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.

Wow, almost 40% of people voting that they can stay in their pods! I had never considered this possibility...

Hopefully, this gets fixed with the new SM 'dex

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, almost 40% of people voting that they can stay in their pods! I had never considered this possibility...

Hopefully, this gets fixed with the new SM 'dex

and another 26% people admit it is RAW but will refuse to allow it. Maybe I should start refusing to allow rules from other people's codex...

There is a reason I voted the way I did. I accept that RAW they do not have to disembark. I freely admit that HWPI is same as other Drop Pods (except of course against a few people, such as the one guy from my group who ranted for 2 hours how the Heldrake is "broken" ). If I was a TO they would follow the same rules as other DPs. In a friendly game...I'm playing against BT. They need all the help they can get, I wouldn't care if my opponent played it that way.

My point is that RAW is clear, but I think, so also is RAI.

This reminds me of the old vindicator problem. If i recall the situation correctly, the profile in the codex (I think C:SM) did not have large blast, but every vindicator EVER has been a large blast.

I think? it eventually got FAQ'd. No one I ever played against tried to say the vindicator didn't have a large blast.

GW is not good at writing consistent rules.

For all of 5th Ork's got "6s on their fleet rolls" when they waaagh'd. Sucks there are no fleet rolls, but I never played anyone who tried to deny them the automatic 6 while running.

I wouldn't play this any differently. The biggest difference here is that the apparent error in writing instead allows an advantage (staying in a pod, or embarking in a pod), rather than incurs a disadvantage.

This is why, as above, I said that I wouldn't play against someone who tried to play their BT pods like this.

If I played orks, I probably wouldn't play someone who said I didn't get an automatic 6 for run movement, even though the rules that enable that are two editions old.

Gwyidion wrote:
For all of 5th Ork's got "6s on their fleet rolls" when they waaagh'd. Sucks there are no fleet rolls, but I never played anyone who tried to deny them the automatic 6 while running.

I see nothing in the codex or FAQ that says the underlined (and I'm referring to the 5th ed FAQ).

Well, I can't give a page reference for a long while.

The problem with the "seasoned veterans" thing is you guys think you know what GW wants. What if it was GW's intention to allow BT players to stay in drop pods to help balance. You don't know. If your in a class room that say no talking as a rule and go into another classroom that doesn't have that rule does that still mean you cannot talk. NO. Just because BT drop pods are different then marines who cares. They are different. We can put terminators in ours you can't so they are already different drop pods. The BT drop pod is not the same as the Marine drop pod, or the Blood Angel drop pod, or the Dark Angel drop pod. If your saying we should follow what makes sense then what's not written then half the laws in the world don't make sense but guess what; you still have to follow the RULES.

You can put terminators inside Marine drop pods as well.

Where does it say that noseferatu

Page 34 – Sword Brethren Terminator Squad, Transport.
Change the first sentence to read: “A Terminator Squad which
numbers eight models or less may select a Land Raider
Crusader as a Dedicated Transport”.

We can't get Dedicated drop pods for our Terminators anymore :(

awww **** I didn't see that in the FAQ's :(

 ravengatorfan wrote:
Where does it say that noseferatu

1) Terminators are infantry. Thus can embark in a vehicle
2) Terminator ICs can be joined to units.

Done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 ravengatorfan wrote:
Where does it say that noseferatu

1) Terminators are infantry. Thus can embark in a vehicle
2) Terminator ICs can be joined to units.

Done.

3) As was pointed out, there is no restriction on non-passengers embarking.

BT pre FAQ's could take drop pods as dedicated transport for terminator squads not just hqs. in the marine codex you can only take a Land raider

 ravengatorfan wrote:
BT pre FAQ's could take drop pods as dedicated transport for terminator squads not just hqs. in the marine codex you can only take a Land raider

At the time the BT codex was published, regular Marine Terminators could also take Drop Pods as dedicated transports.

Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

There are broken rules in 40k, not saying this is one of them but saying that 100% RAW is how it should always be played is not always going to go down well.

