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.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I have issue with your statement there. I derive my fun from playing the game by the rules. Are you flat out telling my how I play the game is "Wrong"?

Not wrong, but not the only perfectly legal way to play the game. Playing the game using TMIR is just as legal as your method (psst, the rules agree with me).

Gwar! wrote:it is Implicit in every post I would Imagine.

In a lot of your posts, you strongly imply that following TMIR is wrong.

Gwar! wrote:Of course by then you stop Playing Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop but I digress.

No, that someone is just playing 40k and utilizing TMIR.

So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

After all, the rules also say when 2 players cannot reach an agreement to roll off for it.

I hope you say yes, because saying no would make you seem just a tad hypocritical

Gwar! wrote:So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

No, I would just decline to play you. You're not being a cheater or playing the game wrong.

Gwar! wrote:I hope you say yes, because saying no would make you seem just a tad hypocritical

Hypocritical how? I'm saying that you can't ignore TMIR (only when making a RaW argument).

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

No, I would just decline to play you. You're not being a cheater or playing the game wrong.

Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Of course I'm not. I'm saying the idea is for both people to have fun. That means that both people enjoy themselves which may not happen with a completely strict adherence to a set of rules that can only be defined as poorly written.

I do, indeed, seem to recall somewhere something about a rule in the big rule book that was along the lines of have fun. Unfortunately I'm also running on 1 and 1/4 hours sleep so I can't actually recall the details.

Your interpretation of the rules themselves is correct. Your application of them? Not so much. If two people can't agree to let something go then it's rules as written, and I won't argue. If they want to come up with a fix for one of GW's many, many cock ups for themselves it doesn't stop, suddenly, being 40k as you so love to suggest.

Especially since they themselves say to do it.

Now, if you want to play fanatically rules as written, and ignore that rule for your games, that's fine for you. Others are going to want to want to play things differently. For example, they may want to play a scenario not in the current Big Rule Book, one they made themselves or from an old codex. It's not RAW, but it's still fun and, shock of shock, it's still 40k. Same thing applies to agreeing to patch up a feth up with a house rule.

Because, at the end of the day, the fact that I spend all damned day working means I wanna do something fun at the end of the day and some badly written sentence or codex in dire need of an update isn't going to stop me.

However, I am aware you very rarely change your opinion and on this issue you believe you're right with little to no change of changing your mind. It's either rules as written or not 40k for you. Fine. That's cool. Other people are gonna use that 'Have Fun' rule and, you know, have fun playing the game they've invested vast sums of money, time and effort into.

-Sigh- Why do people assume I am a Unforgiving Bastard?

If someone wants to try something for fun, I more than likely will humour them. What I won't do is let them just alter Game balance on a whim because they feel like it.

Also, you guys have to freaking remember, this is a Rules forum. What else am I gonna argue?

And I don't ever "believe" I am always right, I am always right because I argue what the actual rules say. If you want to ignore the Rules as Written on a Rules forum, or go crying to Page 2 whenever things don't go your way, that's your choice. I choose to stick to what I can actually prove and quote.

In this case of Daemonhunters and Daemons, I am Right, because I am following the rules as laid out in the codex. If people don't like that, that's their problem.

Anyway, this thread has gone totaly off the corner of 4th street and bananas because people couldn't accept I was right (If you look Closely, I answered the OP in the First Reply with a Single word. Nothing has changed since then, and I sure as hell didn't start the Argument)

Gwar! wrote:
Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Are you trying to get the thread locked by calling me a hypocrite? I'm not going to report you, but I would hate for a passerby to.

Anywho, I'm not being hypocritical in the least. My argument is that it is okay for two players to AGREE to play a game of 40k and twist/alter/ignore as many rules as they want AND that such a method of playing is just as correct as playing a strict RaW game. Me not agreeing to your rules twist because it would stop me from gaining enjoyment from the game does not conflict with my above argument at all. (course, it would prolly be just be easier to let you roll a dice and for me to say," well, damn, a fine game there, I'm gonna go find another game")

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Which means for all your trumpeting about TMIR you refuse to play by it.

Are you trying to get the thread locked by calling me a hypocrite? I'm not going to report you, but I would hate for a passerby to.

