can never be your primary detachment. Wouldn't this rule bar guilliman from being the warlord??

 son_of_osiris wrote:
So, RAW guilliman can be taken in an oathsworn detachment. However, the rules for the oathsworn say that it can never be your primary detachment. Wouldn't this rule bar guilliman from being the warlord??

The Warlord/Super-Walker issue comes from the Household detachment. You're right that Oathsworn can't do the whole trick, though it does give you a way to add the Primarch to any IoM with no tax.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
So it looks like you can take RG in that oathsworn and make him the warlord thus qualifying for the benefits of being the warlord. He TECHNICALLY does gain the benefits of being the warlord from that knight formation. This makes him stupidly strong and fixes all of his problems. He can now move 12, roll 3d6 doubled for move through cover and stomps. Do super heavies also ignore moving through cover for initative as well? That would fix his grenade problems. Oh yeah and WS10

Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

The Household Detachment's 'Lord Baron' Command Benefit:

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

The Household Detachment's 'Lord Baron' Command Benefit:

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

But everyone was talking about the Oathsworn which carries zero Command Benefits, not the Household Detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:
But everyone was talking about the Oathsworn which carries zero Command Benefits, not the Household Detachment.

*shrug*

By my count nine of the 11 posts immediately before your first reply were discussing, at least partially, the Household Detachment, after Audustum raised it as a more game-breaking option than sticking Guilliman in an Oathsworn Detachment

NVM

This is hilarious. RAW clearly allows this to happen, but also clearly breaks down as soon as Robby G. becomes the target of a successful attack.

GW Rules Guy #1: We should play test this.
GW Rules Guy #2: Nope.
GW Rules Guy #1: At least let me run through all the Detachments/Formations to make sure there are no glaring issues.
GW Rules Guy #2: Nope.

I now want to see someone convert Rowboat into a giant, Knight sized suit of Terminator Armor to represent his Super-heavy Walker form.

Consensus is that the gathering storm rules overwrite the faction restriction rules on detachment's otherwise you wouldn't be able to take them outside of their faction in a cad

Having discussed guilliman the shw with my local players this is what we have come up with

A vehicle is wrecked if it's hp =0 guilliman is undefined undefined does not =0 he cannot therefore be wrecked.

If he is shot you use vehicle rules and compare the strength plus d6 to his av value his av is undefined therefore he cannot be shot and even if he did lose a hull point it would still be undefined-1 hull points (and he can't be wrecked) and the other outcomes wouldn't effect superheavy's except to increase the lost hull points

Since he has t and w characteristics he can be removed if they =0 but this is niche because they are so high and shooting/attacks won't effect his w

This means shw guilliman is almost indestructible.

An interesting point that was brought up on another thread. If you are now going to class Bobby G as a SHV how many HPs does he have?

They closed the other thread even though how to manage this is a separate discussion topic

You all know that in the household detachment the purpose of changing the warlord to a "super heavy walker, character" is to add "character" not "super heavy" right? I think the obvious call to make that is that if Rowboat takes the LoW slot there he remains a monstrous creature (he already has the sub type character I guess).

Some "fun" implications of Rowboat changing to a super heavy walker:

- Becomes susceptible to the rules: armourbane, melta and lance.
- Has no AV so will have to use T instead. What is he T6 or something? So he becomes an AV6 all round super heavy, be glad of his invulnerable save then when someone points a melta at him and has to roll 2d6 + 8 to beat AV6, good job now roll on the vehicle table and watch him explode.

 SolarCross wrote:
You all know that in the household detachment the purpose of changing the warlord to a "super heavy walker, character" is to add "character" not "super heavy" right? I think the obvious call to make that is that if Rowboat takes the LoW slot there he remains a monstrous creature (he already has the sub type character I guess).

We're not really discussing 'obvious calls' or common sense rulings. We're discussing what the actual rules say.

The actual rules allow you to take Robby G. in a household detachment. The actual rules allow you to choose Robby G. as your Warlord. The actual rules allow you to make Robby G. the "Lord Baron"... making him a Super-heavy Walker. The actual rules then completely breaks down when successfully hits him as he's missing armor values (and hull points).

This requires an Errata. The Rules as Written are broken.

