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.

So rolling for first turn (the single most important dice roll of the game), picking sides, setting up objectives, and deployment are not part of the game?

Yes by RaW none of these are part of the game. I'd argue that building an army list is also hugely important for the outcome of the battle but again that is not considered part of the game. The game starts at a specific point after deployment as covered in the rules.

This thread is entirely for stupid interpretations of the rules using RaW.

FlingitNow wrote:

This thread is entirely for stupid interpretations of the rules using RaW.

Well, I see it as a piss-take on 32.67% of the threads on "40k You Make Da Call". Hence my entertainment.

Well, I see it as a piss-take on 32.67% of the threads on "40k You Make Da Call". Hence my entertainment.

I'd say nearer 99%...

FlingitNow wrote:

Well, I see it as a piss-take on 32.67% of the threads on "40k You Make Da Call". Hence my entertainment.

I'd say nearer 99%...

That low?

Simply because I love screwing the orks over. (I play as orks)

According to the mob rule, you can always substitute the number of orks in their mob for their normal leadership value. Thusly meaning that a squad of 30 ork boys can always counts as 7 orks.

Hehe, before anyone jumps my back of course the sentence should read:
You may always substitute an orks leadership value for the number of orks in the mob that ork is in. This would also remove the rule clarrification for weirdboyz on page 37.

God when i'm done with that codex it will be re-written.

Fearspect wrote:I read your link, Saldiven. I have never heard of strong/weak clauses. "If you are not sure about this, let me know now." is the example you give, but this is clearly a conditional statement. Maybe if the phrase was, "If you want an independent character to begin the game with a unit, then you must deploy them in coherency." then your rule #9 would apply.

"Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit" reads like an independent clause to me (a sentence that can stand alone).

The second part, "by being deployed in coherency with them." is subordinate to the first, depending on the first part to make sense.

Should I find more links to more grammar sites for you? How 'bout I find a scanner and post the pages to the five style manuals I own.

Commas do not work the way you have stated they do. As I stated, the comma present in GW's rule is a grammatical error. It's presence, or lack thereof, does not change the meaning of the sentence. It's not unlike GW to make grammar and punctuation mistakes in their rules writing; I've already pointed out another one in the same sentence.

The part of the sentence beginning with "by" is a prepositional phrase. It is functioning adverbially by modifying the verb "join." The adverbial phrase does not contain any time or place wording, so we know that it does not answer "when" or "where" questions as concerned with modifying "join." As the phrase gives a condition, we know that the phrase tells us "how" an IC may "join."

I'll put it in high school English Grammar class terms:

The sentence reads:

"Aternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them" [sic]

Q: How does the independent character join the unit?
A: By being deployed in coherency with them.

Seriously, this is basic, PSAT level English Grammar here.

More links for you:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm

http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/Prepositional-Phrases.html

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/phrases.htm#preposition

Should I find more links to more grammar sites for you?

How about posting 1 for the language that the book was written in (unlike your first posting)?

Seriously, this is basic, PSAT level English Grammar here.

Not really relevant as again this has nothing to do with the language that the book was written in.

What is PSAT level? It's not a universally acceptable qualification I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong ofcourse.

Oshova

It is a US standard.

While the poster is correct, posting links from an English (as in UK) source would be more compelling.

Oh OK. Fair enough . . . but still, just because you can read, it doesn't mean you can understand rules written by GW. =p

Oshova

Ok, first....

PLEASE TAKE THE MASSIVE PAGES-LONG RULES DEBATES TO A NEW THREAD, AND TONED DOWN THE 'FRIENDLY' INSULTS, OTHERWISE THIS THREAD ENDS UP LOCKED!!!

and we don't want that, now, because we're at ten pages and doing so well.....

FlingitNow wrote:

Well, I see it as a piss-take on 32.67% of the threads on "40k You Make Da Call". Hence my entertainment.

I'd say nearer 99%...

YMDC forums are for two things - deciding what the rules actually say (what are the RAW), and then discussing how we would actually play it. The list wasn't started to take the piss out of the YMDC forums (there's plenty of that already), but because of a particular line that pops up in these threads.

Quite often, someone will pop up on page 2 or 3 of a YMDC debate with the immortal line "I play by the rules!!!111!!!NERDRAGE!!!!111!!". It's ususally levelled as an accusation of cheating to anyone who chooses to employ a bit of creative common sense and it happens all the time. So, I responded by starting this - so that if anyone REALLY wants to play by the rules they know exactly what that means.

As an aside, I've never actually encountered anyone in an actual game who insisted on playing RAW. But as soon as I do, I'm moving the entire army 6" into mid air and claiming Wobby Model on the whole lot. Just to see what happens...




.

What about all the rules that refer to "him" or "he". Does this mean they do not work for Female/Intersex Players?

Oshova wrote:What is PSAT level? It's not a universally acceptable qualification I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong ofcourse.

Oshova

PSAT is a test that students, usually in 10th grade, take as a preparation for the main USA college entrance exam, the SAT.

I was saying that the issue is one that the average 10th grader in an American school should understand.

Saldiven wrote:

Oshova wrote:What is PSAT level? It's not a universally acceptable qualification I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong ofcourse.

Oshova

PSAT is a test that students, usually in 10th grade, take as a preparation for the main USA college entrance exam, the SAT.

I was saying that the issue is one that the average 10th grader in an American school should understand.

I completely agree... but it is said that the average adult has a 3rd grade reading comprehension.

---EDIT--- I meant to say 'sad' but said also makes sense

Saldiven: Posting irrelevant links that look like they were designed by an ADHD child with crayons does not put you in any position to sneer about anyone's reading comprehension.

Fearspect and Saldiven: That's quite far enough for that particular conversation. The points have been made. Move on. Further personal digs will be dealt with.

- Edit by moderator. Which part of 'drop it' was difficult to understand? -

If you claim "wobbly model" and make your models float, does that then put their line of sight up in the air? That would RAWK! lol

Oshova

Oshova wrote:If you claim "wobbly model" and make your models float, does that then put their line of sight up in the air? That would RAWK! lol

Oshova

Well, you have to hold the model in place any time someone tries to shoot at them, or they try to shoot. It's not the most accurate system in the world. I imagine it would break the game. But hey, they DID say they wanted to play by the rules....

Seems like you would have a hard time claiming cover saves, but it might be good to get line of sight on hidden models!

So the rules expect me to hold my entire "wobbly" army in place? Really shouldn't have used Ping Pong balls as bases . . . lol

Oshova

The real question is can you get them 12" above the table? Can they fleet?

you could avoid DS mishaps by landing mid air. not only that but the Drop pod guydance sistem could on occasions make it go up above enemy units if its closer than the unit edge, it has to move by shorter distance.

TFC Techmarines do not have the Independent Character Rule, so even when the TFC dies, they don't become an IC

Gwar! wrote:TFC Techmarines do not have the Independent Character Rule, so even when the TFC dies, they don't become an IC

Be carefull that one makes people foam at the mouth...

That's not even interpretted any other way. That just makes plane sense to me. Otherwise you could hide your TFC in a unit . . . =p

Oshova

Oshova wrote:That's not even interpretted any other way. That just makes plane sense to me. Otherwise you could hide your TFC in a unit . . . =p

I suspect you misunderstood...

The TFC rules say that the Tech doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed. The obvious intention of that is that he doesn't count as an IC while the cannon is around, but becomes one (like any other Techmarine) once it is destroyed. The problem is that he doesn't actually have the IC rule (It's not included in his army list entry as it is for regular techmarines) and the rules don't specifically say that he gains it when the cannon is destroyed.

So he can't benefit from the IC rule when the cannon is around (because the rules say so) but he also can't benefit from it when the cannon is destroyed (because he doesn't have it).

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this one:

If, when rolling off to see who goes first, you tie twice, the game breaks, as you may not re-roll a re-roll.

In fact, I'm not even sure if there's a rule for what happens when you tie a roll-off.

Umm we said it, roll offs go till someone wins since if its a tie you roll again, not re-roll.

Xca|iber wrote:I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this one:

If, when rolling off to see who goes first, you tie twice, the game breaks, as you may not re-roll a re-roll.

In fact, I'm not even sure if there's a rule for what happens when you tie a roll-off.

This is already addressed twice in this thread.

A Roll off does not tell you to "Re-Roll" if it is a Tie, it tells you to Roll Again until someone is the winner.