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:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:So you honestly believe that GW writes rules intentionally not to work?

I believe that the author of a Codex intentionally hit the keys of whatever input device he or she was using in a certain order to spell certain words. Why would a book be printed if such an action was unintentional?

This is faulty logic. This statement makes 2 assumptions:
1. Codecies are sacrosant and written for RaW.
2. Mistakes and overlooks are intentional.

I keep saying, the game designers write as guidelines, not hard rules, you kept dodging that by demanding a citation.

Then I owned your face with a quote from the rulebook and you never answered.

Lol, I can troll with stupid posts too.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:What kind of answer is that?

As close to the true as any one can get . . . in my version of reality the rules are made up by a 1000 monkeys on a 1000 typewriters. The name on the front is in fact the person that sort through for useful rules.

He's trolling. He never responded when I proved the rules are mere "guidelines", not meant for RaW.
There's no point.

I'm not sure what GWAR is trying to do. If he's trying to prove that RaI is dumb, he's not doing it convincingly.
At this point it's just straight trolling.

He's trolling. He never responded when I proved the rules are mere "guidelines", not meant for RaW.
There's no point.

I'm not sure what GWAR is trying to do. If he's trying to prove that RaI is dumb, he's not doing it convincingly.
At this point it's just straight trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He's trolling. When I proved the rules were written for RaI with the most important rule from the rulebook, he never responded.

Guidelines?
Gwar demands proof that the rules are written as guidelines.

I provide proof.

Oh...no response...owned

Yes, Spamming multiple replies is both clever and informative!

But I'm just trolling like you are, what's the difference?
My intent is the same as yours...or is it?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:So you honestly believe that GW writes rules intentionally not to work? Is that what you are saying? If so why should anyone take what you post seriously?

See Thornback and the FAQ that specifies that the rule no longer works.

Editing to add:
That FAQ also specifies that plenty of other rules no longer function.

So yes. They absolutely DO write rules that do not function

***** ***** guys. We were off topic, but at least we were talking about something that was still informative... and now look where we are...

Mod: "Language, Timothy!"

-Forces back on Topic-

Ok, I have added INAT FAQ style Questions up to Wolf Priests, using both the issues in this thread and the FAQs I have answered via PM and Skype. If you don't want to know what I think, don't read it. Any constructive criticism is welcome, as are any reports of Typos. Do NOT comment on my Answers. These are my own Personal Views so I could not care less what you think about them.

Disclaimer:
No I am not a member of the INAT FAQ Council, nor do I suppose I ever will be. I have used their format as it is clear, concise and well known. If any member of the INAT FAQ team objects to my usage, please contact me and I will rectify it asap.

scuddman wrote:He's trolling. He never responded when I proved the rules are mere "guidelines", not meant for RaW.
There's no point.

I'm not sure what GWAR is trying to do. If he's trying to prove that RaI is dumb, he's not doing it convincingly.
At this point it's just straight trolling.

Best to ignore Gwar. His post count is oppressive and once you've read one of his RAW fundamentalist posts you've read them all.

Gwar you said wolf scouts can't scout but indeed the rule is listed in their entry in the codex. Is this just more of you trolling this forum?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar you said wolf scouts can't scout but indeed the rule is listed in their entry in the codex. Is this just more of you trolling this forum?

Please re-read your codex again. They do not have the USR Scouts. They have a Special Rule called "Scout". Unfortunately nowhere in the Rulebook nor Codex does it define what "Scout" is. I think you will find that this is the case in both the Army List and the Unit Entry, so it is not a one off typo, thus it is intended.

Compare this to Space Marine Scouts, who have the "Scouts" USR.

olympia wrote:Best to ignore Gwar. His post count is oppressive and once you've read one of his RAW fundamentalist posts you've read them all.

Nice advice.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Is this just more of you trolling this forum?

Pot, meet Kettle.


You do notice this is a thread started by Gwar! about RaW?

I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR. That is silly what you are saying. What do you think Phil Kelly intended? I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

No, clearly Scout refers to a new USR that will appear in the 6th edition rulebook coming out next year. This, of course, will make all those units that get Scouts in the current ruleset less capable. It's all part of the master plan.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR.

So why is it called "Scouts" in the Space Marine Codex? The fact is, "Scout" is no more the same as "Scouts" as Stubborn is the same as Fearless.

What do you think Phil Kelly intended?

To give them the special Rule "Scout". If he wanted them to have the Scouts USR, he would have written Scouts.