Regardless of intention when the detachment was written (it was not meant for this situation)

raw is clear his type becomes superheavy character this is an overwrite and so replaces his previous type

Why would a shw use toughness as av they are different characteristics and not even close to the same scale

I go back to RAW this as close as the rules get without errata

A vehicle is wrecked if it's hp =0 guilliman is undefined undefined does not =0 he cannot therefore be wrecked.

If he is shot you use vehicle rules and compare the strength plus d6 to his av value his av is undefined therefore he cannot be shot and even if he did lose a hull point it would still be undefined-1 hull points (and he can't be wrecked) and the other outcomes wouldn't effect superheavy's except to increase the lost hull points

RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

 SolarCross wrote:
RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

 SolarCross wrote:
RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

Ok. Several points.

#1 - I'm not autistic. I don't think discussing the rules in a forum devoted specifically to discussing rules makes one autistic. I also don't think calling people autistic when you disagree with how they approach a debate is acceptable. You should apologize and never do it again.

#2 - Regardless of how obvious you think the author's intent is, the actual rules as written are pretty clear. So, given that apparent intent and what was actually written don't match, what do we do? Call people autistic and then say the path forward is obvious? No. Discuss how the actual rules as written work, ultimately deciding that they don't work and that an errata is needed? Yes.

#3 - The excuse of "this shouldn't work" because "it's never worked like that before" is a bad debate tactic. If your argument involves something like "because we've always done things this way", your argument is usually wrong.

Edited by Moderator

@ Solar Cross: I can't decide if you're trolling or just a c*** with an inferiority complex.

If going purely RAW I'd play it as he's both. He doesn't loose MC nor does he loose his character profile. So when declaring attacks roll your eyes and declare you're shooting at the MC.

 MattKing wrote:
@ Solar Cross: I can't decide if you're trolling or just a c*** with an inferiority complex.

If going purely RAW I'd play it as he's both. He doesn't loose MC nor does he loose his character profile. So when declaring attacks roll your eyes and declare you're shooting at the MC.

It doesn't say he GAINS the new type, which would imply he keeps the old one. It just tells us he now HAS the new new type. My read is that he's no longer a Monstrous Creature. Being told he has the XXX unit type is essentially overwriting whatever value was there before.

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

It came across very hostile and saying it should be iq restricted is also offensive.

Even if there is no raw you are usually best following raw till there is an unsolvable problem

Raw it can be taken in the formation

Raw it's type is overwritten

Raw when deployed hp =x (x is undefined) x does not =0 therefore he is not wrecked

Problem how to resolve shooting against a non defined av
Potential outcomes of shot
Outcome of shot no lost hull point he survives
Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 6- hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 7+ x-d3 since x-d3 does not =0 he survives

All outcomes are the same therefore best solution he survives no loop no raw rules broken best available fix

RULE #1 - It is mandatory.

Thanks!

Edited by Moderator

Rule One is Be Polite

Thanks!

U02dah4 wrote:
It came across very hostile and saying it should be iq restricted is also offensive.

Even if there is no raw you are usually best following raw till there is an unsolvable problem

Raw it can be taken in the formation

Raw it's type is overwritten

Raw when deployed hp =x (x is undefined) x does not =0 therefore he is not wrecked

Problem how to resolve shooting against a non defined av
Potential outcomes of shot
Outcome of shot no lost hull point he survives
Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 6- hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 7+ x-d3 since x-d3 does not =0 he survives

All outcomes are the same therefore best solution he survives no loop no raw rules broken best available fix

Your potential outcomes are somewhat wrong. We don't know what X is. X-1 might equal zero if X is 1. You need to add...

Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 = 0 he is wrecked
etc.

If me wanting to play against it was the criteria for something being valid you could put all flyers back in their boxes especially magnus and ynnari while your at it. Their Soulburst on wraith knights was not thought through.

GW write the rules and sometimes badly and yes there are some loopholes you can't blame players for wishing to use

In a casual game no one would advocate it but when it comes to competitive shared interpretation is important and that is based on the rules even if personally we don't like them and think they are overpowered and remember even if this works multiple ik is quite a tax for robo-guilliman

And what no one wants is different interpretation in different areas

@SolarCross... this is a rules forum. None of us is actually going to play a game with a Super-heavy Walker Rowboat and then become irate when our opponent doesn't agree with how we're handling the lack of AV and HP values. What we are going to do is bicker back and forth in a friendly, non-insulting manner about how badly the rules are written and the crazy scenarios they sometimes create. This is a crazy scenario. It's worth discussing.

