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.

Dont know how much it matters, but it could be what is in the IG FAQ if it ever gets released. according to the Ard Boyz rules for this year. you cant take GK termies in a Valkyrie/Vendetta.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9500009

Quick side question: Is there anywhere that specifically states that space marine ASSAULT terminators are to be treated identical to regular terminators? if not, this whole debate could apply to that aswell. (not near a rulebook right now so i cant check)

If I can translate here, Gwar is an Inquistor. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. While it used to supremely rub me the wrong way, he might have earned a point of respect or two from me. Everyone else here is a space marine. Some adhere strictly to the code; some break a rule here or there; others are like the Blood Angels and are so far off in RaI land that they're considered damned. If life is anything like DnD (which it is exactly, there are obviously no differences), we all have an alignment and tend to work better with people close to our alignment. All of that to say, the Inquisitor wouldn't be an Inquisitor if he didn't try to burn people at the stake, just like the Blood Angel wouldn't be a Blood Angel if he weren't giving into his Black Rage. The best thing we can try to do is understand what we are, be what we are and accept that. There is no definite right or wrong here, but people will disagree and it will not end the world. There's also no point in arguing on two different levels (RaI will not disprove RaW or otherwise) because then you're just fighting on the internet, and that doesn't impress anyone. Hopefully I came off slightly deeper than the "everyone plays their own game" comments tend to.

dashrendar wrote:Dont know how much it matters

It doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SonofTerra wrote:Quick side question: Is there anywhere that specifically states that space marine ASSAULT terminators are to be treated identical to regular terminators? if not, this whole debate could apply to that aswell. (not near a rulebook right now so i cant check)

In Codex: Space Marines, the rule that they take up 2 slots is an Inherent Rule of Terminator Armour. Codex: Daemonhunters Terminator Armour has no such rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If I can translate here, Gwar is an Inquistor. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. While it used to supremely rub me the wrong way, he might have earned a point of respect or two from me. Everyone else here is a space marine. Some adhere strictly to the code; some break a rule here or there; others are like the Blood Angels and are so far off in RaI land that they're considered damned. If life is anything like DnD (which it is exactly, there are obviously no differences), we all have an alignment and tend to work better with people close to our alignment. All of that to say, the Inquisitor wouldn't be an Inquisitor if he didn't try to burn people at the stake, just like the Blood Angel wouldn't be a Blood Angel if he weren't giving into his Black Rage. The best thing we can try to do is understand what we are, be what we are and accept that. There is no definite right or wrong here, but people will disagree and it will not end the world. There's also no point in arguing on two different levels (RaI will not disprove RaW or otherwise) because then you're just fighting on the internet, and that doesn't impress anyone. Hopefully I came off slightly deeper than the "everyone plays their own game" comments tend to.

A splended speech I must say so!

And for the record, I am a Lawful Neutral Ordo Herectus Inqusitor of the Monodominance sect

The thing with RAI vs. RAW in times like this is that it goes against, to an extent, our human nature. The brain seeks out patterns. It wants to make sense of data, to make it easier to remember, to predict what will come next, to avoid getting eaten by a lion.

When most players see a rules situation that's virtually the same as previous ones, they simply play the same way. Terminators can't ride in transports, and when they can, they take two slots. It doesn't matter where those rules came from (note: not the terminators themselves), but rather that the rules work that way.

So, you're first order RAW vs. RAI debate is showing that, yes, the rules actually say soemthing different than you thought. That's usually pretty easy. The hard part is the second order RAW, which goes a step further and seems to hold each individual rule inviolate, even in the fact of counter-precedent. The community has more or less lined up for this, because it's often the only fair way to do things. Termies can't ride in a rhino, but this rule is different, so we play it different.

Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write. At best, Robin figured that there's not a valid reason to make it clear that the new Valk can't hold a unit that's not in the IG codex. Most likely, the issue never even came up.

The problem with highly discrete RAW analysis, picking each phrase apart in a vacuum, is that context is a way to appraise the intent of the writers. In fact, RAW does that all the time. The phrase "Space Marine terminators count as two models" sounds sweeping until placed in it's appropriate context. The scout move/cover save debate hinged more or less on which of two phrases to interpret literally: "as if in a movement phase" or "in the previous movement phase." Interpreting either literally leads to some interesting results. I think that going with no save is better RAW, but that leads to the question of "why wouldn't IG players move every valk 24" on the last turn of games, so that in the next game they start with a cover save?"

