Is this list bound?

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.

**Jeffrachov**

Woa...

Taking a Ravenwing Command squad without a HQ would make dualwing lists easier (for funsies, i know they're not great). Bolter banner on a bike without paying for a HQ on a bike? Don't mind if i do. RAW it would also work as my compulsory HQ slot in a Battleforged list, right?

**blaktoof**

Kriswall wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

This is not a personal attack, but would it be possible for you to organize your thoughts into full, non run on sentences and use capitalization at the start of sentences? I realize it's possible that you're not a native English speaker and that this is your best effort. If so, I applaud you. Lord knows my French writing is pretty bad. It can just sometimes be difficult to understand your points as I have to read the sentences several times and then mentally add punctuation and sentence breaks. Again, this is not a personal attack. You sometimes do it and sometimes not, so I assume you're just in a hurry or posting from a mobile phone or something.

To answer your questions...

I'm reading the Lone Wolf rule as an additional permission. By using the permission in the BRB, I'm not ignoring the Lone Wolf permission... I'm just not taking advantage of it.

Lukas and Arjac are interesting and might shed some light on authorial intent, but as has been said over and over and over again, authorial intent can never truly be known. The Lone Wolf unit entry only cares about rules in the BRB and in the Lone Wof unit entry. Rules in other unit entries might be interesting, but have no real meaning in a RaW discussion. That's why I'm ignoring them. It's sort of like saying that Honda Accords MUST have good gas mileage because Honda Civics do. It's a different car/different unit entry, so the rules on how to handle them are different. There is no assumption that the authors use the same wording in every instance or even that the rules were written by the same person.

There is no actual wording to indicate the rules for how you take a Lone Wolf have any additional options, Unlike the rules for Lukas and Arjac from the same codex.

Further as the rules are under the unit composition of "1 lone wolf" if you could buy a lone wolf that was slotted how many would there be? the rules for the unit composition of 1, include the rule for the unit not taking up a slot on the force org chart.

as the word "this selection" no one has been able to link that that says its an optional way to take the unit, or the only way to take the unit, and as its a rule listed under the unit composition "this selection" is 1 lone wolf you can include in your army. Given that, then you have to follow the rules to take the selection of 1 lone wolf which are listed under the unit composition.

Additionally as codex trumps rulebook, and there is no option given in the codex for lone wolf to be taken in any way other than listed which is slotless, unlike other unit selections which contain in their unit entry that there are ways to take them slotted or slotless, there is no actual RAW statement to support a slotted lone wolf.

At this point I am ignoring Nos btw, as he hasn't actually replied to a single statement I have made and is just replying to statements that he claims I have made and is flat out dishonest in regards to stating things have been explained as they have not actually been addressed in most circumstances with any rules, or even RAI.

**Kriswall**

Umm... there would be one since the unit composition is one? How is this an issue? Are you somehow implying that units composed of one model can't fill slots of force org charts? I'm genuinely not following your argument.

And no need to call people dishonest. You can say that you don't understand what they're saying or that you think they're points are wrong or that they might seem misinformed, but calling someone a liar or dishonest doesn't help anyone. I'm sure Nos isn't sitting at home thinking to himself "I'm gonna log onto Dakka and lie to Blaktoof! That'll show him! Muhahahaha!"

**blaktoof**

Kriswall wrote:
Umm... there would be one since the unit composition is one? How is this an issue? Are you somehow implying that units composed of one model can't fill slots of force org charts? I'm genuinely not following your argument.

And no need to call people dishonest. You can say that you don't understand what they're saying or that you think they're points are wrong or that they might seem misinformed, but calling someone a liar or dishonest doesn't help anyone. I'm sure Nos isn't sitting at home thinking to himself "I'm gonna log onto Dakka and lie to Blaktoof! That'll show him! Muhahahaha!"

I'm asking anyone why they believe the rules for taking the unit under unit composition can be ignored when they are using the rules for unit composition to field the model. Nothing in those rules is stated as optional, or that it is slotted or slotless if you do x. They state that the selection of 1 lone wolf can be included in your army if you take x. This selection [1 lone wolf] is a slotless entry on the force organization chart

I am not calling him dishonest, he is being dishonest and I am stating it. I do understand what they are saying, Nos actually has a long history of saying people are stating things they are not then claiming they are wrong and have been disproven when no one has addressed the actual topic.

example to factual statement:

many times now I have explain the "you can include.." is optional, in that you are not required to include a lone wolf in your army. Yet Nos feels the need to continually insist I am making up that can means must, when obviously I am not saying "You must include a lone wolf in your army" additionally he later switched to claim I was adding the word "only" which has never been done. Then further claimed that the issue regarding "if the army entry states that this unit can be taken as a slot less selection that does not take up a force organization chart" was addressed, when it was not. No one has actually addressed that the rule only asks for the unit entry to contain that language, not the unit to be taken as slotless before those rules apply.