Anywho, I'm not being hypocritical in the least. My argument is that it is okay for two players to AGREE to play a game of 40k and twist/alter/ignore as many rules as they want AND that such a method of playing is just as correct as playing a strict RaW game. Me not agreeing to your rules twist because it would stop me from gaining enjoyment from the game does not conflict with my above argument at all. (course, it would prolly be just be easier to let you roll a dice and for me to say," well, damn, a fine game there, I'm gonna go find another game")

How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

Dude, I agreed with you on the rules. Look up. See? What I disagree with you on is the idea that a house rule or a temporary fix of one of the botches makes the game not 40k or cheating. For myself I love the game, probably a little too much, but I know the rules are messed up. A house rule isn't going to screw up the balance of the game. Games Workshop already got there.

Why do we assume you're an unforgiving bastard? Because that's how you put yourself across. You come over as the guy who won't let the new guy role for reserves after he declares movement or will yell at someone for doing something they remember at 4th ed, preferably until they urinate into there underwear. You certainly don't come across as someone likely to say, 'Yeah, it's cool if you embark on a Valkyrie. I mean, it's a frikin' grav vehicle, of course it can land. Just make sure it's the same for my meltaguns.'

Honestly, the image you project of yourself suggests you'd dive over your Space Wolves, across the table and gnaw the guys throat out if he suggested such a thing.

Ignore me, too late

Gwar! wrote:How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

So, me saying," In my opinion, you're a facist dog" isn't a personal attack against you? lolwut? No, it isn't very offensive (and it doesn't bother me), but I could see it being percieved as a violation of rule one.

Gwar! wrote:In this case of Daemonhunters and Daemons, I am Right

From a strict RaW understanding. Everyone who chooses to play otherwise isn't wrong or a cheater.

Jon Garrett wrote:Dude, I agreed with you on the rules. Look up. See? What I disagree with you on is the idea that a house rule or a temporary fix of one of the botches makes the game not 40k or cheating. For myself I love the game, probably a little too much, but I know the rules are messed up. A house rule isn't going to screw up the balance of the game. Games Workshop already got there.

Why do we assume you're an unforgiving bastard? Because that's how you put yourself across. You come over as the guy who won't let the new guy role for reserves after he declares movement or will yell at someone for doing something they remember at 4th ed, preferably until they urinate into there underwear. You certainly don't come across as someone likely to say, 'Yeah, it's cool if you embark on a Valkyrie. I mean, it's a frikin' grav vehicle, of course it can land. Just make sure it's the same for my meltaguns.'

Honestly, the image you project of yourself suggests you'd dive over your Space Wolves, across the table and gnaw the guys throat out if he suggested such a thing.

The problem Is, I have found that you give an Inch they take a Mile, and suddenly I become TFG for insisitng that my Meltaguns get to bonus Dice you after I let you disembark. As such, it is just a lot easier to do things by the book.

And I would never Jump over my Space Wolves, I'd Go around them. That gaks Expensive yo!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:How can I get the thread locked by saying "In my Opinion, you are a hypocrite?" That is as much a "Personal Attack" or "Rude" as Boiled Water is Catholic (i.e. not at all)

So, me saying," In my opinion, you're a fascist dog" isn't a personal attack against you? lolwut? No, it isn't very offensive (and it doesn't bother me), but I could see it being percieved as a violation of rule one.

In this case yes because I have not given any indication that I am A "fascist dog" (I'm actually a Liberal Socialist but there ya go), but I understand the example.

And thus I understand why you wanna do rules as written only. However, it isn't the only way to play and it isn't cheating or not 40k if you can find someone who won't try and violently shaft you with a house rule.

I think there is no arguing with Gwar We're playing Warhammer, not GWarhammer, so you should continue a discussion with other, more open minded players.

It seems to be an unfortunate oversight due to edition changes that Grey Knights aren't strictly allowed to use their abilities against the current Daemons. Personally, I would say that you should be allowed to gain the benefits, but unfortunately it is something an opponent could strictly call you out on.
It would be something you should discuss with opponents before a battle (as with all legacy codices that cause logical problems when RAW is strictly followed).

In the meantime, convert your bases with dead Nurglings and write about the exploits of all the horrific Nurglings that were Slain Outright by your Nemesis Force Weapons.

Amazing. Gwar is simultaneously guilty of False Dilemma,

So, if I were to play you, you would be perfectly 100% fine for me to use TMIR to insist that I win on a 0+, then you lose on a 0+, then I win on a 1+ etc etc Until I win a Roll off?

