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.

Oh no. . .
*flashes of Terminator Armor rules*

RUN AWAY!!!!!

Timmah wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

No, the title is not part of the rule. Otherwise why did they write your entire army (not chapter) in the rule itself...

A question we can't answer. Maybe the writer thought that 'army' and 'chapter' were interchangeable, or maybe he mean't 'army' instead of 'chapter' on purpose.

RAW has evolved into a logic system that isn't shared by the guys writing GW's rules. Which is why these threads go for so many pages with no consensus, just people shouting at each other over and over. GW does not use words the same way on a consistant basis, we all know this, and it's part of the problem with their rules, or maybe the problem occurs when we apply RAW logic to them.

RAI would be as follows:

Vulkan being raised as a good curteous kid, would bring enough twin linked flamers/melta guns for everyone and would happily share them with is sisters/inquisitor allies.

He's such a nice guy.

mikhaila:

I certainly agree with you that the RAW approach is stupid, but I have to disagree about the inconsistency and usability of the rules. The 5th edition rules are an incredible improvement on the 4th edition rules in terms of consistency, structural information, and iteration of the game's 'logic'.

I wish I had the link, but reading the YMDC forum reminds me of that priest in Father Ted who visits and declares various parts of Ted's cottage to be shoddy and falling apart as he smashes them apart. The fans seem less interested in figuring out how the rules work, than trying to mash them into preconceived notions of how they should work.

I remember getting back into the Hobby around the end of 4th edition and re-learning the rules, and being shocked to find out what I expected to be a morass was actually pretty clear and concise. I think it was because I applied the same methodology of close reading to the rules that I was required to apply in my work as a graduate student, rather than giving the rules a once over and then relying on 2nd hand information to form my opinions about the quality of the rules.

When 5th edition was published, I was very pleasantly surprised to see that many of the problems with 4th that I had identified over on Warseer's 40k Rules forum as being actual problems with the rules, rather than end-user incomprehension, had been re-worked in the manner that I recommended.

Timmah:

They wrote "army" in Chapter Tactics for the same reason that Terminator Armour references "Terminators": the use of the term has been fixed by the scope of the title. The rules under the title Terminator Armour refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour, while the rules under Vulkan's version of Chapter Tactics refers to models in that Space Marine army.

Another example of GW being consistent in the way they treat information, and [some] end-users consistently misunderstanding it...

Nurglitch wrote:
Timmah:

They wrote "army" in Chapter Tactics for the same reason that Terminator Armour references "Terminators": the use of the term has been fixed by the scope of the title. The rules under the title Terminator Armour refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour, while the rules under Vulkan's version of Chapter Tactics refers to models in that Space Marine army.

Another example of GW being consistent in the way they treat information, and [some] end-users consistently misunderstanding it...

Didn't we already go over this and agree that the title is broad and encompassing and the rules in the wording are more specific. I am pretty sure we did.

Anyways I don't know why we are getting into this as chapter tactics has absolutely nothing to do with vulkans rules.

Also see my RAI post.


Btw just because something is improved, that doesn't make it good. (for example I am a better hockey player than I was 5 years ago but that doesn't mean I still don't suck at the game.)

but I have to disagree about the inconsistency and usability of the rules

Nurglitch, agreed that 5th is a big improvement over 4th. My point wasn't about rules, as much as it was about 'words', and how they can have many meanings. The rules are written much the way we all talk. Taking 'army' as an example:

"Hey, nice Army" (This collection of models is painted well.)
"What army did you bring?" (What list will you be using tonite?)
"What army do you collect?" (What codex do you like to use to choose the models you buy?)

Allies are never defined as being anything ... however the rules for them state that allies are used as part of your army.

"Using Which Hunters as Allies
in keeping with the many possibilities for the forces of Ordo Hereticus to appear within Space Marine and Imperial forces, Which Hunter's (/Daemon Hunter's) units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies: ...."

Important part here "units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies". They are included in the army, not as well as or along side.

"Which Hunters are here to hunt witches."
"Which Hunters? Daemon Hunters, I would imagine."
"No, not Daemon Hunters, Which Hunters."
"Yes, Daemon Hunters are which Hunters are here, right?"
"No, Daemon Hunters are not Which Hunters, and Which Hunters are the Inquisitional faction that are here to hunt witches!"
"Which what, exactly?"
*BLAM!*
"Silence, heretic."

Nurglitch wrote:"Which Hunters are here to hunt witches."
"Which Hunters? Daemon Hunters, I would imagine."
"No, not Daemon Hunters, Which Hunters."
"Yes, Daemon Hunters are which Hunters are here, right?"
"No, Daemon Hunters are not Which Hunters, and Which Hunters are the Inquisitional faction that are here to hunt witches!"
"Which what, exactly?"
*BLAM!*
"Silence, heretic."

"You shot me!"
"Okay, moving on-"
"You shot me right in the arm! Why would you-" *BLAM!*
"Right."

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

Except when you continue reading it states army. And it's specifically worded differently than any other chapter tactics rule out there. You don't think that tells you something?

Sure I do. I think that it tells me that "army" refers to the Space Marine army, and that the bonus is applied to all the models bought from that army list.

When confronted with simple logic, Nurglitch often puts his fingers in his ears and screams that he can't hear you.

I often call him out on his BS.

It's why I'm on his ignore list.

Nurglitch wrote:Sure I do. I think that it tells me that "army" refers to the Space Marine army, and that the bonus is applied to all the models bought from that army list.

That's not raw. It's your opinion and a thin one at that.

Nope, it's what the rules state. I've justified this opinion elsewhere in this thread, so all that's left is for you to justify why you think it is otherwise, or show me how my justification somehow fails some important metric.

