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.

[The Following has been Edited to Not Inspire Irrational Hatred and Drama]
[Edit No.2 - to Strict Business]

So anyways, this will probably get me banned for a bit. I'm not too sure on the exact policy in these parts, but I imagine my little unauthorized expansion to a previous thread which has since been locked post-haste is not going to engender any good will. If you're interested in the serious aspects of that debate cruise on over to it. If you want the general synopsis just consult the last page of the thread--which will actually direct you to a person's post on the 7th page which ...'captured' the moment.

With that said, I thought there were numerous object of interest through the mind-numbing 8 pages of vociferous mouth-frothing that covered the 'possibilites' of a certain tank/NOT squadron in a codex involving people who stab the devil and another codex where pyro chicks set things on fire. Some of these points inspire very real questions whilst others [add edit] have since been deleted so as to avoid "anger, range, drama, getting me banned because you hate my face, etc." <---Look Children that's a little bit of humor (o)(o)

I will begin with the first real 'question'
THEORETICALLY, and don't you argue about the damned tank, if you DID allow (That means it IS being allowed, the Leman Russ that is) a Leman Russ tank selection into a WH/DH army, would you only take one, as a stock old-school LR as per RAI of old, would you allow just one LR , but a super-pimped one all sparkling with big guns and sponsons, or would you allow the nacho del grande and allow a full 3 of the suckers.

I know 'ard boyz allowed just 1, but I don't know what they did to that one- was it super-fly or factory stock?

In these parts the general discussion is this- per RAW... well you know how that goes... BUT since we're ignoring RAW to allow the one... and we ARE allowing it in this scenario, what's to stop you from taking the others? I know, strike that, WE know it says one tank, and the argument is 'oh, you can still get that tank, it just comes as a one-tank squadron' but if you're automatically shifting the meaning from one unit which used to be a tank to its current rule-set of one unit which happens to be a squadron--- isn't the extra vehicles in the squadron just the same as the sponsons? --extra upgrades onto the original unit.

Point 8: Okay this point is really going to blow some minds, bust some balls, and probably get this thread tied up also:

Monolith and its deepstrike special rule.

Same sort of problems as the taboo scenario of the past issue-- subtle name changes and relative equivalents that just don't add up per RAW.

Here's the skinny
Monolith p.21
"It is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith'

Deepstrike Mishap 5th ED p.95
"If any models in a deepstriking unit cannot be deployed because they would land (1)off the table, (2) in impassable terrain, (3) on top of a friendly model, (4) or on top (5) or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong"

Nothing so simple has ever been quite NOT so simple. There are a slew of things to debate per RAI, but before we even get there lets consider RAW... at its most cold, heartless level.

Thus, lets compare this with how it was written in 4th Ed rules, etc. on back versus new 5th Ed rules.

First off, Monolith Deepstrike itself is the same so that's fine. The whole no-destroyed thing though immediately traffic-slams into the debate about 'THAT Tank" in WH/DH. By that I mean this-- the term 'Destroyed' as it is written here is not the same rule or rule set AT all as is now existent. As it's written, "Not Destroyed" is referring to the old consequence , one size fits all BTW (dead), of landing within 1" of the enemy (which also used to include by inference 'on top of', I'm told). In the current edition, we have the mishap chart and 'Dead' is only a narrow margin of the possibilites lying in wait for a mishaping unit. Plus, for the purposes of determining a mishap's occurrence at all, not only do we have the option of landing within 1", but also on top of-- which seems pretty pointless to mention until we see the consequences of that in the context of the Monolith maybe getting some sort of meal ticket whilst it is within 1" but NOT on top of the unit.

So we have a few disconnects from the old to the new.
(1) There is no instant result of dead anymore , instead there its equivalent buried within the damage chart
(2) Now, there is a difference between landing on top of versus within 1"-- SM drop pod specifically mentions both and the mishap rules themselves single each out as a different condition. Afterall, you can land within 1" of a friendly, but NOT on top of him.

So in short, if you're playing per RAW with rules applying to other rules that don't exist anymore....you throw them out. There's a fair case here to say, listen-- clearly these rules are meant to interact with rule sets that are non-existent now in comparison to how they were before-- let's ditch em.

HOWEVER, I would never expect any player playing 'crons worth their salt to take this sitting down so what would you guys do? Simply RAI update and say that its abilities work on Destroyed results on the mishap chart and that it triggers on top of and within 1" (like the SM d-pod)? If that's so.. maybe you guys will also RAI update it to include accidentally landing on friendlies also? Will you maybe take it so far as to say that the clearest for of RAI is simply to ignore all mishap results at all?

