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.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

I'll agree to that. But in the spirit of compromise, you have to use my dice:

And I shall retort by requiring you to also use those dice should I lose my roll to autowin

I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

Dracos wrote:I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

I'd bet that Gwar! has no problems finding opponents. I usually do play entirely RaW. Infact, I can't remember the last time I did play something majorly RaI. Hell, I'd love to play Gwar! at least once (course, I don't use anything with unclear rules).

RustyKnight wrote:

Dracos wrote:I'm sure everyone reading this can tell who is being TFG.

Anyways I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, GL finding opponents with your attitude.

I'd bet that Gwar! has no problems finding opponents. I usually do play entirely RaW. Infact, I can't remember the last time I did play something majorly RaI. Hell, I'd love to play Gwar! at least once (course, I don't use anything with unclear rules).

No, go ahead and use things with Unclear rules. We can use TMIR to determine how they work Pre Game. Of course, a Valkyrie does not fall under the "Unclear Rules" banner, which has been my point this entire thread.

Gwar! wrote:No, go ahead and use things with Unclear rules. We can use TMIR to determine how they work Pre Game. Of course, a Valkyrie does not fall under the "Unclear Rules" banner, which has been my point this entire thread.

It's not that I avoid them, I just don't own any of them (yet ). I agree, Valk rules are clear.

I would rather fight Gwar! than most of the other posters I see on this board, Dracos. It seems like your idea of "compromise" is "agree 100% with me."

I would play Gwar, but I would tell him all his conversions are illegal and he cant play with them. So pretty much we wouldnt get the chance,

Now in the realm of reality, in a tournment no one will rule on his side about the Valkyire not being able to embark and disembark troops.

broxus wrote:I would play Gwar, but I would tell him all his conversions are illegal and he cant play with them. So pretty much we wouldnt get the chance,

Now in the realm of reality, in a tournment no one will rule on his side about the Valkyire not being able to embark and disembark troops.

I'm not sure about that. If I were to run a tournament, I would stick to RAW as closely as possible, and reserve judgments for things that are actually ambiguous. If the players were not able to decide amongst themselves, then I would make a judgment in the favor of clear RAW.

Why do people insist that the transparent stick isn't part of the base?
Don't they realize the issues cropping up with that rather odd way of thinking?

I want to poke the bear

Are there any rules stopping me from fielding these even in a strict RAW environment? Either make it legal for a squad to disembark from at least one access point.




Note that neither the flight stand, base, nor model itself has been modified, only the way that the three interact. I doubt GW was competent enough to specify how a base must be attached to a model.

"Dude, my Valkyrie pilots are doing some crazy dogfight maneuvers!"

Wouldn't it be better to just agree on a house rule and not have your valkyries looking ridiculous?

MODERATION:

I've acted upon several user post alerts for this thread and have deleted and edited several posts and one user has had a temporary ban installed.
Please remember 'Dakka rule 1' when posting here or the thread will be locked.


Waaagh_Gonads

I gotta question...... how does shaving down the base of the valkyrie make the base not the base it came with...... That's kinda like saying that if I shaved my beard..... I wouldn't be the same person


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Lives wrote:That's not what you said and you know it. You said i was wrong then changed it!

And its not semi-ambiguous

its just plain ambiguous, and i bet anything that the jag-off that won't let you normal deploy also says they die if 1 model fails a dangerous terrain.

This is where my "ball kicking" method of dealing with rules lawyers comes into play...... you get to be a rules lawyer, but each time you behave like one, I get to kick you in the balls.

-The initial issues have been stated earlier.

-The issue of whether shaving down the base constituted changing the base is contested (I don't see how myself, the"base" remains the same width)

-Everything has been argued ad nauseum. For the tourney bug the OT if you feel the need or clarify prior to the game if you have a valk/opponent has a valk.

-remember boys and girls, your definitions of TFG are irrelevant. If other people think you're a TFG then you're a TFG.

This thread is closed. Warnings will not be given although they should be.


Gak I hate this topic.