And Nirvana or Perfect Solution Fallacy

The problem Is, I have found that you give an Inch they take a Mile, and suddenly I become TFG for insisting that my Meltaguns get to bonus Dice you after I let you disembark. As such, it is just a lot easier to do things by the book.

And Argumentum ad nauseum

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

...just to hold that in a gaming system, Demons are not Demons (or Daemons). Let's all just assume that the person across from us isn't going to be as fundamentalist in their views as Gwar is, and that reasonable people will work it out under TMIR .

Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

combo wrote:
I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

So lets ignore our malfunctioning reply servitor and go for your logic.

Demons = Demons
Eldar = psykers


Did you realize the difference between apple = apple and apple = green apple ?


It is :
Demon = Demon
Eldar = Eldar

Better example would be:

Necron = Necron?

No im afraid it isnt that simple. You are still having trouble getting beyond the problem of definition.

Demons are defined as different things in both codices. Therefore Demon(1) = Demon(2) are as different to each other as Eldar = Psyker.


I.E. in this sentence. All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2)

Demons(1) = Demons(2) is from a purely syntax logic point of view is identical to Eldar = Psykers.


Now that my question has been justified, can you answer it rather than suggesting improvements to it please?

Its slightly different because we actually have a list of Demons(3) that was subsequently replaced by Demons(1) in most locations.


IMO, RAW is fairly clear. You can't gain bonusses against the units that aren't listed there.
On the other hand, people who made an issue over it not working against demons would probably end up being people that I only played once.

I'm going to chalk this one up to another: RAI is slapping you in the face, but that is no help against TFG

as I said earlier, i would have no problem with an opponent house ruling this. But in a tournament I would like it to be clarified in advance by the TO before partaking in it.

However this is most definitely a forum for debating RAW, whether people then take what they learn here out to the tabletop is up to them and their opponent.

combo wrote:Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.

Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

Thanks, and that is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

So Corum, you gonna start Attacking Combo now?

combo wrote:Stop personally attacking Gwar! Hes not being TFG, he is on a forum debating Rules as Written.

I personally agree 100percent with him, in the real world however id have no problem house ruling.

But this isnt a forum discussing how we play the game, its a forum discussing how the rules are written.

Also whilst Gwar! may at times make his arguement look silly by taking opponents arguements to the illogicial conclusion I have a more balanced arguement to put forward.


Daemons = Demons right? Eldar = Psykers. By the logic that Daemons should be effected by the Demonhunters rules simply because they are named Demons, with no in rules reason to do so, surely all Eldar regardless of type should be effected by anti Psyker weaponry?

And yet if you were to argue that all Eldar should be effected by anti psyker weaponry, you'd definitely raise a few eyebrows. And yet the arguement is the same

The argument is not the same, because you made an amusing error. You argued your case out of fluff. Eldar =/= psykers in the RULES of their codex. If there was a rule that said "all Eldar have the Psyker rule", then yes, they'd get trounced by anti-Psyker wargear. The difference is that Grey Knight rules say they do X to Daemons and ALL Daemons have the Daemon special rule. This would be ridiculously cut-and-dry IF there wasn't a list of "Daemons" in the Daemonhunter codex. Since there is, DH got boned.


And Gwar!, other than his wording (which you have little room to accuse anyone on), Corum did NOT attack you. He pointed out that your arguments are rather frequently flawed, and that debating with you is useless, given your strong stance on RaW.

(Small note: The calling of you a fascist, while strictly inaccurate, does fit when you take the alternate meaning (when used as a derogatory term, it refers to someone whose enforcement of rules, especially trivial ones, is overly aggressive and/or heavy-handed.) Which, as you yourself have stated, is how you play. You do so to prevent misuse of the rules, however you call people who disagree "cheaters", accuse them of not even playing the game correctly, and ignore a rule that allows them to do so.)

Now, personally, I don't think anything more is going to come out of this argument. Gwar! is not going to shift, a majority of people are going to disagree with him, there will be unnecessary rudeness, and in the end, we'll all resolve this our own way, in our gaming circles, as Games Workshop itself has told us to do.

As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Fluff is not rules, great. Why is it there if it does not apply to the demons in codex: demons? That was my question. Demons follow all the rules for demons as listed in the codex, but DHs rules to kill demons does not affect demons? I don't buy it, i'm sorry, I just don't

You don't have to buy it. Doesn't make it any less true.

