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.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:It could refer to any zoanthrope, but it does not specify which.

Yes, it does. It refers to the Zoanthrope which has the special rule. This would be important were it possible for a Zoanthrope NOT to have Warp Field, but a Zoanthrope always does, rendering it redundant in fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:EDIT: I suppose in a friendly game against you I might let you randomize which invulnerable saves go where, but that feels too RAI and I would prefer to follow the RAW.

You mean, the RaW that each Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save? Because Each model has the Warp Field Special rule? Because it is not Possible for a Zoanthrope model to NOT have the Warp Field Rule?

I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It is not a Misinterpretation. As has been pointed out, MULTIPLE times, the rules for Warp Field do not mention the Doom of Malan'tai in any way, shape or form. Just because you do not like what the rules say, does not mean you can call people who want to play by the rules Jackasses.

It's like the old argument of Terminators not having Terminator armor, which was by RAW perfectly valid. If you are going to be so picky about the wording of the rules that you suggest something so unambiguously wrong about a game of toy soldiers, you need to step away for a second and think about it.

ph34r wrote:I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It does not have to say each Zoanthrope. Each Zoanthrope has a Rule called "Warp Field". The Rule "Warp Field" states that a Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save. Thus, any Zoanthrope has a Rule saysing "A Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save". Now, is the model a Zoanthrope? If so, it has a 3+ Invulnerable save, if not, then it doesn't.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:I guess I am just following the exact meaning of the rules a bit more than you. It says that A zoanthrope gets the invulnerable save. It does not specify. "each" zoanthrope does not have an invulnerable save, A zoanthrope does. Which zoanthrope? A zoanthrope. If I was feeling REALLY rai then I might just say that the zoanthropes can all have 3+ invulnerables, but against you I would make sure to play it the RAW way.

It does not have to say each Zoanthrope. Each Zoanthrope has a Rule called "Warp Field". The Rule "Warp Field" states that a Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save. Thus, any Zoanthrope has a Rule saysing "A Zoanthrope has a 3+ Invulnerable save". Now, is the model a Zoanthrope? If so, it has a 3+ Invulnerable save, if not, then it doesn't.

It's another interpretation. You think that "a" refers to the Zoanthrope bearing the Warp Field. I think that there is not necessarily enough evidence to suggest this if you want to pursue RAW as far as possible.

ph34r wrote:It's another interpretation. You think that "a" refers to the Zoanthrope bearing the Warp Field. I think that there is not necessarily enough evidence to suggest this if you want to pursue RAW as far as possible.

No, it is not. It is called "The English Language", you know, the language that the rulebooks were written in?

Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you seriously contesting the fact that there is an entire special rule in the codex dedicated to one type of model, but on the table top your opponent will not benefit from it because you don't like the way it's *worded*? I'm glad you are not one of my common opponents, that just seems a little over the top, and i'm sorry if that comes off sounding harsh.

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you being intentionally dense? It does not need to specify "which" Zoanthrope gets it, for a number of reasons.
1) All Zoanthropes have this special rule
2) A Zoanthrope model with a rule saying "A Zoanthrope gets a 3+ Invulnerable Save" is a Zoanthrope, thus the rule grants the save.

tetrisphreak wrote:

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you seriously contesting the fact that there is an entire special rule in the codex dedicated to one type of model, but on the table top your opponent will not benefit from it because you don't like the way it's *worded*? I'm glad you are not one of my common opponents, that just seems a little over the top, and I'm sorry if that comes off sounding harsh.

Don't worry, I would not want to play against someone that argued RAW as much as I am right now, but am merely playing the devil's advocate for the sake of argument. RAW interpretations don't stop where Gwar wishes they might. RAW can be taken too far, and I would consider saying that zoanthropes might not get invulnerable saves "unreasonable", but then again I would also consider denying a model use of wargear/special rules that it is listed as having "unreasonable".

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Look, if it was "Having a warp field grants the Zoanthrope a 3+ invulnerable save" I would be on your side, but it is phrased so as to not specify what zoanthrope gains the invulnerable save.

Are you being intentionally dense? It does not need to specify "which" Zoanthrope gets it, for a number of reasons.
1) All Zoanthropes have this special rule
2) A Zoanthrope model with a rule saying "A Zoanthrope gets a 3+ Invulnerable Save" is a Zoanthrope, thus the rule grants the save.

