Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

But unless they change the FAQs to be strict RAW in their own right (like the new WFB ones apparently are) then they're not RAW, they are just GW's set of House Rules. And therefore still up for debate/discussion.

Oshova

Farmer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Drazhar has the ability to reposition himself in any combat he is in so long as he maintains BtB with the enemy and within 2" of the unit of Incubi he is attached to. It's not unlimited, since you can only have 10 Incubi in a squad, so at best you would get about 8" out of the deal, maybe 12" if you positioned your minis just perfectly.

Cool, for a minute there i thought he said unlimited movement as in can move anywhere on the board.

But what if he isn't with a squad....? If he hit a huge IG blob squad or ork mob he could then move to anywhere around that blob, if he wasn't joined to a squad (but there could be other DE units in CC with the same defenders).

SaintHazard wrote:

Defiler wrote:
Most of the above?

I've had him on ignore for quite a long time, so I'm not wasting my time digging up his errors.

That's not an example to support your claim.

Because there are no examples to support your claim.

Gwar doesn't need you white knighting for him.

Also, he's definitely wrong about Preferred Enemy as I already pointed out.

DarknessEternal wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Defiler wrote:
Most of the above?

I've had him on ignore for quite a long time, so I'm not wasting my time digging up his errors.

That's not an example to support your claim.

Because there are no examples to support your claim.

Gwar doesn't need you white knighting for him.

Also, he's definitely wrong about Preferred Enemy as I already pointed out.

I hear trolling isn't very nice :(

please go.

Here's a quick question:
Raiders are open-topped fast vehicles right?
Does that mean if it's loaded with say.. 10 Warriors with a Blaster and Splinter Cannon, that the Raider can move 12", shoot its Dark Lance and everyone inside can rapid fire into another unit separate from the Raider?

I'm really rusty on 40k rules, but I'm pretty sure if a vehicle moves over 6" no one inside can fire, though I could be wrong for fast vehicles.

greenbay924 wrote:I'm really rusty on 40k rules, but I'm pretty sure if a vehicle moves over 6" no one inside can fire, though I could be wrong for fast vehicles.

Yeah.. it's late here and I got really side-tracked and confused while blogging Carry on!

SaintHazard wrote:

Defiler wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Defiler wrote:
Often times, his "expert" rulings are also wrong.

Often aye, care to provide an example off-hand to support your claim?

Most of the above?

I've had him on ignore for quite a long time, so I'm not wasting my time digging up his errors.

That's not an example to support your claim.

Because there are no examples to support your claim.

Because for some reason you're bitter, and want to rag on Gwar!, and there's nothing more to it than that.

Sounds about right.

I love the forum posting rules !

However, rules are there for a reason, and if you don't intend to follow them, why bother playing the game at all?

I used to be like that, but there comes a point where you have to ask why you're playing the game. If its so that you can point out (however accuractely) that your opponents incubi's PE rule doesn't work RAW then you probably should take up magic the gathering, wow tcg or chess, all with their own rigid and highly specific faq and rules system. GW games do not provide this and rightly so as they largely are not in favour (or cannot be ars*d) to define rules so specifically, favouring the casual fun player over the RAW tourney player.

Phototoxin wrote:GW games do not provide this and rightly so as they largely are not in favour (or cannot be ars*d) to define rules so specifically, favouring the casual fun player over the RAW tourney player.

Being someone who has never played in atournament, I often had my 'casual fun' ruined when the Suspension of Disbelive I cast while playing shattered by a selection of rules that were not clear, referred to something that wasn't located in the index/contents of the BRB, people had quite literally interpreted differently, spelling errors and the like
As some who would like to be able to play "40k" against 'anyone' I find the existence of this 'free form and flowing' (see 'rigid and highly specific') rules set to be nothing but an obstcle to this, eg I could play MTG against someone with whom I did not share a common language - with no issues - ever - Chances in 40K?......

Do we still take slaves? Or is that part of PtP?