Edited by Moderator

When I use undefined I am simplifying we know it is undefined undefined cannot ever be 0 it is undefined

He has no hull point characteristic

So in full it would read no hull point characteristic-1 hull point does not =0 hull points
No hull point characteristic -d3 hull points does still not = a hull point characteristic of 0 etc etc

The check only cares about value =0 and it will only ever get na

Simply put x cannot be 0 because x is not a number to begin with

@SolarCross... this is a rules forum. None of us is actually going to play a game with a Super-heavy Walker Rowboat and then become irate when our opponent doesn't agree with how we're handling the lack of AV and HP values. What we are going to do is bicker back and forth in a friendly, non-insulting manner about how badly the rules are written and the crazy scenarios they sometimes create. This is a crazy scenario. It's worth discussing. If you can't handle that without name calling, maybe don't participate.

^Very succinctly put. I feel this should be added to the forum rules.

U02dah4 wrote:
When I use undefined I am simplifying

He has no hull point characteristic

So in full it would read no hull point characteristic-1 hull point does not =0 hull points
No hull point characteristic -d3 hull points does still not = a hull point characteristic of 0 etc etc

The check only cares about value =0 and it will only ever get na

My contention is that he should have a HP value, but that we don't know what it is because GW didn't include it in the rules. We should really be more worried about the lack of AV. Hit? Yes. Roll for amour pen. Great. I got a 10. Compare to AV. HARD STOP. CAN'T. OMGWTFBBQ THE RULES ARE BROKEN. GAME OVER, MAN.

You seem to be saying "I can't check my armour pen roll versus your AV, so clearly I did not glance/pen." I'm saying "I can't check my armour pen roll versus your AV, so I don't know if I glanced/penned." Two very different thoughts. You're making an unsupported assumption that the attack fails. I'm saying we don't have enough data to proceed and have to put the game on hold until we get the missing data (AV/HP).

I mean... obviously this is an unintentional rules interaction. GW couldn't possibly have expected this situation to arise. They clearly don't do a comprehensive rules interaction check when designing rules like this and we'll never get AV/HP values. Realistically, I doubt we'll even see an Errata/FAQ to address this. They really just need to Errata the Lord Baron rule from...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

...to...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment and your Warlord has the Imperial Knights Faction, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

That's the kind of broken RAW that would tempt me to go play at a GW store with that for no other reason than to rub it in GWs face that they make a miniature GAME with rules that at the very least need a minimum of testing... I wouldn't begrudge somebody to try this at a game just out spite for GW ruleswriting.

Then again they just seem to be releasing kits/rules willy nilly this last while with no thought to balance or how the game is played at all. What with all the one off mini faction releases and 2k+ formations. So go flaunt your super heavy guilliman and forge dat narrative.

This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

I'm saying you can shoot it but if hp is undefined every outcome is the same( hp is not a number therefore not=0 therefore he is not wrecked) so it doesn't matter which outcome the shot results in pen glance miss it doesn't matter the outcome is the same. I would therefore be happy to concede that every shot is a pen because not a number
-100hp is still not a number and so so not 0


Now if he had a hp value then the rules break down because outcome suddenly matters and their isn't a resolution to shooting and he might even be wrecked at deployment if hp=0

now should he have a hp/av value maybe but there is no raw to give him these and no raw to say what they should be this is therefore a rai argument and we could debate all day what it should ewe can say raw they are undefined

So if we follow raw using undefined it all works although he's superpowered we deviate the rules become entirely house ruled or break


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

This argument has already been explained as entirely rai and not raw based and therefore does not belong in this discussion

Kriswall wrote:I mean... obviously this is an unintentional rules interaction. GW couldn't possibly have expected this situation to arise. They clearly don't do a comprehensive rules interaction check when designing rules like this and we'll never get AV/HP values. Realistically, I doubt we'll even see an Errata/FAQ to address this. They really just need to Errata the Lord Baron rule from...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

...to...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment and your Warlord has the Imperial Knights Faction, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

or,
"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord gains the (Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

Pretty simple adjustment that does not have to worry about variables like the Triumvirates.

SolarCross wrote:This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

Tenet #4. So long as you are recognizing it for what it is, RAI, HWPI is fine.

 SolarCross wrote:
the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is.

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

You would be wrong. Vehicles can be warlords, they just don't gain any traits. Only characters do.

 SolarCross wrote:
This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

Ok...

#1 - "This forum is for finding solution to rules glitches..." Nope. It's actually for discussing the rules, not necessarily for finding solutions. "Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place." Finding solutions is nice, but not mandatory when having a discussion. Some people just like talking about rules.

#2 - "The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature." I don't see how your house rule is more obvious than someone else's house rule. I'd say the real obvious solution is that GW needs to opine and issue an FAQ or Errata.

#3 - "the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord." Um... you don't need the Character type to be made a Warlord. So, no... that's likely not the reason.

#4 - "If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is." Nope. The Lord Baron rule very explicitly states that the Warlord now has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. Not giving him this type is violating the rules.

It sounds like you don't understand all the rules surrounding choosing Warlords and have just arbitrarily decided to ignore portions of the Lord Baron rule to make the situation fit how you think it should work. That's fine for you and your games. It's interesting in that it gives us insight into how a player would actually play the situation. Arbitrarily ignoring rules does not, however, have much use in a rules discussion where we're trying to nail down the RaW interactions.

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

Vehicles absolutely can be Warlords. Go re-read the rules surrounding choosing your Warlord. You have to pick a model with the Character type (including Character Vehicles). If you don't have one, you can pick any model (including non-Character Vehicles). Non-Character Warlords don't get a Warlord Trait.

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

"If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord." (page 124 main rulebook).

As long as he has no characters in his army, he can choose any model, which would include vehicles. If he has characters in the army, if he wanted to select a vehicle it would also have to be a character or otherwise have a special rule allowing it to be picked.

I was going to say the same thing but it looks like everyone hit reply at the same time....

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

Perhaps you should "get" that reading rules would help before participating in a rules discussion. Please see above comments regarding vehicle warlords.

 Ghaz wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

Just checked the book and yes in absence of any characters any model can be a warlord. So alright the household detachment is giving a super heavy the character trait so that a knight can be a warlord even if there are characters in the army somewhere (presumably another detachment). Or just so that he can issue and receive challenges. You all know however that the household detachment is adding a character sub-type to a super-heavy vehicle and not adding a super-heavy vehicle type to a character. You know that.

Yep. We know that however this is RAW. The tricky word is "IS".
X IS y. Not y gains X or X gains y, IS.

I think you'll find that those of us with the ik book will know that if it is the primary detachment your "warlord has the vehicle (super heavy, walker character type)"

Because that is what is written.

There is no equivocation on that point It is crystal clear

 MattKing wrote:
Yep. We know that however this is RAW. The tricky word is "IS".
X IS y. Not y gains X or X gains y, IS.

If you are a computer program yes, that would cause a fatal exception, CTD perhaps even a blue screen of death. In contrast 40k the tabletop game is not executed by a pentium CPU but by a pair (or more) of human brains. Human brains have capabilities that pentium cpus do not, one of them is RAI.

RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

 SolarCross wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

Just checked the book and yes in absence of any characters any model can be a warlord. So alright the household detachment is giving a super heavy the character trait so that a knight can be a warlord even if there are characters in the army somewhere (presumably another detachment). Or just so that he can issue and receive challenges. You all know however that the household detachment is adding a character sub-type to a super-heavy vehicle and not adding a super-heavy vehicle type to a character. You know that.

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character NOR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

Plenty of point to it. Mostly that it's fun to discuss and laugh about GW's sloppy writing style.

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

But yes... some people will think there isn't much point in discussing this. Most of those people simply aren't here discussing it. I am, however, utterly perplexed by the small population of people who think there isn't much point in discussing this... AND keeps trying to make sure nobody else discusses it. It you think the conversation is silly, don't participate! Not directed at you, JNA... just responding yo your comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MattKing wrote:

there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

Plenty of point to it. Mostly that it's fun to discuss and laugh about GW's sloppy writing style.

Pretty much. Also, I'm at work and I'm bored. This keeps me entertained.

Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

Fair enough. I do think that it should be made clear that none of this is how you would play it, but it is amusing to talk about.

 Kriswall wrote:

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character OR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

U02dah4 wrote:
Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

I don't think power level is in question. This creates an unsolvable, game-breaking issue. If Lord Baron Rob takes a hit, the players are unable to resolve the armor pen roll. The rules require that roll and comparison to AV to happen. Arbitrarily saying that the hit can't do any damage because we don't have an AV to compare against is a house rule, unsupported by the game's rules. The game 'hangs' until we're able to determine the AV value.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here. No we are not computer programs, however, since the writers of the books are not here to defend their intentions we must treat their statments in an "if-then" capacity to determine logical outcome.