Green Blow Fly wrote:I spoke about this very subject ad naseum on the SciFi City forums.

You know my local gaming store(group) is Coliseum of Comics in Kissimmee, not SciFi city. Give it a rest. I still don't even see the point of you bringing it up in this thread in the first place. If you want to gloat to someone at SciFi city that you said something in one of their forums, you should go find one of the people from that gaming group.

No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

augustus5 wrote:No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

Protip: You cannot abuse RaW. RaW is just That, RaW. You can no more claim that 12 GKT in a Valkyrie is Abusing RaW in 40k than you can claim moving your Queen Diagonaly is abusing the RaW of Chess.

You can abuse RaI/TMIR however. I have yet in over 10 years of Wargaming met a person arguing "RaI" who was not trying to eek out an advantage for themselves.

Polonius wrote:Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write.

...which we know for a fact isn't true. See my Assassins/Inquisitors example in the Valkyrie thread.

insaniak wrote:

Polonius wrote:Where I think Gwar and a few other ultra-orthodox RAWers run into trouble in the community is the notion that the authors mean everything they write.

...which we know for a fact isn't true. See my Assassins/Inquisitors example in the Valkyrie thread.

Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

Which in turn gets abused 8 ways to Sunday. We pay an extensive premium for the game, the very least that we should get out of common courtesy is ONE FREAKING GUY WITH A SHARPIE FIXING STUFF

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well, they have two options:
1) Hire a Proofreader who plays 40k. Hell, find a bunch of Uni Students who will do it for a Free Codex FFS.
2) Issue an Errata.

Or 3: Issue a statement pointing out that they don't intend for their rules to be taken too seriously, so if you run into issues you should resolve them yourself as best you see fit, and feel free to modify the rules to suit yourself...

Last I checked, option 3 is RaW per the BRB.

SJ

Gwar doesn't listen to option 3. Option 3 caused the holocaust or slept with his sister or some other incredibly hyperbolic statement.

I would happily proofread each codex in exchange for a single blister pack. I regularly proof-read my friend's uni assignments for a single bottle of beer, so...

And every single rule that i wrote/edited would have "The intent of this rule is to represent xxx, and if a dispute arises, choose the resolution that most closely follows this intent." written after it. Take that.

People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

GW doesn't want to produce perfect rules. They've gotten better, but still not there. The only way they're going to produce better rules is if people leave the game because of them. PP writes very tight rules, but it also has a 80+ page FAQ online to cover everything in Mk I. Which is fine for the competitive hardcore gamer. GW doesn't see that as their market audience. They know that they're there, but you don't think they comprise a big enough segment to cater to them.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

The reason the rules are not better is because they just don't try. They don't have an incentive too. Because they don't think it hurts their sales to have shoddy rules. Oh, sure, they know they should be and could be better, but they don't need to be.

Plus, there's a mindset that a tight rules set somehow punishes the casual gamer. I don't understand that. The casual gamer either: 1) doesn't care what the rules are, they're going to play how they want anyway; or 2) won't notice. But, the perception is that a tight rules set hurts the casual gamer.

So, in summary, if you want GW to write better rules - stop buying GW product.

dietrich wrote:GW doesn't want to produce perfect rules. They've gotten better, but still not there.

Yes, yes.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

I think we're going to see a change in this mentality. Remember, GW loses money every year, and is a publicly traded company. Public companies don't lose money without the people in charge getting fired.

More and more I think GW is beginning to realize that the game is their primary demand driver, after their background material. In other words, people don't give a gak about owning 500 Space Marines unless it lets them act out a Black Crusade in their very own space opera. The game sells the miniatures, which have no intrinsic value beyond the cost of the pewter/plastic that they contain. There is no way GW miniatures would command a high premium without the game.

I think the younger employees know this (tighter 5th ed rules, new codices with over the top rules to sell new models) and it's the senior grognards that need to get kicked out on their ass so that GW can become a successful company again.