Whatever you say buddy--I mean, what you're saying doesn't make sense or anything, but whatever you say. lol. Demons aren't demons, cool. I'm done posting on this subject, as we just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

So, basically you know I am right and are not gonna post anymore because you know you are wrong?

Splendid.

Ya know, all you have to do is show me where in the Daemonhunters Codex it says to count models from Codex: Chaos Deamons...

Oh wait, you can't. Page 20 has a VERY specific list. If it is not on that list, GK stuff does not work. It's that simple.

I get what has been put into question here, but it says that units that are Greater Daemons are considered Daemons. That is inclusive of anything that is a Greater Daemon. If this was not the case then would it not have to say otherwise? A Greater Daemon is a Daemon, and in the Codex: Chaos Daemons under the HQ unit information it lists the Greater Daemons that can be used to lead a Chaos Daemons army. If I did not consider the Greater Daemons in the Codex: Chaos Daemons as Daemons then is a Codex: Eldar specific Avatar excluded?

The wargear Sacred Incense works on Chaos models. Where do you draw the line on how a Chaos model is determined? I do not recall seeing anywhere specifically in the Chaos Space Marines or Chaos Daemons codex' that they are Chaos models. Did it say this in the 3rd Edition Codex'?

There has to be some room for interpretation. RAW is not always specific enough. I can see how most of the things specified would actually be excluding Chaos Daemons units, but Greater Daemons should, according to RAW, be easily susceptible to Grey Knight wargear and psychic abilities.

combo wrote:As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Which is accurate. I may not like it, but you're right. It was merely your first argument was incorrect, as it tried to make Eldar = Psykers. At least everyone arguing here, if they hadn't seen the list on page 20 of the DH codex, had a relatively valid argument. (Hell, I was on their side until I read the list.)


Also, as a general tip to people in this thread, in 40k, it's Daemon. Demon is only used in dialogue.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:

combo wrote:As ive already pointed out the Demon rule defined in the Demonhunters is different from the Demon rule defined in the Codex: Chaos Demons codex. Therefore claiming that they are one in the same is questionable.

As I said earlier "All Demons(2) are Demons(2) but not all Demons(1) are Demons(2) "

Which is accurate. I may not like it, but you're right. It was merely your first argument was incorrect, as it tried to make Eldar = Psykers. At least everyone arguing here, if they hadn't seen the list on page 20 of the DH codex, had a relatively valid argument. (Hell, I was on their side until I read the list.)


Also, as a general tip to people in this thread, in 40k, it's Daemon. Demon is only used in dialogue.

So why is it when I make the exact same argument I get called a fascist? Hypocrisy is thick in this thread.

Gwar! I agree with you and I think that you have a record for being correct on RAW issues that is second to none. However you do come off as being abrasive. Your arguements are sound, but your presentation is a bit confrontational. I think that is why you were called a Fascist (however such an ad hominem is not condoned by me)

I still dont understand where this stemmed, on page 20 of the deamonhunters codex at the very bottom, in fac tthe very last listing, it says what a deamon is when the codex refers to one, which includes many things other than nurglings, greater demons, deamon packs which used to mean, bloodletters, plaguebearers, etc, but maybe not anymore, possesed vehicles(though in that case is says "like" the defiler, which since it doesnt specifically say just "defiler" that would lead me to believe even a soulgrinder would count as being a vehicle with a built in demonic possesion.

In any case, as arrogant as GWAR! can be, no offense you insufferable know-it-all jk, calling him names gets us nowhere. Also saying your auto-right gets us nowhere either, GWAR! and makes further discussion on topic rather hard.

So lets be adults and keep it on topic, and maybe lazy GW will notice, make force weapons clear, and make the deamons rule clear, comprende?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and DEAMON vs demon, is just the difference between old english or Britain vs US, like COLOUR vs COLOR, I know us americans, changin everything....

combo wrote:Gwar! I agree with you and I think that you have a record for being correct on RAW issues that is second to none. However you do come off as being abrasive. Your arguements are sound, but your presentation is a bit confrontational. I think that is why you were called a Fascist (however such an ad hominem is not condoned by me)

He was called a fascist as an example of how putting,"in my opinion" did not make something automatically polite. The rules on page 20 of the Daemonhunter codex are crystal clear (as crystal clear as GW can get). I only entered into this discussion because I was tired of Gwar! calling anyone who used TMIR a cheater and trying to make his way of playing 40k superior.

This discussion is definitely getting a lot more jnteresting.

G

You can always just Ignore Gwar.