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.

I didn't really read any of this thread past the very start, so sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has said or otherwise being disruptive.

The Adepticon FAQ says that units with drones may still use their advanced stabilisation systems (the drones gain no benefit). I see why people would think strict RAW prevents the A.S.S. working when there are drones in the squad, but you have to see why this is a circumstance in which RAI makes more sense, and the Adepticon ruling supports this.

Now ya see, that post would be wonderful were it not for the fact that this is a rules debate forum, and we debate on what the rules actually say (That is, Rules + Errata).

The Adeptecon FAQ and GW FAQ's are nothing but house rules, so to bring them up is counter-intuitive.

Not to mention, as admitted by the main parties in this thread, its all just one huge thought experiment and that no-one in their right mind would play this way.

P.S. Please don't ever mention RaI in a Rules Debate thread. Until Cavatore/Whoever wrote the stupid codex comes and delivers in writing and sealed with his blood what the "intent" of the rule is, Claiming what YOU think RaI is to be better than what I think RaI just makes you appear Arrogant and dickish.

Haha, the Games Workshop FAQs don't count as RAW? That's ridiculous.

I just think it's valuable to consider semi-Official-ish sources like the Adepticon FAQ. The fact that it weighs in for one side of the argument might help some people make a decision. If you're on the side of only examining letter of the law, 100% RAW, that's fine, but not everyone agrees that you should never think about intent.

Except, every major tournament uses those house rules, and the vast majority of all players except you (and your group I guess) use them as well. You really need to get off this "they are only house rules and don't mean anything." Of course you can keep on it, be an army of one, plus its very good for giving you a boost to your thread count.

However, you are correct, no one plays where the drones must have A.S.S. or you can't take drones and have ASS on broadsides at the same time. Therefore I believe the intention was that you are not required to take wargear on wargear and I believe it was the intention of the codex writers that drones taken as wargear are not team members. And I believe that it was intentionally left unclarified because it was intentional that you can take A.S.S. and have the team leader buy a drone controller with some drones and have the whole thing work the way everyone already plays it.

Gwar! wrote:Now ya see, that post would be wonderful were it not for the fact that this is a rules debate forum, and we debate on what the rules actually say (That is, Rules + Errata).

The Adeptecon FAQ and GW FAQ's are nothing but house rules, so to bring them up is counter-intuitive.

Not to mention, as admitted by the main parties in this thread, its all just one huge thought experiment and that no-one in their right mind would play this way.

P.S. Please don't ever mention RaI in a Rules Debate thread. Until Cavatore/Whoever wrote the stupid codex comes and delivers in writing and sealed with his blood what the "intent" of the rule is, Claiming what YOU think RaI is to be better than what I think RaI just makes you appear Arrogant and dickish.

Yah, but we're arguing RAW, not RAI. Were basically trying to highlight the fact that the codex was obviously written while the author was drunk and being mauled by a bear wearing a short-skirt

Maj. Tom wrote:Yah, but we're arguing RAW, not RAI. Were basically trying to highlight the fact that the codex was obviously written while the author was drunk and being mauled by a bear wearing a short-skirt

yay for innuendo. This gave me a big grin