I know that Jervis isn't the most popular person, but I think they've gotten a lot better since he took over. I think GW suffered a bit from their own success and took the market for granted. Now, they have some real competition in other popular games, and the economy has dropped as well.

Jervis admitted at Adepticon a few years ago that letting a codex go 10+ years without an update (such as Orks) is unacceptable. And that they won't make 'appendix' army lists or even army lists without model support.

Whilte I don't always agree with the direction of the game and company, I think they've at least improved. It's like there were a ship, with no navigator, compass, or maps. Now, the at least have a map and navigator, but still don't have a compass.

The story that I always remember about the dev team comes from Bloodbowl (the last boxset edition, version 3 maybe?, with the Deathzone supplement). Those of us that played a lot of BB 'in the real world' had the constant threat of Dirty Players. Fouls at +2/+2 to armor and injury. Dirty Players could decimate a team in a single match. The GW Studio didn't have this experience, because they were all sporting chaps and didnt' Foul much. Then they hired a new guy, who played a lot of BB outside the Studio. And his Dirty Player(s) decimated the Studio league. At which point, the Dev Team realized they had a problem and started modifying the rule, first with I've Got My Eye On You.

I hope the IG faq comes up soon, cuz I'm sure it will nerf the GKT ridng in valks..until then enjoy this loophole...

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

This is a prime example. Rogue Trader was released at the October 87 games day. Stuff of legends lists at least space marines as being released in Spring 87. By the 1988 catalog, there was a pretty decent range. http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/index.htm Couple this with the well known statements by GW officers are being a miniatures company, your post is both factually incorrect and nitpicky.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Funny how the people who seem to frequently throw out personal attacks often seem to be the ones who comment about posting etiquette...

There's a big difference between being abrasive/arrogant and attacking someone personally. The former does not warrant the latter.

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

I think that we all dislike ambiguous rules, some clearly more than others. The very nature of their ambiguity, however, I think starts to cause a break down in RAW. Most of those debates eventually became entrenched in interpretations of the RAW, not the usage or not of the RAW itself. the problem is that RAW quickly becomes an academic exercise. In practice, RAW is the barest of guides in those truly ambiguous cases.

In a way, reliance on RAW at the exclusion of all else is self defeating. GW's rules are not airtight. Interpreting them as if they were, is, in itself, a violation of the rules. yes, TMIR is horribly fuzzy. No, it does not provide clear answers. But when RAW doesn't either, the rules become a program that can't compile. You can keep the code as is, or you can make the most sensible modification and move on.

there is also this notion that RAW is crystal clear and RAI impossible to determine. RAW is generally clear and RAI is almost always expressed directly through RAW, but there are times when it's far more interesting.

Here, of course, the RAW is pretty clear. Terminators can ride and don't take up two spots. Reading anything more into that isn't RAW, or even RAI, but becomes a "balance" decision. Compare that to say, ruling the Valks can embark/disembark as if on the ground. Disagrees with the strictest reading of RAW (even if contested), but there is strong RAI evidence to support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Funny how the people who seem to frequently throw out personal attacks often seem to be the ones who comment about posting etiquette...

There's a big difference between being abrasive/arrogant and attacking someone personally. The former does not warrant the latter.

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

it's not a personal attack to call a persona or a pattern of posting behavior what it is. If you read my post, you'll see that I point out that it's improper.

My point is that there is an amusing irony in people posting like Big Dogs, but they cry every time somebody is mean to them.

At the end of the day, a party that is himself violating rules of politeness has less cause to expect scrupulous protection from other violations. If you regularly treat the posters around you poorly, what kind of reception do you really expect?

In addition, posting in such a manner is going to aggravate/annoy people. It's either an intentional affectation (which is itself rude) or a reckless disregard for others (which is also rude).

Gwar! wrote:

augustus5 wrote:No rules set can be 100% perfect. Especially when the seperate books are often written by different authors. With this in mind when one runs into rules problems one should use a balance of RAW and RAI to come up with a solution.

If a solution can't be agreed upon in the middle of a game, go to the role off for it rule and try to enjoy the rest of your game.

The beauty of having forums like this is that these rules problems come to the surface and the gaming community can talk things out from many perpectives and share their thoughts.