No, I am being intentionally RAW. It doesn't matter what you might interpret the developers as intending the Warp Field to do based on what units have them, that is for RAI to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the record the first sentence of Old One Eye's description says that he is a Carnifex, granting him use of Living Battering Ram even if you think that it only works on "Carnifexes". Similarly Death Leaper is stated to be a Lictor.

FLUFF does not make rules, the descriptions are fluff.

Yeah, if you want to really RAW it, like Gwar seems to occasionally, then they would not count as Carnifex/Lictor/whatever. However, you would have to be totally clueless to not see that the Carnifex, Old One Eye, is a carnifex.

Not really, all I would have to do is read the relevant entry in the codex.

I play by RAW and by Errata. I do not infer any meaning.

I like to make the massive leap of faith that is assuming that the rules developers give models do things. I have found that 100% of people I have played in real life agree with me. Luckily I do not have to deal with you

The word Zoanthrope is mentioned in the description of Doom -- that's enough for me to recognise that he's a Zoanthrope. Sometimes RAI is so abundantly clear that it overrides the occasional bit of sloppy language in RAW.

Again, fluff does not make the rules.

It may describe itself as much as it wants to, until its RULES say it is one, it isn't.

So, where in any of the rulebooks is this "fluff does not make the rules" rule written? Or is it just -- you know -- your interpretation.

It's abundantly clear that the Doom has a 3+ invulnerable save from its Warp Field. Otherwise, what does its special rule "Warp Field" do? What would be the point of a rule that did nothing? A rule that had no way to have an effect on the game would not, by definition, be a rule.

I don't think it's a stretch, at all, for us to interpret "See page 44" as "See page 44 and apply the rule that's on page 44 as though it applied to the unit that's on this page, seeing as it does, by definition, apply to the unit on this page, because if it didn't apply to the unit on this page, it wouldn't appear in the unit's list of 'Special Rules'."

Gwar, unusually, is wrong.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So, where in any of the rulebooks is this "fluff does not make the rules" rule written? Or is it just -- you know -- your interpretation.

It's abundantly clear that the Doom has a 3+ invulnerable save from its Warp Field. Otherwise, what does its special rule "Warp Field" do? What would be the point of a rule that did nothing? A rule that had no way to have an effect on the game would not, by definition, be a rule.

I don't think it's a stretch, at all, for us to interpret "See page 44" as "See page 44 and apply the rule that's on page 44 as though it applied to the unit that's on this page, seeing as it does, by definition, apply to the unit on this page, because if it didn't apply to the unit on this page, it wouldn't appear in the unit's list of 'Special Rules'."

Gwar, unusually, is wrong.

So can I use the Fluff for Ultramarines and declare that I automatically win every game or use the fluff to automatically Kill Eldar Avatars that get into Close Combat with Calgar?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Even though as strict RAW , Gwar! is right about Doom is not a zoanthrope thus the warp field shouldnt work.

However , see as they bother putting the specific line in to refer back to page 44's warp field, i think its safe to say the intended purpose
was to refer the warp field of 3++ applying on the Doom.

So -- you've replied to my 1st paragraph, Gwar -- what about the rest? It's OK to admit you're wrong, sometimes, you know.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So -- you've replied to my 1st paragraph, Gwar -- what about the rest? It's OK to admit you're wrong, sometimes, you know.

He isnt wrong for stating the RAW though.

How can a rule that doesn't have any effect on any game that will ever be played, be a rule? It can't, by definition. Game rules tell you how to play a game. So what does the Doom's Warp Field rule do, if it doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save? If it doesn't do anything at all, it isn't a rule -- but it's right there, in the rules section. So it must be a rule. So what does it do?

Ian Sturrock wrote:How can a rule that doesn't have any effect on any game that will ever be played, be a rule? It can't, by definition. Game rules tell you how to play a game. So what does the Doom's Warp Field rule do, if it doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save? If it doesn't do anything at all, it isn't a rule -- but it's right there, in the rules section. So it must be a rule. So what does it do?

It's a rule that does nothing. The same way as you can have wargear that does nothing, like the T'au Command and Control node.

And actually, the rule DOES do something. It gives a Zoanthrope a 3++ save. Sadly, the DoM isn't a Zoanthrope, so it doesn't get the save.

Rules can't do nothing... text in the rulebooks that has no effect on the game is fluff, not rules. But there it is -- right there in the rules section!