For one of the RAW broken rules I refer you to attacking hyperios in close combat, now thats going to go down very well that you can roll to wound but cannot allocate any wounds to them RAW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

Thank you

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

House-rule does not mean what you think it means. A house-rule is something that is not in the rules as they are written; something like following RAI because you think the RAW is stupid, that's a house-rule; resolving an ambiguous rule by reaching consensus in your club as to how you want to play, also a house-rule. But following the letter of the rules as they are written is not a house-rule, it's just the rules.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Personally, I think Black Templars need all the help they can get, why not let them play by RAW?

If you want to play by that House rule then fine. If you feel BTs need all the help they can get you can house rule them to be T5 or all have FnP if you want. Play by whatever rules you and your group want. However this is a house rule. The RaI is clear they have to disembark this is just as everyone else and no one can embark after the game starts...

Regardless of what one believes about RAI, calling the RAW a "house rule" is objectively wrong. House rules are departures from the rules, not following them.

Remember this is Fling, who believs that despite the rulebook being called just that, and the section with the rules contained in it being called "THE RULES", that the developers are in fact idiots who dont know what theyre doing, and just randomly wrote things down, rather than actually writing down what they meant to write down.

Thus you get Flings version of "the rules", which is sometimes what is written, and sometimes isnt, with a distinction only Fling can decide upon.

In other words - trying to claim "RAI" without actually being honest and stating they are making a best guess at intent. Its just Flings opinion, essentially. Fling has also been repeatedly asked to stop taking that line, but seems to just ignore the mods.

One reason I have Fling on ignore

Good thing is, this will be resolved in 4 weeks!

Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

So the first part of this (in bold) made perfect sense, and then descended into what I can only describe as an incredible feat of mental contortion. As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

 grrrfranky wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

This is because Fling believes that the rulebooks for Warhammer 40000 don't actually contain the rules for Warhammer 40000. They contain a rough approximation of the rules that may or may not be accurately recorded, and we're actually supposed to play the game using the rules that exist in the heads of the Games Developers. Presumably through the use of some sort of psychic link.

eh, this will be a moot point in a month anyway...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

Fling - don't you think it might be time to drop this?

 insaniak wrote:

 grrrfranky wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the second paragraph you said that if the RAW is clear and you play by said rule, then you're actually playing by a house rule? How precisely could you come to that conclusion?

This is because Fling believes that the rulebooks for Warhammer 40000 don't actually contain the rules for Warhammer 40000. They contain a rough approximation of the rules that may or may not be accurately recorded, and we're actually supposed to play the game using the rules that exist in the heads of the Games Developers. Presumably through the use of some sort of psychic link.

That's not really accurate. I think the rules are what Games Workshop designed (RaI). You don't think the rules are what games workshop designed but are the literal translation of what is was written in the book, presumably because you don't believe that language exists to communicate ideas but language itself is capable of creating ideas...

We have to work out the rules by reading what's in the book. Sometimes we have to use common sense or reasoning to work out what they meant because the rules are written imperfectly (because they were written by humans).

If you're not playing the game that Games Workshop designed can you really call it Warhammer 40,000?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Firstly I think people need to know what a house rule is. It occurs in one of two situations:

1) you and your opponent/gaming group know what the rule is but don't like it or agree to change it for what ever reason. Thus you create a new rule.
2) you and your opponent/gaming group don't know what a rule is as it is unclear from the written text and there is no FAQ telling you what the intent is. Thus you create a version of that rule that you and your gaming group are happy with (which may incidently turn out to be the actual rule).

In this incidence I believe the rule is clear and thus, if you agree with me, playing it as they can stay on board is a house rule. Or if you disagree with my interpretation then again playing by RaW is a house rule as we can't agree on the intent of the rule we create a house rule in the second example from above.

Those claiming that playing by RaW can't be a house rule are either saying they believe that RaW=The Rules and numerous FAQs would illustrate that RaW =/= RaI (whilst they can coincide numerous times). Or they are saying they don't understand the purpose of language or they believe the rules were created by an inanimate object. If you'd like to understand more please PM me as I don't want to derail this thread. Plus this will probably all be sorted in a few weeks any way.

Fling - don't you think it might be time to drop this?

I doubt it, Fling still believes that when the rulebook states "THE RULES" they really mean "these may or may not be the rules, we just randomly write things down, and only FLING can determine whether we meant to write this or not"