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.

You know what? I think we're done here.

Again, your "try and stop me" comment kind of killed any credibility you may have had.

Cheat all you want. I want nothing to do with it.

Modquisition on.

We are indeed done here. Your account is being suspended as YOU KEPT IT UP AFTER I WARNED YOU TWICE.

private warning to follow.

If you're locking the thread, can we get the cute Japanese girl picture, or will we have to settle for a wiener dog?

Saldiven wrote:If you're locking the thread, can we get the cute Japanese girl picture, or will we have to settle for a wiener dog?

not locking, just suspending people which is eminently more satisfying.

And now, lets see if SHe Who Must Be Obeyed cleaned up the front room for guests tonight. ohh looks like she did.

@ SaintHazard: Note that Rage said "visibility" not "line of sight". Hence you just check the visibility of the models, not the actual line of sight they can draw. On the other hand, if you assume that Line of Sight and Visibilty are the same (which you've already argued against) then you must refer back to the wording in Visibility, where the model is physically incapable of telling you what it can see, so you must, whenever called for actual Visibility, stoop down and take a look at the tabletop side.

In addition, the rules under line of sight also details that you only need to check it when it's in dispute. When the models are plainly in sight you do not need to check it. Checking it is only to confirm that a concealed model is actually not completely concealed from sight. If the model is in plain sight you do not check. I would think this fits perfectly well in with Rage, as the furious and frienzied warriors might not see or care about some coward hiding in the bush and would much rather go for the guys he can see in the clearing.

Edit: I am such a slow poster compared to you guys o.o

But to dispute it all you have to do is say "I don't think it's in . . . and we can't prove it either way as that would checking LOS . . . I'll just stay where I am then."

Oshova

Urm Okay so what have we actually established from the original question? I read the entire thread and couldn't find any answers, just some conflict of LoS and templates on Baal preds.

It seems to have been covered on the first page, really.

Embarked models have the restriction, once disembarked they are no longer embarked models.

Unless I totally missed something.

I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!

alarmingrick wrote:I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!

That is correct. I won't speak for Gwar!, but personally I will let you fire your Baal predator's template weapon forward, over the hull. It is, however, a house rule to allow such a thing to happen. That's all. And there's nothing wrong with that! House rule away! Personally, and this is just my opinion, others may disagree, I feel like the intent of the weapon was to be used - why would they design a vehicle with a weapon that couldn't be used? Same thing for Defiler HFs, firing a flamer from a fire point on a Rhino, et cetera. All technically illegal, but I personally would not insist that you can't do it - I'd allow it.

But you gotta be clear on what that is: a house rule.

So, y'know. Arguing that it's within the standard rules is a no-no.

Yeah definitely here to have fun and laugh at the giant standing joke that is GWs rules. Saying that I also enjoy laughing at how poor Rackham's rules are, and infact just Rackham as a whole.

But that's a completely different kettle of fish =p

Oshova

Good to see you back Saint. I'm sorry things got out of hand, I do respect you as poster. That's why I gots your quote as my sig.

I hope we can put this behind us.

SaintHazard wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:I'm clear on most of what has been discussed. but 1 thing still stands out as a wee bit fuzzy.
Gwar and SaintHazard really believe it's "okay" to fire the Baals turret forward, the just say it's illegal
to point out how poorly some rules are worded and/or FAQed? either way, i always come away from
the YMTC a little more informed and with a good laugh at how worked up we can get.

@Frazzled:
did you take that pic from the Tank in the corner?!?!

That is correct. I won't speak for Gwar!, but personally I will let you fire your Baal predator's template weapon forward, over the hull. It is, however, a house rule to allow such a thing to happen. That's all. And there's nothing wrong with that! House rule away! Personally, and this is just my opinion, others may disagree, I feel like the intent of the weapon was to be used - why would they design a vehicle with a weapon that couldn't be used? Same thing for Defiler HFs, firing a flamer from a fire point on a Rhino, et cetera. All technically illegal, but I personally would not insist that you can't do it - I'd allow it.

But you gotta be clear on what that is: a house rule.

So, y'know. Arguing that it's within the standard rules is a no-no.

thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.

alarmingrick wrote:

thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.

And why does it take the 10 years to update old dexes?
Take crons, so many broken and fuzzy rules that it just hurts... And no dex nor normal faq for a long time...

alarmingrick wrote:thanks for the fast reply! another question(ok,2) if you don't mind. would you agree this would be an issue that should have been FAQed along time ago?
and any idea why they(GW) wouldn't? as far as my local group goes, it's never been an issue. as for the 3 "main" stores and any local tournie,s it's never
been an issue. but, a poorly worded/written rule is an arguement waiting to happen.

1) I agree that it should have been FAQ'd long ago.
2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address. I know our own yakface contributes a lot of the FAQ material, so I have to assume the latter, and I disagree, but I'm also not the end-all-be-all of what should and should not be FAQ'd. THAT is why I don't take the FAQs seriously. At the end of the day, they're just one way to look at the rules, and they often don't interpret the rules literally... they're no more hard material than Joe Bob the Redshirt's personal opinions on whether or not Stikkbombs have a function... regardless of what the tenets of YMDC say about them.

SmackCakes wrote:Good to see you back Saint. I'm sorry things got out of hand, I do respect you as poster. That's why I gots your quote as my sig.

I hope we can put this behind us.

Of course. Yeah, it got heated, and we both seem to get loud and obnoxious when we get pissed off.

Officially agree to disagree?

*waving arms about* I don't get it still I'm only curious for orks in the sense that if I used a Waaagh! on the same turn.

If I did, moved the trukks flat out then disembarked, could I still run and assault on that turn alone?

Juvieus Kaine wrote:*waving arms about* I don't get it still I'm only curious for orks in the sense that if I used a Waaagh! on the same turn.

If I did, moved the trukks flat out then disembarked, could I still run and assault on that turn alone?

You can't disembark when you move flat out, so no.

You could move cruising and do what you say though.

Right, I'll make much note of this.
Thankyou

I think gw never designed the game to be played by people as nit picky as you all are.

SaintHazard wrote:2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address.

Number 2 would be my guess on the template thing. It's blatently obvious that a vehicle with a template weapon in the turret is supposed to be able to use it. GW have a bit of a history of ignoring 'issues' like that. Just depends on who winds up writing the FAQ...

THAT is why I don't take the FAQs seriously. At the end of the day, they're just one way to look at the rules, and they often don't interpret the rules literally... they're no more hard material than Joe Bob the Redshirt's personal opinions on whether or not Stikkbombs have a function... regardless of what the tenets of YMDC say about them.

For what it's worth, the tenets of YMDC accept the FAQ's as official rules simply because we've found that the vast majority of players do the same. They're clarifications from the writers of the game which, for most players, is good enough.

You're welcome to ignore them in your own games, obviously. But taking a stance one way or the other on their standing as rules allows us to avoid the pointless, unending arguments about whether or not they matter in a rules discussion... and we went with what appears to be the majority view as being the most productive one.

insaniak wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:2) It has not been FAQ'd because whoever writes the GW FAQs either 1) doesn't troll internet message boards for FAQ-able issues or 2) doesn't think they're big enough issues to address.

Number 2 would be my guess on the template thing. It's blatently obvious that a vehicle with a template weapon in the turret is supposed to be able to use it. GW have a bit of a history of ignoring 'issues' like that. Just depends on who winds up writing the FAQ...

There are still very important things that GW doesn't adress and IS important... Nvm templates, what about certain units that have broken rule, certain out-of-date codexes (what about necrons? I know that raw would be that lith can't attack when moving 12'', warriors can't WBB when sweeped, but what did they have in mind?)... Not to mention that there are some stupid rules that are obvious...
My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

I mean cmon! We can figure that out alone... Tell us something that you intended for unit but clumsy written rules don't allow!

Chinchilla wrote:(what about necrons? I know that raw would be that lith can't attack when moving 12'',

Monoliths can't move 12".

warriors can't WBB when sweeped, but what did they have in mind?)

What about that needs clarification? Necrons have never been able to make a WBB roll after being subject to a Sweeping Advance.

My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

Which FAQ was that from?

insaniak wrote:

My all time favorite, blood angels faq, and I quote: " Does the storm bolter on baal predator really cost 10pts?"

Which FAQ was that from?

I think it's from mine, because the way it is worded in the BA Codex lets you take a SB and a HK for 10 points.

BA.94.02 – Q: Blood Angels Predators have the option to take “a Storm Bolter and/or a Hunter Killer Missile” for +x points. Does this mean you can get “a Storm Bolter and a Hunter Killer Missile” for only x points or must you purchase each one separately?
A: Each upgrade is paid for separately. So a Storm Bolter is +x points, a Hunter Killer Missile is +x points and to take both means you must pay +x points twice. [Rules Change]

By the strict letter of the rules, a Blood Angels Predator can purchase both for only +x points.

It's the faq attached to ba white dwarf codex, at the end of it...

The Green Git wrote:you'd be right, you'd also still be a dick.

Really this is how ninety percent of rules questions get finished on Dakka.

I cannot fathom what toll that must have on the game as a whole.

I think that the only reason there is even arguing in this thread at all is that there are 2 kinds of people in it. There are:

A. People who wish to use the rules to guide them through a functional game where things make sense and logic is occasionally used. They are more interested in the spirit of the law than the letter and want to make the game work and be enjoyable, flaws and all.

and
B. People who wish to use the rules as a strict set of guide lines not matter how dis-functional and unplayable it makes the game. They are STRICTLY interested in what is written and follow the letter of the law even when all that doing so would accomplish is to make the game pointless.

I think that following the rules is important. I bought a rule book before I bought my first bit of plastic for this game as I like to follow the rules. However, when it comes to things like telling an opponent that you're being "generous" by letter him do what his unit is intended to do is just ludicrous. I would NEVER hold my opponent to something like the Baal Predator template argument or accuse him/her of cheating if for using a model as it was intended to be used.
This is all my humble opinion, though I know many would disagree with it, but I think when we've gotten to the point where being "right with the rules" is more important than playing a fun, functional, and fair match of Warhammer, then we aren't playing Warhammer anymore. We're playing Plastic Ruleshammer 40: The Age of Pointlessness.

lucasbuffalo wrote:
A. Little crying babies

and
B. Amazing geniuses that are so badass they follow rules.

Your post wasn't dakkadakka enough so I cleaned it up for you.

But yeah outside of bias you hit the nail on the head. Neither group can be incorrect, for while the B category might have a rule spot on and read to the letter, they're still nerds. And group A is trying to have fun with plastic spacemen, thus more nerds.

Except that he is being Generous.

You may not like it, hell, even I don't like it, but that is what the RaW says, no two ways about it.

Gwar! wrote:Except that he is being Generous.

You may not like it, hell, even I don't like it, but that is what the RaW says, no two ways about it.

I dunno. I don't think "generous" and "fair/reasonable" are the same thing.
But again, I'm from group A. I'd rather have a fun game I can play with other humans without pointless arguments that defy logic for the sake of rules.

LordWaffles wrote:


But yeah outside of bias you hit the nail on the head. Neither group can be incorrect, for while the B category might have a rule spot on and read to the letter, they're still nerds. And group A is trying to have fun with plastic spacemen, thus more nerds.

I dunno. I'd say people who are arguing the logistics of a game about plastic space men game are slightly bigger nerds than people playing it.

I have fun by playing a game by the rules.

Would you consider it fun if I decided I wanted all my Grey Hunters to have 10 Attacks?

No, because that is not following the rules.

Do you have fun by having to argue rules game every single time? Do you have fun by being forced to go through a pre-game prep longer than the game itself because of unclear rules>

Yeah, that's what I thought.