I don't know or care if he is "plotting" but from his statements he only replies to things that are not stated, and then makes up results that never happened.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlackTalos wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

"This selection" refers to the phrase before it. So if you "do not use" that phrase, the Unit selected is not "This selection".

blaktoof wrote:
and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

That is more support for this side indeed, but i'd say the Priest example i used is just about the same, no?

regarding this selection, you are correct it refers to the rules in that section. We are not told any of them are optional other than that you "you can include.." the option of choosing to take a lone wolf or not. Further the rules in that section are the unit composition, and include "1 lone wolf" so the selection is "1 lone wolf" as that is what is immediately preceeding these rules in the same rules area "unit composition" as such in order to include the "1 lone wolf" unit composition you have to follow those rules, nothing about them is listed as optional. We are not given any statements in those rules that the selection of 1 lone wolf can be taken anyway other than slotless.

With that in mind it is not possible to select "1 lone wolf" to include in your army without following the rest of the rules in the unit composition for that selection.

**Kriswall**

Play it as you wish. When a rule debate goes on for more than 5 pages, there is obviously no clear consensus. This often happens when one side argues for a RaW interpretation that would seem to contradict the most likely RaI.

Until such time as someone cites a rule telling me the specific permission granted in the BRB to put an Elites battlefield role in an Elites slot on a force org chart is being restricted, I'll assume there is no restriction and that I have two methods to field Lone Wolves.

I would suggest a mod lock at this point. We're running in circles.

**blaktoof**

I tend to agree the conversation is pretty much at an end.

Kriswall, you have a nice blog by the way, the leather-bound books are very nicely made.

**Kriswall**

blaktoof wrote:
I tend to agree the conversation is pretty much at an end.

Kriswall, you have a nice blog by the way, the leather-bound books are very nicely made.

Thanks! I appreciate that. I'm actually working on another one right now that will have an Inquisition theme and be a sort of "know your enemy" book with unit entries for all the Xenos races. Pics to come!

**DarthOvious**

Kriswall wrote:
DarthOvious wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added.

So you do agree it was added and isn't actually in the rules? That it's just a million gamers worth of HYWPI? I agree also that this is the case.

The fact you ignored the rest of my post speaks volumes. Thats because I gave a reason why it is interpretated in such a way by all those gamers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
I think it's important to note that the unit is listed in the elites section. I think if they only intended to be taken as slotless they would be listed in the HQ section - this has been my experience with slotless entries.

Inquisitorial Henchmen were also in the elites section in the 5th ed GK codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I did not give a quote there, but a shortened version

You can take them if you have x, which then means they do not take up a slot. You CAN take, meaning you can choose not to take those units. If you do you cannot evoke this rule, and can only select using the rule book permission. Which still exists, as no specific rule exists to counter it.

Blaktoof - repeating the same restriction less rule give times adds nothing. It has been shown more than once tht the oft quoted rule contains no restrictive language - hell, the first sentence I entirely permissive - therefor your argument remains refuted.

What you keep imagining is the word "only" is somewhere in that rule, eg "can only" It isn't there.

You're forgetting the full stop. The first sentence is a complete sentence by itself and so stands by itself. The second sentence adds to the first, it isn't combined with it.

**Kriswall**

DarthOvious wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added. This is the way it has always been interpreted within the gaming community. I didn't invent it.

Lets look at the rule again.

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

This is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army. There is a full stop before the next sentence which tells you it a slotless entry. Nowhere there does it clarify that you can still take Lone Wolves in elite slots.

If it was telling you that you could take Lone Wolves as slotless entries as well as having elite slots it would say something like this instead:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot. This does not affect your ability to take Lone Wolves as elite slots."

It doesn't say that though. Instead it says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

The following sentence only adds it is a slotless entry, the first sentence tells you how to include Lone Wolves in your army list.