I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

I don't understand why you feel the need to add words and letters that do not exist to rules.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR. That is silly what you are saying. What do you think Phil Kelly intended? I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

Please look at codex necron they include many special rules that are similar to the USR but not the same ... they were all FAQ to be the same as the USR.

Tri wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR. That is silly what you are saying. What do you think Phil Kelly intended? I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

Please look at codex necron they include many special rules that are similar to the USR but not the same ... they were all FAQ to be the same as the USR.

Were they? The only thing I see is that Scarabs count as having the Swarm USR. They still use their own Fearless rule.

Gwar! wrote:Anyway, to get back on topic, here is a good one:
Wolf Scouts cannot make a Scout Move, because they do not have the "Scouts" USR

They never had it in the 3rd edition codex either. Just Infiltrate and OBEL.

Oh, read you later posts. They have the "scout" rule rather than the "scouts" rule. Cute . Like I said, the editor is a monkey who is too busy throwing feces at his own co-employees to sit down and proofread the codices.

wyomingfox wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Anyway, to get back on topic, here is a good one:
Wolf Scouts cannot make a Scout Move, because they do not have the "Scouts" USR

They never had it in the 3rd edition codex either. Just Infiltrate and OBEL.

Indeed, so it is no loss. Though I am saddened to see OBEL semi Nerfed. Having 3 units have a chance to do it is better than only having 1 guaranteed... I guess.

Gwar! wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Anyway, to get back on topic, here is a good one:
Wolf Scouts cannot make a Scout Move, because they do not have the "Scouts" USR

They never had it in the 3rd edition codex either. Just Infiltrate and OBEL.

Indeed, so it is no loss. Though I am saddened to see OBEL semi Nerfed. Having 3 units have a chance to do it is better than only having 1 guaranteed... I guess.

Except you are paying for three squads to get the job done

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR. That is silly what you are saying. What do you think Phil Kelly intended? I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

Please look at codex necron they include many special rules that are similar to the USR but not the same ... they were all FAQ to be the same as the USR.

Were they? The only thing I see is that Scarabs count as having the Swarm USR. They still use their own Fearless rule.

They were last time i checked the FAQ ... though i wouldn't be surprised if GW's changed them. Things were "fearless" "swarms" "vulnerable to blast", infiltrators, "deep strike" and "move through cover" and they all worked as written in the BGB

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm sure the entry scout counts as the USR. That is silly what you are saying. What do you think Phil Kelly intended? I don't understand why you insist on turning everything around from it's clear intent.

Please look at codex necron they include many special rules that are similar to the USR but not the same ... they were all FAQ to be the same as the USR.

Were they? The only thing I see is that Scarabs count as having the Swarm USR. They still use their own Fearless rule.

They were last time i checked the FAQ ... though i wouldn't be surprised if GW's changed them. Things were "fearless" "swarms" "vulnerable to blast", infiltrators, "deep strike" and "move through cover" and they all worked as written in the BGB

Ah, I see. Well, No, in the latest FAQ it only mentions Swarms.

I think we should start a poll to see what the majority here thinks in regard to the Scout rule.

I dont understand why people think Gwar! is trolling, he obviously is very strict about RAW, thats fine, you dont have to EVER play a game against him. He is providing the most literal definations of RAW, which you can use or not; its your choice.

dont bother trying to change someones opinion on the internet, its a huge waste of time, but what you CAN do is provide information to let people come to their own conclusions. Gwar! gives you factual information that is literally correct most of the time. If you have a problem with his frequently blunt attitude then just dont reply to his posts- simple solution.

Complaints are now flooding in about this thread.

Since there is also some swearing going on, and quoting of attacks, rather than try and tidy it all up I am locking the thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Complaints are now flooding in about this thread.

Since there is also some swearing going on, personal attacks, and quoting of attacks, rather than try and tidy it all up I am locking the thread.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I think we should start a poll to see what the majority here thinks in regard to the Scout rule.

It really doesn't matter though. What matters is how your gaming group agrees to play it.

I will give this to GWAR, he is consistant with his answers...and he entertains me...immensely .

IB4L

Unfortunately Gwar does not always present factual information. I am not going to say he is going so far as to pull the wool over people's eyes but sometimes he does come across as if he intends to mislead on purpose... I don't know what is true intent so I'm just saying that's the way it seems to be sometimes.

1N B3f0r3 Da L0Ck!

Kilkrazy wrote:Complaints are now flooding in about this thread.

Since there is also some swearing going on, and quoting of attacks, rather than try and tidy it all up I am locking the thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Complaints are now flooding in about this thread.

Since there is also some swearing going on, personal attacks, and quoting of attacks, rather than try and tidy it all up I am locking the thread.

??? but no lock