Was it similar to how you justified that a "special type of tank shock" is not a tank shock? If so, I think we can all safely pass.

Danny Internets:

Wow, that's pathetic even for you.

Then I suppose we can take that as a yes, smile politely, chuckle, and move along.

Sure, if you want to show the depth of your intellectual dishonesty, go right ahead.

Otherwise, if you're serious about discussing rules, then either show me where I'm wrong or STFU.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, it's what the rules state. I've justified this opinion elsewhere in this thread, so all that's left is for you to justify why you think it is otherwise, or show me how my justification somehow fails some important metric.

Because you never justified that the word 'army' only refers to the space marine codex. It never 'states' it anywhere.

I Missed that in the codex. Got a page number where it defines army as 'the space marine codex only'?

Otherwise, if you're serious about discussing rules, then either show me where I'm wrong or STFU.

Unfortunately it looks like a number of other people have already risen to that entertaining yet trivial challenge. Rather than quoting them, feel free to scroll up.

imweasel:

Here's the citations, from p.2 of the thread.

Nurglitch wrote:Tri:

See Codex: Space Marines. Concerning which army the term 'army' refers to, see p.51 for special rules.

"The models in the Space Marines army use a number of special rules that are common to more than one unit, as specified in the individual entries that follow."

See p.127 for lists.

"The following pages contain an army list that enables you to field a Space Marines army and fight battles using the scenarios included in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. It also provides you with the basic information you'll need in order to field a Space Marines army in scenarios you've devised yourself, or that form part of a campaign."

"The army list allows you to pick an army based on the troops that could be fielded by a Space Marines Battle Company, with attached support drawn from other companies in the Chapter."

"Before you choose an army, you will need to agree with your opponent upon a scenario and the total number of points each of you will spend. Then you can proceed to pick your army."

So no, it's not my "limit", it's a distinction made in the Codex itself, between the Space Marine army list, and the Space Marine army you can choose using that list.

And where does that say that allied models can't be a part of the army like their codex says? It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about allies at all. Witch Hunters are a part of the army because their codex says that they are. Where does Codex Space Marines say that they're not? None of your quotes say any such thing.

Nurglitch's quotes only prove that one definition of "army" is Space Marines only - however the main book talks about an army being one FOC, and as Ghaz pointed out it does not exclude Allies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nurglitch's quotes only prove that one definition of "army" is Space Marines only - however the main book talks about an army being one FOC, and as Ghaz pointed out it does not exclude Allies.

You are forgetting that if nurglitch can prove one definition of something proves his way, it is then the only definition.
He did something similar in the terminators/terminator armour thread.

I gave him this simple example to show him his error. (which he ignored)

All water is wet
Everything that is wet is water.

Tri wrote:Allies are never defined as being anything ... however the rules for them state that allies are used as part of your army.

"Using Which Hunters as Allies
in keeping with the many possibilities for the forces of Ordo Hereticus to appear within Space Marine and Imperial forces, Which Hunter's (/Daemon Hunter's) units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies: ...."

Important part here "units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies". They are included in the army, not as well as or along side.

Wait a moment.

If this quote is always true, it seems to read that allies are not part of an army.
They are units that can be included as allies to an army.
That is not the same thing.

Unless I am mistaken, this may be a debate Nurglitch and Gwar! would be on the same side of.

I need to go read more.

Your reading is slightly in error.

The way the quote reads is "allies in".

The way you have quoted it as "allies to".

"Allies in" is an inclusive term, meaning that they are part of the army. "Allies to" is a slightly less inclusive term, that could mean alongside or along with but not necessarily as a part of.

I only point this out because it could save you some confusion of starting from a very similar but slightly different point of view.

Then I suppose we can take that as a yes, smile politely, chuckle, and move along.

Traders have an old saying that I absolutely love, "There's a fool in every market. If you don't know who it is, it's probably you."

I play Salamanders, and want to eventually have Inquisitorial support (because I lo-o-o-ove the Inquisition)

Here is my confusion: Stanford philosophy aside, where has GW said that the word 'army', when used in a Character's
Special Rule, applies to the specific force from which he/she comes (the codex in which he/she is printed in) and NOT
to the 'army' that is detailed in my FOC?

If you can provide me a reference, I will accept your answer.

Until then, I am going to field the Inquisitorial allies, and not feel any need to specifically inform my opponent beforehand.

jimsolo wrote:I play Salamanders, and want to eventually have Inquisitorial support (because I lo-o-o-ove the Inquisition)

Here is my confusion: Stanford philosophy aside, where has GW said that the word 'army', when used in a Character's
Special Rule, applies to the specific force from which he/she comes (the codex in which he/she is printed in) and NOT
to the 'army' that is detailed in my FOC?

If you can provide me a reference, I will accept your answer.

Until then, I am going to field the Inquisitorial allies, and not feel any need to specifically inform my opponent beforehand.

The rules are inclusive not exclusive, in other words, if the rules don't say it then it ain't it. The burden of proof is on you: Where does it state that the units from any other codex can assume rules from another codex? Allies permit fielding *hunter units with other armies, specific tally, occupying slots in the FO chart. That's it. Nothing is stated about sharing of rules or the like.

Avatar:

The rule states that it applies to the army. The allied units are included in the army. Therefore the rule applies to the allied units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
The rules are inclusive not exclusive, in other words, if the rules don't say it then it ain't it. The burden of proof is on you: Where does it state that the units from any other codex can assume rules from another codex? Allies permit fielding *hunter units with other armies, specific tally, occupying slots in the FO chart. That's it. Nothing is stated about sharing of rules or the like.

The Allies rules say they're included in my army.

Vulkan's rules say it affects specific weapons in my army.

That's pretty cut and dry.