That full stop is very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/full-stop

A full stop is used to mark the end of a complete statement, so the first sentence is a complete statement in itself. So the first sentence in the rule is a complete statement which says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

So that first sentence is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army by English interpretation and thus why this language within the rules has always been interpretated as such by the gaming community at large.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And this means SM players can now take Honour Guard as an HQ slot. It also meant that GK players back in 5th ed could take Henchmen in elite slots. IT IS THE EXACT SAME WORDING BEING USED HERE.

The rule is telling you how you include Lone Wolves in your army. It has meant this for every other entry with this wording in existence. The Space Wolf codex is not a special snowflake codex with hidden easter eggs which lets you Interpretate language in some different way that other players can't.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

Once again citing that it's a prior publication means nothing and I have already explained why. Games Workshop are not going to confuse people by changing their rule interpretations in such a way. Unless you get a explanation from GW themselves this should be interpreted by the majority of people as a restriction on Lone Wolves based on past precedent. Also that 6th edition SM Codex is still being used in the game, so it is indeed a current edition of the codex.

If you look at the poll results now you will see from the votes that 70% of people have answered that the original list isn't legally bound. Interpretate the entry anyway you want but I have a feeling that the majority of players are not going to agree with you. I'm fine with you playing the game any way you want but your opponents might interpretate what you're saying differently and I think you'll have to take into consideration what the most popular interpretation of this rule means.

Look I know that you really want to be able to include Lone Wolves as elite slots in your army list and I know it's a kick in the teeth from previous edition. Every player can look at a rule and desperately want a certain interpretation to be true, however I do not see how your interpretation can be true. It means the gaming community have been playing it wrong for years if you are correct. You can continue thinking that everyone else is wrong and that you and a few others are right but I don't think this is a healthy way to play the game.

Edit: Spelling

I ignored the rest of your post for a couple of reasons.

The first is that you start out by telling me the implied restriction was added by million of previous gamers based on their interpretation. I'm not interested in "how things have always been done", nor am I interested in the collective HYWPI of "millions of gamers", which is probably hyperbole. I seriously doubt millions of gamers have really thought about this Lone Wolf issue, but I may be wrong. Either way, someone else's HYWPI might be interesting, but ultimately isn't good evidence in a RaW discrussion.

The second is that the Lone Wolf rule doesn't tell us how to field the unit. It tells us how we CAN field the unit. This is a subtle but key difference from what you're saying. The BRB also tells us how we CAN field the unit. Can + Can presumably results in two Cans in the absence of a Can't.

Furthermore, your stance seems to be that since the Lone Wolf Unit Entry doesn't specifically state that you can still use the BRB method, that you must not be able to. This isn't how a permissive rule set works. If the BRB gives permission, the codex has to specifically and explicitly take it away either via a written restriction or new rule that would cause the BRB rule to break. At best, you have an argument that there is an implied restriction based on a possible conflict. Unfortunately, implied restrictions aren't written rules and the conflict isn't clear.

And to address your last paragraph...

First, there are lots of rules in the book that we play "wrong" all the time because we know that the rules as written seem wrong or don't make sense. If you disagree with this, just browse YMDC and make a note every time a thread comes to a consensus and ends with 'The rules don't cover this and I hope GW issues an errata soon, but until then we all agree this is how it should be played.' Is it reasonable for a gaming community to say that Lone Wolves can only be taken using the rules in the Unit Entry and not the rules in the BRB? Sure. Is it reasonable for a gaming community to say that Lone Wolves can be taken using either method? Sure. I find it VERY presumptuous of you to think that when I play the game with my local community (who all agree with me, incidentally, so in my community, you're the wrong one) that I am somehow playing the game in an unhealthy way. Having fun with your friends by playing a game is unhealthy? Allowing your friends to (possibly... or not) fudge his list a little to have some fun is unhealthy? Come on, now. Quit being so judgmental. There is nothing unhealthy about how I play this game. You forget that each gaming community is a microcosm. I don't care how your community plays anymore than you care how mine plays. I pity the "everyone else thinks this, so it must be true" mentality. We call that a lemming mentality. Worked great for the Germans during WWII. I'm trying to do a critical evaluation of what is written on the page while specifically avoiding looking at what people have thought in the past.

**nosferatu1001**

Darth - I am not forgetting the full stop. The fact the first sentence starts "can " is all that's important. - it is another permissive way to take the elite slot unit. If you do this, then the second sentence adds in. That's all that matters.
blaktoofs waffle ignored, not worth expending any more effort that way.