C'mon Gwar! -- you even "clarified" this in your own FAQ...

The Warp Field rule for Doom doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation. RAI is *so* clear that anyone who insisted on playing "this rule has no effect on Doom" wouldn't be worth playing against at all. Usually I'm in agreement with you that RAI is impossible for us to gauge, but here, that's not the case; there's no reason Cruddace would have inserted a rule that had no game effect.

(Although personally I blame the developers & editors for not having caught this stuff.)

Ian Sturrock wrote:Rules can't do nothing... text in the rulebooks that has no effect on the game is fluff, not rules. But there it is -- right there in the rules section!

Actually, rules can do nothing. As I have pointed out, the Command and Control node has a rule that does nothing.

C'mon Gwar! -- you even "clarified" this in your own FAQ...

No, I pointed out a RULES CHANGE. Because that is what allowing the DoM to have a 3++ save is. A Rules change.

The Warp Field rule for Doom doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation.

No, It doesn't, because the DoM doesn't benefit

from Warp Field. RAI is *so* clear that anyone who insisted on playing "this rule has no effect on Doom" wouldn't be worth playing against at all.

Huh, I didn't know Robin Cruddace was on Dakka. Hey, Robin, why did you nerf Carnifexes?

For anyone to pull these kinds of shenanigans just stinks to high heaven. It would be a very obvious tell as to how that particular game would progress. You would have to be utterly lacking in any degree of sportsmanship to try to pull this in an actual game.

Unless you were pointing it out to your opponent in a joking sort of manner, I would instantly label you as hey, that's the guy who would deny your Doom a Warp Field save. I wonder what other sort of obvious ridiculousness he's going to try to pull" guy. You'd be damn sure that would get around the store right quick.

As an exercise in rules review, it's certainly a good catch, but the manner in which I see it discussed here (I may be way of base) looks like it would actually be something you'd try to enforce. Nuts to that!

I'm only halfway through my coffee so if I'm coming off a bit hot under the collar I apologize. I'd just hate to see someone new to that game come to this site looking for information and come away thinking that this was an OK thing to do.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would liken the Doom to a Zoanthrope the same way that the Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant. So yes, he gets the Warp Field save.

So, Gwar!, what other possible RAI interpretation is there, that doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save?

Okay people, calm down. I cannot speak directly for Gwar! but based on his Rules Change listed in the FAQ i would imagine that in a game, he would allow the 3++ save on Doom. From what i gather, he has been stating on this forum strictly RAW, which is what the point of YMDC is. Mr. Gwar! if i am wrong on that, i apologize for speaking on your behalf.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So, Gwar!, what other possible RAI interpretation is there, that doesn't give the Doom a 3+ invulnerable save?

Easy. The RaI is the RaW. After all, Robin Cruddace did not unintentionally write a codex did he? Thus, the Rules as Intended are the Rules that he Wrote, because if he did not Intend to write them, they would not have been written.

Thus, the RaI is that the Doom Of Malan'tai has the Warp Field Rule but it doesn't actually benefit him/her/it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:Okay people, calm down. I cannot speak directly for Gwar! but based on his Rules Change listed in the FAQ i would imagine that in a game, he would allow the 3++ save on Doom. From what i gather, he has been stating on this forum strictly RAW, which is what the point of YMDC is. Mr. Gwar! if i am wrong on that, i apologize for speaking on your behalf.

Nope, you are spot on. In any case, what I may or may not allow in games that I play is of no consequence. The Rules are exceptionally clear, only Zoanthropes get the save granted by Warp Field, so by the rules, the DoM does NOT have a Invulnerable save. If you wish to change it, then bully for you. Just understand that, should someone request that the rules are followed, you don't actually have a leg to stand on, as the idiom goes.

And there certainly are some competitive types that will call those rules in a game, especially in a tournament like 'ard boyz.

This is You Make Da Call, though, not RAW over everything to the point of absurdity...

Why would he give the Doom a Special Rule that has no effect? What could his Intention have been, when so crafting the rule?

As I've said before, it's really no stretch to assume that the rule applies to the unit that has the rule.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Why would he give the Doom a Special Rule that has no effect? What could his Intention have been, when so crafting the rule?

I don't know. I am not Robin Cruddace.

And that is the problem. You are not Robin Cruddace either, so you do NOT know the Intention behind giving the DoM a rule that does not work.