Pretty much. Also, I'm at work and I'm bored. This keeps me entertained.

Aaaay! Me too. Waiting for a material test to run. There's not much to do except wait for the buzzing to stop and the machine to go *ding*.

 Kriswall wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

I don't think power level is in question. This creates an unsolvable, game-breaking issue. If Lord Baron Rob takes a hit, the players are unable to resolve the armor pen roll. The rules require that roll and comparison to AV to happen. Arbitrarily saying that the hit can't do any damage because we don't have an AV to compare against is a house rule, unsupported by the game's rules. The game 'hangs' until we're able to determine the AV value.

Except girlyman is a monstrous creature with toughness and wounds so that is how to resolve it. It is unsolvable for a pentium it is not unsolvable for a human.

So short term solution's so far

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

Well personally I rule out 4 as I want my game to resolve and I would assume 1 for casual games but then i would say that about two knights in casual.I would go with 3 as default for competitive but would have no problem with 1 or 2 being house ruled as long as it was clear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Except girlyman is a monstrous creature with toughness and wounds so that is how to resolve it. It is unsolvable for a pentium it is not unsolvable for a human.

I originally started this thread asking about the fact that the rules say that RG may be included in ANY armies of mankind detachment regardless of faction restrictions. RAW, doesn't that mean he could be included in literally ANY detachment regardless of LoW slots, etc.??

Schrödingers primarch. He may or may not be dead until GW opens the box.

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

 son_of_osiris wrote:
I originally started this thread asking about the fact that the rules say that RG may be included in ANY armies of mankind detachment regardless of faction restrictions. RAW, doesn't that mean he could be included in literally ANY detachment regardless of LoW slots, etc.??

No.

Grand Master Voldus and Roboute Guilliman are new Army List Entries that can be included in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment, regardless of their Faction.

'... regardless of their Faction..." means that you only disregard their Faction when adding them to an Armies of the Imperium Detachment, nothing else (i.e., available slots, available points, etc.).

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

@Solarcrass: Don't be silly we...er um...computers do not exaggerate.

 SolarCross wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character OR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

Mocking GW? Nope. Being TFG? Nope. Because the rule explicitly tells the 'Lord Baron' Warlord model has the 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type? Yup.

I have no idea what CTD means, but I believe that your unhandled exception comparison is accurate. This interaction creates a situation we can't resolve. What to do? Notify the developers of the bug and try to avoid the same situation until the code is fixed. We don't go into the code ourselves and change things so that they work how we think they were probably supposed to.

So... in game terms, we know that RG as a SHV is a no-go. It breaks the game. In practice, we avoid the situation by NOT making RG a Lord Baron Warlord, notify GW (I already did) and wait patiently for a patch (FAQ/Errata). Arbitrarily saying that he stays a Monstrous Creature while gaining all of the other benefits of the rule is certainly an option, but it's completely unsupported by the rules as written and should be classified as a house rule... and should probably be discussed here as a "How I Would Play It (HIWPI)" item or in the Proposed Rules subforum as a proposed fix to this rules problem.

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

I'm on my phone so I can't dig for examples, but I don't think he loses his MC status. I think he's got both at once (which might break things worse). It just says the Warlord "has", not replaces or in addition to, which makes it ambiguous.

I know there are situations where the rules sometimes say "in addition to its other types". I think there are also ones where it says "changes" or "replaces" too. Anyone know off-hand or can look it up?

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

He doesn't have 0 hull points. He has unknown hull points. Not the same. Not knowing the answer doesn't make the answer 0.

Does Guilliman have Hull Points?

I think the answer to that is no. If you do not have something, you can also be considered to have 0 of something.

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

5) characteristics with no defined value =0 therefore guilliman is wrecked at deployment as he has no hp

I like 3 best but 5 is probably 2nd and I get we can fix 4 by doing an ostridge impression but it doesn't change that someone could do it thus drawing every game in a tournament that doesn't work for me

 SolarCross wrote:

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

My life is now complete. I just witnessed someone insult a stranger by comparing him to a pentium processor. I literally can't think of a more depressing, internet troll sort of thing to witness.

 Kriswall wrote:


Mocking GW? Nope. Being TFG? Nope. Because the rule explicitly tells the 'Lord Baron' Warlord model has the 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type? Yup.

I have no idea what CTD means, but I believe that your unhandled exception comparison is accurate. This interaction creates a situation we can't resolve. What to do? Notify the developers of the bug and try to avoid the same situation until the code is fixed. We don't go into the code ourselves and change things so that they work how we think they were probably supposed to.

So... in game terms, we know that RG as a SHV is a no-go. It breaks the game. In practice, we avoid the situation by NOT making RG a Lord Baron Warlord, notify GW (I already did) and wait patiently for a patch (FAQ/Errata). Arbitrarily saying that he stays a Monstrous Creature while gaining all of the other benefits of the rule is certainly an option, but it's completely unsupported by the rules as written and should be classified as a house rule... and should probably be discussed here as a "How I Would Play It (HIWPI)" item or in the Proposed Rules subforum as a proposed fix to this rules problem.

CTD = Crash to Desktop.

Indeed it is a RAW bug and indeed should be FAQ'd / patched by developers. My point is only that in the meantime the obvious way to HIWPI or house rule it is to deny the change of type. The reason I gave is clear, the knights codex is clearly giving a SHVW a character trait so it is clear that the proper way to handle it is to leave girlyman's type as is since he already has the character trait and it is obviously not appropriate to use the knight's rule to make him into a vehicle. I would say he shouldn't be able to take knight heirlooms either because he already has heirlooms (leaving aside for the moment that many knight heirlooms do not work at all for non knights). The +1 WS and BS is dubious also given it was intended only as an upgrade for a knight.

The best way to treat it until GW confirms is just to say girly man is a straight replacement of the Lord Baron and not a merger of girlyman and a lord baron.

How in the world do you like three the best?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does Guilliman have Hull Points?

I think the answer to that is no. If you do not have something, you can also be considered to have 0 of something.

Actually it's literally undefined. Wounds along with all other stats bar armour saves range from 0-10 (p.8)
Except of course vehicle stats because reasons. Those appear on page 72 and are not given a range.
The closest we could get is zero-level characteristics (which technically don't include hullpoints). They say that 0 and - or equivalent and in this case I think it's fair to assume that a shw guilliman has - hullpoints, aka zero aka he is wrecked aka you can walk all over his corpse as he becomes difficult terrain Even fits the lore, his armour glitches out and he's back to being in stasis lol

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

It's not undefined, actually. When he's a normal character how many hull points does he have? None, because normally he isn't a vehicle. Do the rules making him a vehicle specify him adding any hull points, or converting his wounds to hull points? No, therefore he still has 0 hull points. 0 hull points = wreck.

Because 1,2 are ostridge solutions 4 breaks the game

leaving 2 solutions that permit the game to continue
5 requires a small leap/house rule at deployment but if you stick to a literal interpretation of the rules one isn't needed here as others have said no characteristic doesn't mean 0 in all systems.

Now 3 does require you to accept that all outcomes of shooting are the same so you can effectively ignore the result which is a small leap as you could also interpret it as not resolving but this is the first point you absolutely have to make a non raw decision and it's done so based on the unamity of outcome which makes sense to me

Also fluff wise I love the idea of the primark being rebuilt as an indestructible robot its a better solution for how he came back

Kriswall wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

My life is now complete. I just witnessed someone insult a stranger by comparing him to a pentium processor. I literally can't think of a more depressing, internet troll sort of thing to witness.

The Pentium was not so bad. I had many good experiences with the two that I had. The Pentium 2 with its oversi-zed cartridge or Pentium 4 which required the RDRAM would be a little more appropriate.

Of course, we could compare it to Win ME, but is any person really that bad? I know GW rules are worse, but the rules aren't people.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

It's not undefined, actually. When he's a normal character how many hull points does he have? None, because normally he isn't a vehicle. Do the rules making him a vehicle specify him adding any hull points, or converting his wounds to hull points? No, therefore he still has 0 hull points. 0 hull points = wreck.

Hmm, actually, as a normal character he doesn't even have a listing so maybe that's one step too far.

They way I understand it, you're asking how much HP does RG have?

You expect the figurative computer to say 0 since he has none on his datasheet.

More accurately, however, he has no entry on his datasheet, not 0. So I think it would go:
1. How much HP does RG have?
2. HP is not a recognized variable. Error 404.

Thus, we can't even get to the point of seeing if he has -, x or 0 HP cause the entire variable is missing.

U02dah4 wrote:
Because 1,2 are ostridge solutions

What is an "ostridge solution"?

Which comes back to check does hp=0 no = error 404 solution 3

Audustum wrote:
Hmm, actually, as a normal character he doesn't even have a listing so maybe that's one step too far.

They way I understand it, you're asking how much HP does RG have?

You expect the figurative computer to say 0 since he has none on his datasheet.

More accurately, however, he has no entry on his datasheet, not 0. So I think it would go:
1. How much HP does RG have?
2. HP is not a recognized variable. Error 404.

Thus, we can't even get to the point of seeing if he has -, x or 0 HP cause the entire variable is missing.

Pretty much. Humans can extrapolate, computers (currently) cannot without subroutines written to handle such exceptions.

But I think we are too far off topic by continuing this train of thought...

Ostriches bury there heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away because they can't see it. They work through house rules that prevent the problem from occurring by denyING the opportunity for it to occur

 SolarCross wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

Me, and a lot of other people, don't consider autism a bad thing. I personally think it is horrible to use as an insult or a criticism, considering they both have negative connotations. Sorry for the off topic debate mods.

Also, OT: His Hull point value is zero so when he deploys does he deploy as a wreck or does he go titanic and explode like all other super heavy walkers during your first turn?

U02dah4 wrote:
Ostriches bury there heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away because they can't see it. They work through house rules that prevent the problem from occurring by denyING the opportunity for it to occur

Oh I see you misspelled ostrich.

To recap the options presented were:

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

5) characteristics with no defined value =0 therefore guilliman is wrecked at deployment as he has no hp

Both 1 and 2 provide an active solution to the RAW problem. 1 is brutally simple, 2 is more forgiving.

3, 4 and 5 options are to persist with a broken RAW interpretation to the point of absurdity so that would be more like burying the head in the sand like an ostrich.

+ Please disregard this post +

By solution number 5 he would nova at the point he deployed funzies

Does Rowboat have to be a warlord? If he doesn't then I don't see why he couldn't be taken in an oathsworn providing some other model from another detachment was warlord.

No infact you could take him in the household and not make him shw in that detachment

 gummyofallbears wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

Me, and a lot of other people, don't consider autism a bad thing. I personally think it is horrible to use as an insult or a criticism, considering they both have negative connotations. Sorry for the off topic debate mods.

Also, OT: His Hull point value is zero so when he deploys does he deploy as a wreck or does he go titanic and explode like all other super heavy walkers during your first turn?

Technically he'd have 0 hull points before deployment, so he'd explode off the board. Technically since you can't measure distances off the board he wouldn't harm anyone else (friend or foe). It might be poetic justice to allow a bit of wreckage (a smoking boot or something) to be deployed on the board to indicate his remains, but that wouldn't be required. Thinking about it, it's probably for the best that he blows up before deployment so that we don't find someone putting him in Reserve then deploying a "Bobby G Bomb" during the game.

 doctortom wrote:
"Bobby G Bomb"

I love this forum. Just for stuff like that.

 SolarCross wrote:
Does Rowboat have to be a warlord? If he doesn't then I don't see why he couldn't be taken in an oathsworn providing some other model from another detachment was warlord.

But... but... then what would be argue about?

Seriously, though? No, he doesn't. Which, given the broken nature of the current rules, is probably the best solution going forward until GW issues an FAQ or Errata. Making Roboute a Lord Baron creates a game breaking discrepancy. I contend that the most reasonable practical solution is to not allow Roboute to be taken as Lord Baron.

Any solution that involves implementing parts of the Lord Baron rule while ignoring other parts seems sloppy and will likely be harder to sell to an average player.

Situation #1
"Yo, Baron Lord Roboute creates some massive rules issues. Let's just avoid the issue by not taking him." "OK"

Situation #2
"Yo, Baron Lord Roboute creates some massive rules issues... so let me sketch out which parts I'll be keeping and which parts I won't be keeping." "Um... if there are massive rules issues, why not just avoid taking him?"

 Kriswall wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
Does Rowboat have to be a warlord? If he doesn't then I don't see why he couldn't be taken in an oathsworn providing some other model from another detachment was warlord.