ChrisCP wrote:As some who would like to be able to play "40k" against 'anyone' the existence of this 'free form and flowing' (see 'rigid and highly specific') rules set to be nothing but an obstcle to this, eg I could play MTG against someone with whom I did not share a common language - with no issues - ever - Chances in 40K?......

This. A thousand times this. Games have rules for a reason. If the rules are unclear or in need of constant negotiation they are an obstacle to "fun". You know, the mythical "fun" GW is so fond of advocating.

Well isn't that where common sense and inductive reasoning comes in? Being sentient beings (used beings twice heh) I think we should be capable of making the necessary changes to rules so that the game flows better. Being able to memorize rules is fine but it takes a higher order of thinking and critical analysis to improve upon a system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I don't see how fanatically clinging to the rules legitamizes the game (not all RAW enthusiasts are like this of course). We can all agree the game may be unclear, if it wasn't there would be no YMDC forum, you could even argue that being written by humans it must be flawed but that's getting a little more sophic than rules discussion already is.

Now how does strictly adhering to a flawed sytem make the game more "legit", if it was perfectly balanced then I think I could see that, but it is not and usually RAI and houserules try to ameliorate this. So in other words a victory using house rules that balances the game better would be more "legit".

Because it's a standard.

While I can appreciate the amount of work everyone does to streamline the rules with their own FAQ's, especially Gwar, and those who work on the INAT, when you boil it down they're all just 'house' rules. That is until verified or discounted by GW.

Given the lack of consistency, and clarity of the rules in 40k I don't begrudge anyone taking the mantle of trying to understand those rules better to facilitate games going smoothly and to reduce conflict. I think there is the perception that the ones doing the task of clarifying the rules set themselves up as 'elitists'. Sad if true and moreso if unfounded.

Rymafyr wrote:While I can appreciate the amount of work everyone does to streamline the rules with their own FAQ's, especially Gwar, and those who work on the INAT, when you boil it down they're all just 'house' rules. That is until verified or discounted by GW.

Well, of course. Problem is, GW's FAQs, nine times out of ten, either confuse the issue further or answer a question that never existed because the rules were already clear. INAT isn't much better. That's why I put zero stock in either of them. Frankly, they suck.

Rymafyr wrote:Given the lack of consistency, and clarity of the rules in 40k I don't begrudge anyone taking the mantle of trying to understand those rules better to facilitate games going smoothly and to reduce conflict. I think there is the perception that the ones doing the task of clarifying the rules set themselves up as 'elitists'. Sad if true and moreso if unfounded.

Have Gwar! or I ever said "I am better than you" because we try to distill poorly written rules?

ChrisCP:
"....against someone with whom I did not share a common language - with no issues - ever - Chances in 40K?...... "

ever heard of an event called ETC (european team championship)?

i have watched a game between 2 different nation 40k players (one of them couldnt speak english [not a single word other then "yes" and "no"]) they both didnt talk at all!!!

and had a fun game without any differences...

its all about your behavior (and that of your opponent).

greetings Badger

SaintHazard wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:While I can appreciate the amount of work everyone does to streamline the rules with their own FAQ's, especially Gwar, and those who work on the INAT, when you boil it down they're all just 'house' rules. That is until verified or discounted by GW.

Well, of course. Problem is, GW's FAQs, nine times out of ten, either confuse the issue further or answer a question that never existed because the rules were already clear. INAT isn't much better. That's why I put zero stock in either of them. Frankly, they suck.

Rymafyr wrote:Given the lack of consistency, and clarity of the rules in 40k I don't begrudge anyone taking the mantle of trying to understand those rules better to facilitate games going smoothly and to reduce conflict. I think there is the perception that the ones doing the task of clarifying the rules set themselves up as 'elitists'. Sad if true and moreso if unfounded.

Have Gwar! or I ever said "I am better than you" because we try to distill poorly written rules?

I said I believe there is the perception certain people are taken as elitist, which can be verified by reading any post where this topic crops up.

SaintHazard wrote:Because it's a standard.