Where's your line in the sand?

did your mind break or something

what would make you write so many words

MasterSlowPoke wrote:did your mind break or something

what would make you write so many words

HA! I snotted Mountain Dew!


@OP - Your post simply reminds me that we should use common sense and courtesy when RaW fails (which it will ALWAYS do). Great list - btw

ouch, but no-- guys -- you're reading a bit too much into the beginning and not enough in to the real legitimate questions here--

Okay, ignore the part about HIM being right-- If I go and edit it out will it make you guys happy?

I do have real questions though on what just all happens to that one or more Leman Russ. Ultimately, RAW like all other things bends to what people play and tournaments state i.e. no G-knights in the Valkyries -- I understand that.

What I'm curious about is how you articulate the argument for just what all should come standard on that tank. I'm not just trying hate-write or anything here.

In this scenario I'm saying at least one tank is legal-- hands down-- I'm asking about just WHAT all can come on it, with it, etc...

Same things FOR real on some of the other questions.

Of course some of the other things in there shouldn't REALLY be in the YMDC spot, but most of them were casual comments or points of interest I would've liked to have raised in the other thread-- which was shut down.

My bad guys.

I'm just trying to say-- I am taking you guys seriously.

Edit: Sorry THE OTHER HIM if I hurt your feelings with #11, but when I read his rule posting with reference and then I saw you talking about a tactical squad "unbecoming" a Tac. Squad- ... well, it just seemed like you were out in the deep end, especially when other parts of your paragraph directly contravened with clear rules. Anyways, that is neither here nor there--- if it offends to that great a degree-- I will also happily edit that out. This is me on 3hrs sleep in 72hours. Show mercy.

nope- no drama--

just some legitimate questions. Look, to hell with I'll go ahead and clean it up.

I meant no harm by my post, nor flames. It was simply an assessment.

As far as your question:

In the Ard Boyz you can use the Ard Boyz rules. Any other game (pickup, tournament, paint and play, league) you should ask the organizer/opponent.

An example - My LGS has actually allowed the supplement of the Ard Boyz for any game/tournament and have announced it as so. That means I can have 3 LRBT (since that is what the squadron include) and veterans.

See THAT is what I'm talking about. I didn't know if that's how most are taking it or what. I think it's important, because if a tournament standard emerges, I wouldn't be surprised to see it ends up in a FAQ. Maybe that's just me talking out of my ... "Donkey-cave"?!? ... but that's what I can see happening down the line--

Moderator note:

It seems clear from the text of this post that it is a genuine attempt to re-engage the original subject of discussion, in detail.

That said, naming any of the parties involved in a heated dispute runs the unnecessary risk of reigniting the personal component of the argument, which needs to stay dead.

Dragon, please edit your original post to make it more neutral, and not name any of the parties involved.

Honestly, here probably isn't the place to ask - Most here will just yell many slanderous words.... like RaW and cheat

/winks @ GWAR! - jk

If you really want a consensus, you should probably ask around your local shop and the normal TO.

OR

You can start a 'how would you play it poll' with the possible options and then stress it isn't a poll on what is wrong or right, but how one would actually play it in a certain setting.

Rules don't exist in a vacuum.

Making arguments along the lines of 'the RAW clearly states _____________' and 'technically the rule says ___________' is unpersuasive. Every rule, as written, is made up of words. Words have varying shades of meaning depending upon context. Claiming that your interpretation is the only viable interpretation of the rule as written and suggesting that anyone with a varying interpretation is "cheating" is pure, unadulterated fallacy.

Based upon context, the words "The following units may be used in a daemonhunters army ... 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" (Codex: Daemonhunters P. 30-31) would indicate to me that a Daemonhunters army may take a Leman Russ Squadron from the new IG codex consisting of one Leman Russ Battle Tank. This is because, when taken in context, a Leman Russ Squadron consisting of one Leman Russ Battle Tank is the same thing as a Leman Russ Battle Tank.

By "context" in this instance I'm referring specifically to Codex: Imperial Guard p. 48, 102, and 104.

-GK

The Dragon wrote:See THAT is what I'm talking about. I didn't know if that's how most are taking it or what. I think it's important, because if a tournament standard emerges, I wouldn't be surprised to see it ends up in a FAQ. Maybe that's just me talking out of my ... "Donkey-cave"?!? ... but that's what I can see happening down the line--

GW has made it pretty clear that they have no interest in a "tourney standard" or updating their FAQ's with real rules problems.

The first post was needlessly long and i'm still left not knowing what it is you want discussed that hasn't already been said. If you wanted a general opinion on something, without expecting a great deal more new info, then a poll quoting the relevant rules is more than enough. If you wanted to say how much you agree with someone, you can do that directly through PMs.

I game in a circle or 'linked via various mediums' group of people numbering about 14 or so, the youngest I game against is 21, the eldest is 41. There is not one of them who would deny a WH/DH army their LRBT, there isn't one of them who wouldn't call someone showing up with a mixed bag of 3 varients a cheeselover.

The game is not enhanced by pawing feverishly over the wording of sentances to find ways to exploit or deny your opponent or find some hidden loophole for you to exploit. The game is diminished by it.

The WH/DH list was written with the clear meaning of taking 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank to the table if you so wished, the Imperial Guard list was not written with the intent of denying that option to those armies.

I'm going to the pub for lunch. bye.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ihe Imperial Guard list was not written with the intent of denying that option to those armies.

Ah, well, My apologies Robin Cruddace. I had no Idea you were on Dakka. Why didn't you say so earlier! What's it like working for GW?

That's a fair interpretation-- my point is what would you so to the other LFGS such as the one Harkainos is talking about?

I mean-- If I'm for the tank in the first place be allowed-- and in THIS thread I am, to explore the possibilities of it, I actually think there is a fair argument to be had that where before it said you could take a UNIT of Leman Russ Battle Tank, and in that codex it just so happened that meant just one, and since there is no official UNIT of Leman Russ Battle Tank, but you can take a squadron-- you should be able to take 3 of them.

I think the fact that apparently there's already a tournament system running with that rule also says it's a fair enough point.

With that said, what WOULD you do with the poor old Monolith and its deepstrike. Its definitely the same sort of situation ... you know... a rose by any other name and all that *assuming the cultural reference was understood*

My point is, if WH/DH are getting the Tank under a form of institutionalized RAI ( my opinion of it, that's all: I will still play by it)--- what does that same sentiment do for the Monolith and its deepstrike?

Like I said, before- where is the line drawn in the sand?

The line is drawn differently for every player, store, and tournament.

There is no way any consensus could be reached or enforced without GW's intervention, and they have said multiple times they don't want to.

It's just a board game. Calm down.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The line is drawn differently for every player, store, and tournament.

There is no way any consensus could be reached or enforced without GW's intervention, and they have said multiple times they don't want to.

It's just a board game. Calm down.

However, the Community at large DOES want it. Hence Yakface and co. INAT FAQ, which is the de facto standard for i would assume the majority of players.

Yes, I forgot about that. The INAT FAQ is a pretty good rulings guide.

Would I let some one Playing DH or WH take a Leman Russ Battle Tank if they took two IG troop choices (aka 2 IG platoon)? Yes I would

Do I think that most people would also allow it? Yes

Do the rules as written allow it? No. there is no longer a Leman Russ Battle Tank to take there is only the Leman Russ Squadron.

Do I think any one will deny a DH or WH player their Leman Russ Battle Tank? Yes, They might well.

Is that fair? Yes since it is not a listed choice. Note that IG Plattons now come with 70% more rules, weapons, and squads. When DH and WH were written they were never meant to be able to take conscripts or special weapon squads with 3 demo charges. Nor were they able to shoot 5 weapons out the back of 55pt chimera.

Guys-- pointing at self as the fool here-- where can I find this INAT faq?

The Dragon wrote:Guys-- pointing at self as the fool here-- where can I find this INAT faq?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:yakface#INAT_FAQ

With regards to #1: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m90029a_40KArdBoyzRules.pdf

It's an official GW event, so if that doesn't give you an idea of intention for their outdated RAW, I don't know what will.

With regards to #2: Ask around at your gaming group. While a DakkaDakka consensus would be great, a consensus with your local gaming group(s) is more important. If you've got yourself a hung jury, roll a dice. Those ARE the (current) rules as written. People may try to use the concrete language of the codex but if you feel (as I do) that this is an unnecessary nerf to a codex that has already been under the bus (and twice at that), just point out that the current government (of wherever you are) doesn't typically follow outdated RAW. They interpret and re-present the RAW to fit present day circumstances.

Those chimeras also did not come with freebie double flamers or double Hvy-Bolters.

A valid point for sure, but when tank fever hits- there's no stopping some people. they just have to have it.

For the purposes of keeping this thread from being peeled off like a big on a windshield, however, we're going to assume it's a go.

My questions are directed toward the point of navigating RAI, since it IS being used, to where it is fair for all people who have a rusty bucket not just the Inquisition.

I mean, If they're getting a primo-super pimp triple LR choice- By God I want my monolith to be able to land on everything as say "run little bitches run! I am monolith destroyer of faces!"

Was that over the top? yeah?


Anyways, really-- what I'm pushing for-- which no one has even touched with a ten foot pole-- is a generalized RAI-friendly look at the Monolith's deepstrike to match the RAI-service the Inquisition seems to be getting.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.

Anyways, I feel my body breaking down now from exhaustion so I'm going to go sleep.

while I completely agree with you slack....

in YMDC precedence doesn't exist unless GW says it does. So that argument will not work (no matter how much we try)

@ OP - I don't have enough XP with crons to give valid input. Our LGS only has one (part time) cron player.

This forum simply isn't for RAI. Those decisions are for your friends and tournament organizers.

We can't tell you how to play your game beyond what the words on the page say.

Personally, I'd go with the older rules where they ignored models underneath them, unless the player was this one horrible person that used to game at my store.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:This forum simply isn't for RAI. Those decisions are for your friends and tournament organizers.

No one has stated that, rules as intended interpretation is a large part of what goes on here, consider the endless macination and interpretation of the deffroller debate. RAW has never been driven as a standard from which noone may deviate or must not discuss here, the rules as written even have a cardinal rule, which is, in essence to interpret them. FAQs are largely created following long consideration of the intention of a rule when the written rule is failing or at cross purposes with another rule. Common sense should prevail, following open and free debate not bound by the finite. It is not the borderline autistic and suffocating restriction placed on a player enjoying his game because GW put the comma in the wrong feckin place.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:This forum simply isn't for RAI. Those decisions are for your friends and tournament organizers.

I dont know where this mindset came from. Id much rather hear how rules are actually played (RAW or not) than read through 8 pages of 2 sides pretending to be lawyers and ultimately getting nowhere.

This board is called "you make da call", not "rules clarification".

Besides, page 2 of the rulebook clearly states that there will be times that RAW dont work, and you have to figure it out (aka RaI).

Night Lords wrote:Besides, page 2 of the rulebook clearly states that there will be times that RAW dont work, and you have to figure it out (aka RaI).

And my issue is that people do not use it when the RaW doesnt work. The RaW works just fine in this case. It's just that people don't like the RaW, so abuse the rule to suit their own ends.

As a point of clarification, discussions of how you would play it, or of Rules As Intended are acceptable in YMTC, but should be clearly labeled as such. Most players, and the designers, recognize that the rules do not cover every situation, and are sometimes unclear, so players will have to work out between themselves how they will play. This can go from as brief and informal as two players over a single game, to as big and formal as the INAT FAQ.

Either way we are essentially looking at an agreement between players to bridge a gap in GW’s design. In crafting such a bridge, precedent and similar situations can be useful tools to help make a decision which is more consistent, intuitive, fair, acceptable to players, etc.

For some more useful thoughts on how to express oneself in debate, and for pitfalls and problems often encountered, the following article may be of interest:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar, whether the rules work "just fine" in this case is a subjective judgment, in which your opinion is clearly not the only one.

Implying that an attempt to apply GW's 'Ard Boyz ruling, or to craft a workable house rule to allow access to a unit previously allowed in the codex, is "abusing" the rule, is inflammatory and inappropriate.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Besides, page 2 of the rulebook clearly states that there will be times that RAW dont work, and you have to figure it out (aka RaI).

And my issue is that people do not use it when the RaW doesnt work. The RaW works just fine in this case. It's just that people don't like the RaW, so abuse the rule to suit their own ends.

They dont work fine. DH was written with the intention of LR battletanks as an option. There was no way to see that LRs would become squadrons. To deny someone of their tanks just further magnifies the effect GW's poor codex update system has and gimps armies. This leads to fewer army builds, fewer army choice, and overall a much less fun experience - all because you cant let the word squadron go.

You can argue all you want, and try to prove everyone wrong through your almighty argument skills, but in the end it doesnt matter because (luckily) people dont have the balls to try and pull this kind of stuff off, and (luckily) if that odd person does come along that tries to, everyone else has the balls to tell them off. Im actually quite surprised common sense prevails in such a public setting when at a GW or LGS. Maybe people realize they need others to play and cant be giant douches to them? Who knows.