But... but... then what would be argue about?

Seriously, though? No, he doesn't. Which, given the broken nature of the current rules, is probably the best solution going forward until GW issues an FAQ or Errata. Making Roboute a Lord Baron creates a game breaking discrepancy. I contend that the most reasonable practical solution is to not allow Roboute to be taken as Lord Baron.

Any solution that involves implementing parts of the Lord Baron rule while ignoring other parts seems sloppy and will likely be harder to sell to an average player.

Situation #1
"Yo, Baron Lord Roboute creates some massive rules issues. Let's just avoid the issue by not taking him." "OK"

Situation #2
"Yo, Baron Lord Roboute creates some massive rules issues... so let me sketch out which parts I'll be keeping and which parts I won't be keeping." "Um... if there are massive rules issues, why not just avoid taking him?"

Yeah that'll work. Though for what it is worth (not much) I don't see the issue with simply seeing Robby as a replacement for the Lord Baron and taking none of the Lord Baron rules on him. His rules do allow him to go in any IoM detachment and he can readily fit in a Household detachment without issues if you don't apply the Lord Baron rules to him. He just is robby, fills a slot, and is a warlord. I guess he should have the obsec that the detachment grants as it is not a Lord Baron specific thing and doesn't generate any absurdities.

 doctortom wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

Me, and a lot of other people, don't consider autism a bad thing. I personally think it is horrible to use as an insult or a criticism, considering they both have negative connotations. Sorry for the off topic debate mods.

Also, OT: His Hull point value is zero so when he deploys does he deploy as a wreck or does he go titanic and explode like all other super heavy walkers during your first turn?

Technically he'd have 0 hull points before deployment, so he'd explode off the board. Technically since you can't measure distances off the board he wouldn't harm anyone else (friend or foe). It might be poetic justice to allow a bit of wreckage (a smoking boot or something) to be deployed on the board to indicate his remains, but that wouldn't be required. Thinking about it, it's probably for the best that he blows up before deployment so that we don't find someone putting him in Reserve then deploying a "Bobby G Bomb" during the game.

Yeah, that was what my brother and I were theorizing. find a way to deep strike him in and bomb the enemy with a fething primarch and have him stand back up again to do it again.

Which creates another rules question - Say that you find a way to have him go supernova on the table, when he stands back up, does he immediately do it again?

 gummyofallbears wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

Me, and a lot of other people, don't consider autism a bad thing. I personally think it is horrible to use as an insult or a criticism, considering they both have negative connotations. Sorry for the off topic debate mods.

Also, OT: His Hull point value is zero so when he deploys does he deploy as a wreck or does he go titanic and explode like all other super heavy walkers during your first turn?

Technically he'd have 0 hull points before deployment, so he'd explode off the board. Technically since you can't measure distances off the board he wouldn't harm anyone else (friend or foe). It might be poetic justice to allow a bit of wreckage (a smoking boot or something) to be deployed on the board to indicate his remains, but that wouldn't be required. Thinking about it, it's probably for the best that he blows up before deployment so that we don't find someone putting him in Reserve then deploying a "Bobby G Bomb" during the game.

Yeah, that was what my brother and I were theorizing. find a way to deep strike him in and bomb the enemy with a fething primarch and have him stand back up again to do it again.

Which creates another rules question - Say that you find a way to have him go supernova on the table, when he stands back up, does he immediately do it again?

Why yes. Yes he does. Super Bobby G Double Bomb Special. That might almost be worth the points it would cost to take him. It would be tempting to let someone do it just for the humor potential.

First time i looked at this..... my mind exploded in both confusion and shock


Moral of the story here kiddies.... is that if it feels too broken to be true then someone has screwed up big time

FAQ is needed stat on this. Cause just........wtf......just wtf

although anyone think of another detachment/formation that guilliman would be a big no no?

mchammadad wrote:
First time i looked at this..... my mind exploded in both confusion and shock


Moral of the story here kiddies.... is that if it feels too broken to be true then someone has screwed up big time

FAQ is needed stat on this. Cause just........wtf......just wtf

although anyone think of another detachment/formation that guilliman would be a big no no?

Any one without a Lord of War slot. No taking him in things like the Inquisition detachment in the Imperial Agents Codex that has one mandatory elite slot and 3 optional elite slots, but no slots for other battlefield roles.