But wouldn't you say that the standard is flawed, so why then stick to it so closely when in theory you could make a much smoother sytem?

asimo77 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Because it's a standard.

But wouldn't you say that the standard is flawed, so why then stick to it so closely when in theory you could make a much smoother sytem?

You could, yes, but GW is not willing to do so.

As for each individual person trying to streamline the system, that leads to multiple interpretations, rules changes, re-interpretations, more issues, more interpretations, and before you know it every single FLGS has radically different rules.

Again, sticking to the rules as closely as possible creates a standard. Every single schmuck out there with a rulebook and a tape measure attempting to fix the rules does the exact opposite.

Well that's why you work out all that stuff before a game. Enter every FLGS expecting to play by the books but introduce whatever changes you want to your opponent before playing. A little conversation is an easy way to avoid the mess you're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also one would assume that given we are for the most part rational beings that rule fixes would be universal throughout most places. Unfavorable ones would die out as no one would play with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry one more edit, but acts such as labeling people as schmucks is probably where the elitist accusations come from

SaintHazard wrote:

asimo77 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Because it's a standard.

But wouldn't you say that the standard is flawed, so why then stick to it so closely when in theory you could make a much smoother sytem?

You could, yes, but GW is not willing to do so.

As for each individual person trying to streamline the system, that leads to multiple interpretations, rules changes, re-interpretations, more issues, more interpretations, and before you know it every single FLGS has radically different rules.

Again, sticking to the rules as closely as possible creates a standard. Every single schmuck out there with a rulebook and a tape measure attempting to fix the rules does the exact opposite.

QFT.

"Fixing" everything is a terribly slippery slope that can quickly lead to accusations of "bending the rules" and outright "cheating."

For example, I always make sure people are okay with me assaulting out of moving BT Land Raiders - a complete and utter house rule. Most people have no problem with this, and everyone's happy. But I could just as easily justify giving my marines 3++ storm shields, which in my mind is cheating. The codex wasn't balanced around having 3++ shields, so I have units that can get them for less than 5pts a model, and on a Furious Charge Assault Terminator squad, they would be OTT if I build the squad in the right proportions.

My general rule of thumb is "don't house rule anything unless - through experience or extreme common sense - it seems absolutely necessary, and carefully weigh the effect of the rule with the rest of the game."

SaintHazard wrote:

asimo77 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Because it's a standard.

But wouldn't you say that the standard is flawed, so why then stick to it so closely when in theory you could make a much smoother sytem?

You could, yes, but GW is not willing to do so.

As for each individual person trying to streamline the system, that leads to multiple interpretations, rules changes, re-interpretations, more issues, more interpretations, and before you know it every single FLGS has radically different rules.

Again, sticking to the rules as closely as possible creates a standard. Every single schmuck out there with a rulebook and a tape measure attempting to fix the rules does the exact opposite.

Ok, I've given up on this thread actually being about dark eldar...

But, by what you have just said, it sounds like you are against gwar coming up with his own faq's? Is that your position? I'm not sure what your point is.

After all he, like all of us, is just a schmuck with a rulebook and a tape measure so are you saying his faq's, in an attempt to fix the rules, is doing the exact opposite?

Or are you saying that you and gwar attempting to fix the rules is ok, but when the rest of us do it, it is not? In which case, the previous claim of elitism definitely rings true.

Badger wrote:ChrisCP:
"....against someone with whom I did not share a common language - with no issues - ever - Chances in 40K?...... "

ever heard of an event called ETC (european team championship)?

i have watched a game between 2 different nation 40k players (one of them couldnt speak english [not a single word other then "yes" and "no"]) they both didnt talk at all!!!

and had a fun game without any differences...

its all about your behavior (and that of your opponent).

greetings Badger

No I hadn't and thanks for pointing that out to me.
I do find it interesting that they have had to impose their own rules and clarifications http://www.rankingshq.com/etc/article.aspx?ArticleTypeId=2&ArticleId=172 good scoring system too. But I feel it's a bit of an unfair example, sure, I left myself open to it by saying ever

Can we got back to talking about DE?