I think anyone who says that they can put 12 GKT into a valk, or more specifically that GKT don't take up 2 spots in a transport, is abusing RAW to exploit a flaw in the writing of the codex.

Protip: You cannot abuse RaW. RaW is just That, RaW. You can no more claim that 12 GKT in a Valkyrie is Abusing RaW in 40k than you can claim moving your Queen Diagonaly is abusing the RaW of Chess.

You can abuse RaI/TMIR however. I have yet in over 10 years of Wargaming met a person arguing "RaI" who was not trying to eek out an advantage for themselves.

Protip: It is my opinion that one can ABUSE RAW, when one fails to throw in RAI for balance when considering a ruling for something that does not appear correct in the rules set. Chess has an easy to follow simple set of rules that really are not open to interpretation. 40k uses rules coming from several different rulebooks authored by several different authors, some from previous editions of the game, and as such runs into problems. It is our job as the players to resolve these conflicting rules in the fairest way possible until a official ruling comes down from GW. Since we know that the rulebooks have flaws (these are not to be followed to the word like a holy book), we must explore the RAW and the RAI of the given situation.

In this case it seems to me that logically the size of tactical dreadnaught armor takes up two seats for a GK just as it does for a SM. Whether the DH codex mentions that or not is a moot point to me.

@Polonius I agree with your points in general.

Polonius wrote:Terminators can ride and don't take up two spots. Reading anything more into that isn't RAW, or even RAI, but becomes a "balance" decision.

This is where I have problems, with the game and with debates regarding the game, when people decide 'X' is unbalanced. We saw a lot of this sort of screaming regarding Lash and Deffrollas, where people decided that some aspect of the rule was imbalanced and therefore the most literal interpretation can't possibly be correct.

Then as the metagame evolves, it turns out that those things aren't really that overpowered, and in fact may be necessary if the above wants to be considered "competitive".

Lash Chaos (and the codex in general) is underwhelming, especially in the face of new IG armored walls and air cav.

Orks have a huge problem killing armor without being vulnerable to shooting, especially transports (Lootas in BW aside).

I'm not saying that strict RAW fixes this (although in these two instances it helps), but having this living rule set created around finding balance only works if "balance" is a fixed quantity.

Is 10 GKTs in a Valkyrie even unbalanced? That's 480 points right there, plus 100 for the transport. 500 points for a first-turn alpha strike seems like a terrible investment, especially considering that they can do absolutely nothing to crack transports before they run in.

I'd be delighted fighting an opponent with this setup, because it's *terrible*.

Polonius wrote: You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that.

Not on Dakka you don't. Rule #1 is always in effect.

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

"You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that."

How does calling someone an arrogant jerk NOT register as a personal attack? Did this thread just stumble into Bizarro world?

You're free to harbor the personal opinion and perspective on someone's pattern of behavior, but to bring it into the discussion is entirely irrelevant and, in this case, abusive. You may not like Gwar or how he makes his points, but he's not breaking any rules by doing so. Put the mud-slinging in PM if you can't help yourself.

Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Danny Internets wrote:Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Perfectly Legal to Stick a 10 Man Unit Plus a Grand Master, all In Terminator Armour. You could even Stick in an Elite Inquisitor from the Witch Hunters Codex with them

Oddly enough people think this needs discussion at all.

Danny Internets wrote:

Are you accusing me of frequently throwing out personal attacks? I'm interested to see you back that assertion up if that's what you mean.

"You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that."

How does calling someone an arrogant jerk NOT register as a personal attack? Did this thread just stumble into Bizarro world?

You're free to harbor the personal opinion and perspective on someone's pattern of behavior, but to bring it into the discussion is entirely irrelevant and, in this case, abusive. You may not like Gwar or how he makes his points, but he's not breaking any rules by doing so. Put the mud-slinging in PM if you can't help yourself.

Stick to the topic: Valkyries and Grey Knight Terminators.

Except, you know, see above where Iorek says it does break rules. The rule is not to be nice, but to be polite.

You can politely point out that somebody is posting like a jerk. As I've offered before, I can avoid the word jerk and say something wordier like "when a person posts in a manner that is self aggrandizing and often limited in it's respect for fellow posters", or we can all agree that "posting like a jerk" is less wordy.

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack