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.

Can Chaos Daemons like bloodcrushers can assault on the turn that they come down due to the Chaos Space Marine Codex stating that "Once deployed, the daemons cannot do anything else in that turn's Movement phase, but after that they are free to act as normal (they can Assault in the same turn as they enter the game.)"

Seems fairly black and white that Daemons can assault on the turn that they come down; arguing otherwise is going against RAW and we all know that RAW is the common ground for discussion...

But really this is RAW gone mad isnt it or would there actually be people that play it this way?

Uh Bloodcrushers aren't in the Chaos Space Marine Codex.

Lesser Daemons can assault on the turn they arrive. Not bloodcrushers.

Thats the point.

No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

The CSM dex doesnt make a difference between lessor daemons and daemons - it simply says daemons.

Im just wondering if the people who think that RAW is the only way of playing if they would actually play this rule?

I'd slap you if you tried it.


That said, its a silly argument at best, the rule is in a different codex with entirely different Daemons. It has no relation in anyway, especially as the Daemons own codex doesn't allow it. It's a slowed argument from any perspective.

Furthermore, if you are going to try and use that rule, you would *ALSO* have to use the rule that says they *must* be held in reserve and *must* come in on an icon, and if you don't have one on the board they are then destroyed, thus if you were going to try and play that with a Daemon army, you couldn't ever bring your army in and you'd automatically lose.

Not to mention that GW has gone to painfully explicit lengths to maintain that Codex's are self contained and that everything should be played exactly as its written (such as IG and BT transports still not being able to use the new dedicated transport rules), and thus if it isn't in your book, it has no relation to your army.

Aeon wrote:Thats the point.

No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

The CSM dex doesnt make a difference between lessor daemons and daemons - it simply says daemons.

Im just wondering if the people who think that RAW is the only way of playing if they would actually play this rule?

There is no such thing as: "People who think that RAW is the only way of playing".


What exactly is the point of this thread? What you propose is clearly absurd and ignores all notion of context. the rule in question is located in the CSM codex in a section titles "summoned daemons", which the next two pages contain the two units in the codex called "summoned greater daemons" and "summoned lesser daemons".

If you want to try to take random rules sentences out of context and literally apply the meaning you will indeed get all sorts of absurd conclusions, which you have indeed successfully done.

So I ask again, what do you possibly hope to get out of posting this thread? What sort of answer are you hoping to get?

I've come across someone playing exactly like this. Not being familiar with the Chaos Daemons codex at the time I let him get away with it and got wiped in short order as a result.

Now I have had a read of the Chaos Daemons codex it won't be happening like that again!

A few people in Oz do actually play as if RAW is the only way of playing (and actually attribute Dakka as where they get this idea)

I was just wondering if this was an indication that taken to the nth degree with such an obviously OOT example that there are some who have actually played this way (or have seen people who do)

what you need to do is bunch all these fools together, and never ever let them play anyone but each other in case this level of ignorance is contagious.

This illustrates the importance of rules comprehension. So dirtbags and morons don't pull stuff like this on you, and you know walk away from the table before you start instead of wasting your time.

oh, and shame, SHAME on them for trying to foist their idiocy on a perfectly good 40k site. Not cool.




yes, this type of gamer IS my pet peeve, how did you know? Oh, and to answer Yakface, I'm fairly certain this thread is just a thinly veiled "holy crap, wait till you here about these guys!" thread, and I hope information regarding rules resolution wasn't legitimately sought.

I laughed so hard my eyes bulged and popped off my shades.

G

Aeon wrote:A few people in Oz do actually play as if RAW is the only way of playing (and actually attribute Dakka as where they get this idea)

This is a total misconception about the prevailing culture of this forum.

RAW is a way of *reading* rules.

How rules are actually *played* is a different matter, not necessarily related to RAW.

Please spread the word around Oz.

Daemons charging on the turn they land... Make it even cheesier then they allready are why dont you... Rather shoot myself in the foot then play against an army like that! Blargh!

Aeon wrote:Thats the point.

No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

The CSM dex doesnt make a difference between lessor daemons and daemons - it simply says daemons.

Im just wondering if the people who think that RAW is the only way of playing if they would actually play this rule?

I've been sigged for this before, but I'll say it again.

There is no rule that tells me I'm not allowed to punch you in the face. So do you want to walk down that road?

Aeon wrote:No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex. The CSM dex doesnt make a difference between lessor daemons and daemons - it simply says daemons.

It isn't logical to assume you can do something w/out the book saying you can. A demon army is not a CSM army, even though they both utilize demons.

That is no different than taking vanilla tactical marines and using them for my blood angels, I mean... they are both tactical marine (cept vanilla is cheaper)

Is there some way to start issuing English language usage licenses? I'd really like to start revoking them for attempts at abusing grammar and meaning in order to abuse rules like this. We could call it TOERL (Test of English for Rules Lawyers)...

is there such a thing as the dumbest comment of the year award?

mixing 2 codexes ..... whats next? orks with a WBB roll as it doesent say they dont get one?

Aeon wrote:No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

True.

And no rule says I can't stick my foot up your ass when try to pull stuff like this at the table...

Go for it. I wear size 10 boots.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Please spread the word around Oz.

It doesn't need to be spread too far. Most Australian gamers in my experience, aside from never having even heard of Dakka, are far more casual in their approach to the game and treat RAW as fine until it starts leading to silliness.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Aeon wrote:No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

True.

And no rule says I can't stick my foot up your ass when try to pull stuff like this at the table...

Go for it. I wear size 10 boots.

Pft. I wear size 13 steel toed hiking boots.

No rule says that you only use the rules in your codex

Holy F&%k.

Geez, Aeon, you're pushing this barrow over here too?

Everyone on WargamerAU basically said "What the hell man!?", what are you trying to prove here?

You're going to try harder and look for a more reasonable "RAW gone mad" example to pull on Ten and Yogo over there..

JohnHwangDD wrote:Go for it. I wear size 10 boots.

Oh how I envy you, it's hard to find a decent pair of 14s because apparently I'm a freak of nature so they only send 1 or 2 pairs to each shop.

edit: that's 1 or 2 pairs when you total up every different type of shoe as well, not per style :(

*ahem*

Didn't mean to trigger an international incident here!

For what it's worth, the game I referred to was an online game using VASSAL and my opponent (given the time of day) was almost certainly American or Canadian. He (or she) certainly didn't try and argue the toss from a RAW perspective - just said that was the way it worked in the Daemons codex. Obviously in hindsight he or she was either lying or seriously mistaken. Not having a copy of the relevant codex at the time, I wasn't in a position to disagree although it did seem kind of overpowered.

There's no way anyone could seriously argue this from a RAW perspective and I've never seen anyone do it in Australia or anywhere else other than this thread.

Drunkspleen wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Go for it. I wear size 10 boots.

Oh how I envy you, it's hard to find a decent pair of 14s because apparently I'm a freak of nature so they only send 1 or 2 pairs to each shop.

edit: that's 1 or 2 pairs when you total up every different type of shoe as well, not per style :(

Maybe you should focus on red shoes? Then you can go to the clown store.

But yeah, it's nice to be able to buy 2 or 3 pair of whatever style you like, whenever it's time to replace shoes every few years.

Harkainos wrote:That is no different than taking vanilla tactical marines and using them for my blood angels, I mean... they are both tactical marine (cept vanilla is cheaper)

Would I still get Death Company Marines for them? That's a true bargain then. ;-)

Hmm.... no.

Well... if you interpreted "RAW" the way the OP suggests, the answer is yes. The BA DC entry says you get 1 DC model for each Tactical Squad, without requiring that it be a BA Tactical Squad... :S

JohnHwangDD wrote:Well... if you interpreted "RAW" the way the OP suggests, the answer is yes. The BA DC entry says you get 1 DC model for each Tactical Squad, without requiring that it be a BA Tactical Squad... :S

No, the point to all of this is that by RAW the original argument fails on basic reading and English language skills. The rules as written use the phrase "the daemons" as opposed to "all daemons" or simply "daemons".

The arguments for using one's opponent's locator beacons, by comparison, are at least plausible without trying to destroy the English language.

Vaktathi wrote:I'd slap you if you tried it.


That said, its a silly argument at best, the rule is in a different codex with entirely different Daemons. It has no relation in anyway, especially as the Daemons own codex doesn't allow it. It's a slowed argument from any perspective.

Furthermore, if you are going to try and use that rule, you would *ALSO* have to use the rule that says they *must* be held in reserve and *must* come in on an icon, and if you don't have one on the board they are then destroyed, thus if you were going to try and play that with a Daemon army, you couldn't ever bring your army in and you'd automatically lose.

Not to mention that GW has gone to painfully explicit lengths to maintain that Codex's are self contained and that everything should be played exactly as its written (such as IG and BT transports still not being able to use the new dedicated transport rules), and thus if it isn't in your book, it has no relation to your army.

I beleive that this is intentional, I dont know about proper daemons but in a WD tacktica on assault, iirc it says that by having some marines with an icon and DS-ing, then assaulting som lessers, that is a decent tactic, I definately reckon this fits the fluff.

solkan wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Well... if you interpreted "RAW" the way the OP suggests, the answer is yes. The BA DC entry says you get 1 DC model for each Tactical Squad, without requiring that it be a BA Tactical Squad... :S

No, the point to all of this is that by RAW the original argument fails on basic reading and English language skills.

The arguments for using one's opponent's locator beacons, by comparison, are at least plausible without trying to destroy the English language.

I'm well aware that that the argument presented by the OP is made of FAIL, and that following the same "reasoning" for BA DC would lead to similarly ludicrous results.

I don't think we should hijack this thread into a discussion of using the opponent's beacons, so I'm not going to comment on that...

There is a rule that says you can't punch or kick your opponent. It's found in the criminal code, which trumps rulebook and codices.

I would have thought that the Most Important Rule covered both not assaulting your opponent, and not being a dick about the rules.