I find the last couple of pages to be a complete waste of time.

Anyways, what does everyone think about Voidravens vs. Ravagers as a Heavy support choice?

I see myself bringing 3 Voidravens everytime. Is there any counter-arguments otherwise?

Xca|iber wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

asimo77 wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Because it's a standard.

But wouldn't you say that the standard is flawed, so why then stick to it so closely when in theory you could make a much smoother sytem?

You could, yes, but GW is not willing to do so.

As for each individual person trying to streamline the system, that leads to multiple interpretations, rules changes, re-interpretations, more issues, more interpretations, and before you know it every single FLGS has radically different rules.

Again, sticking to the rules as closely as possible creates a standard. Every single schmuck out there with a rulebook and a tape measure attempting to fix the rules does the exact opposite.

QFT.

"Fixing" everything is a terribly slippery slope that can quickly lead to accusations of "bending the rules" and outright "cheating."

For example, I always make sure people are okay with me assaulting out of moving BT Land Raiders - a complete and utter house rule. Most people have no problem with this, and everyone's happy. But I could just as easily justify giving my marines 3++ storm shields, which in my mind is cheating. The codex wasn't balanced around having 3++ shields, so I have units that can get them for less than 5pts a model, and on a Furious Charge Assault Terminator squad, they would be OTT if I build the squad in the right proportions.

My general rule of thumb is "don't house rule anything unless - through experience or extreme common sense - it seems absolutely necessary, and carefully weigh the effect of the rule with the rest of the game."

This is what I'm saying as well. No one would agree to ridiculous rules like the 3++ save so it's not really an issue, but I would hope that for more obvious fixes most people would agree to houserule. It goes without saying that one should only consider house ruling after one has had sufficient experience with the game.

HERO wrote:Can we got back to talking about DE?

I find the last couple of pages to be a complete waste of time.

Anyways, what does everyone think about Voidravens vs. Ravagers as a Heavy support choice?

I see myself bringing 3 Voidravens everytime. Is there any counter-arguments otherwise?

Yes.

Voidraves have 2 str 9 lances vs. ravagers which have 3 str. 8 lances.

They are both equally good at popping tanks, only the ravager is 40 points cheaper.

Now, the voidraven has other cool stuff, but if you only need the anti tank, the ravager is more efficient.

Do you have some math for that?

I'm terrible with math but I was just wondering what the numbers were.

But I'll list out some thoughts:

Ravager:
- Model for it is coming out soon.
- Has 3x S8 AP2 Lance weapons that can move 12" and shoot all.
- Can swap all its Dark Lances for Disentagrators for free.. so 9x S5 AP2 shots from each.
- Is really cheap.. 40 points cheaper than the bomber stock.
- AV11/11/10 open-top
- No Void Mine and no options for missiles

Voidraven Bomber:
- No model at all.
- 2x S9 AP2 Lance Weapons that can move 12" and shoot all.
- Has a S9 AP2 blast mine but you can only drop it when moving 12"
- Can take some pretty killer missiles but costs you extra
- AV11/11/10 closed top
- Can turbo-boost 36"

HMMMMM.... *grabs chin*

The voidraven is also 40 points extra from the word go.
Way I see it, two ravagers and a voidraven is really the optimum loadout. Voidravens might be better, but you have to determine cost efficiency versus actual survivability and effectiveness on the battlefield. For an armour 11 vehicle, paying close to 200 points(with missiles) would be suicide if you took it in threes at a low points cost. You can grab a Leman Russ Executioner for that kind of points.

Thing with Dark Eldar is that they're not very tough, so you need to economise your points to your killpower. I'd rather get three ravagers than two void ravens, simply because it's more shots and more targets.

Here are some more tough Dark Eldar deicions:
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2010/10/tough-dark-eldar-decisions.html

What do you guys have to say?

Ravager vs. Voidraven Bomber
Reaver Jetbike vs. Scourge
Incubii vs. Harlequins