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.

Hey everyone

I read the previous DoM thread regarding the RAW vs RAI for the Doom of Malan'tai, but I found something in the Tyranid codex that wasn't addressed by the "It is not a Zoe, thus it doesn't get the save" crowd. If what follows was addressed, please disregard. If not, please consider this entry into the argument:

According to Codex Tyranids page 33, under the heading of 'Unique Weaponry':

"The army list at the back of the book shows all the standard and optional weaponry and biomorphs available to a particular model. You will find some of these items are unique to a particular Tyranid creature, while others are used by more than one type of Tyranid. When an item is unique, it is detailed in the entry for its owning unit; otherwise it is detailed in the Weapons and Biomorphs section of this book."

Now, given that the special rule "Warp Field" is detailed on page 44 of the rule book, it is thus unique to Zoanthropes. If it is a rule that is unique to Zoanthropes, would it not follow that the Doom of Malan'tai is a Zoanthrope?

Edit: I posted this @Gwar! because I would like to hear his input on this additional information

niceas wrote: If it is a rule that is unique to Zoanthropes, would it not follow that the Doom of Malan'tai is a Zoanthrope?

No.

That logic doesnt quite follow. Its like saying if kettles are black, then if something else is black is must be a kettle.

That said it is obvious that doom should recieve a 3+ inv save and no reasonable player should dissagree with you. If they do stop playing with them, and otherwise always get conformation of how arule works from the TO of a tournament (that should also agree with you).

@Gwar!: Care to explain?

Otherwise please refer back to http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page heading 1a.

@Regwon: With regards to the argument regarding Kettles are black, the statement that Kettles are Black does not have the additional qualifier that exists on page 33: the addition of the term "unique to a particular tyranid creature". Unique to a particular creature means that only that particular Tyranid creature has it - it is one of their defining characteristics.

By your logic, if the DoM is a Zoanthrope, it cannot follow any special rules the DoM has, because it's a Zoanthrope, not a DoM.

Either that, or DoM is a subcategory of Zoanthrope, possessing some or all of the characteristics of Zoanthropes, and some additional characteristics.

Gwar! wrote:By your logic, if the DoM is a Zoanthrope, it cannot follow any special rules the DoM has, because it's a Zoanthrope, not a DoM.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Am I to understand then, that there is no convention within the GW rules system allowing a unit to be a particular type of creature/unit without it being explicitly spelled out within the rules? The convention appears to have been established within the the codex under the entry for Tyranid Warriors (page 36), were it discusses Tyranid Warriors, Shrikes and Primes under the heading "Tyranid Warriors". Am I to understand that the RAW interpretation utilized by YMTC is that Tyranid Shrikes, Tyranid Primes and Tyranid Warriors are not regarded as all being different types of Warriors? Or is this your position (please note I am not presently arguing the validity of the position, just trying to establish whether it is something held up by YMTC as a whole or by Gwar! the poster)?

It also states in the description that the DoM is a unique adaptation of a Zoanthrope. But according to Gwar it is fluff, and not rulez. Still it describes what it is. Plus it would just be plain silly if they gave a unit the ability that it can't even use.

By Gwar's logic Eldrad isn't a Farseer either so he technically can't use Farseer Psychic powers, because by the rules he only counts as a farseer for adding warlocks.

That being said, not even Gwar would actually play this way, as he has felt the need to FAQ it in his unofficial FAQ. I can almost guarantee this isn't even going to be addressed in the official GW FAQ, because it's right in the description of the unit that it is a Zoanthrope. Oh I mean "fluff".

sbeasley wrote:It also states in the description that the DoM is a unique adaptation of a Zoanthrope. But according to Gwar it is fluff, and not rulez. Still it describes what it is. Plus it would just be plain silly if they gave a unit the ability that it can't even use.

By Gwar's logic Eldrad isn't a Farseer either so he technically can't use Farseer Psychic powers, because by the rules he only counts as a farseer for adding warlocks.

That being said, not even Gwar would actually play this way, as he has felt the need to FAQ it in his unofficial FAQ. I can almost guarantee this isn't even going to be addressed in the official GW FAQ, because it's right in the description of the unit that it is a Zoanthrope. Oh I mean "fluff".

@sbeasley : Yeah - when ever I play 40k I tend to follow RAI rather than RAW, as some of the rules that get written are utterly horrible or (like most of the tyranid codex, it seems) have holes large enough to drive landraiders through.

That being said, I am interested in the RAW interpretation as I find it makes interesting discussion (as long as it is civil, and both sides are approaching the subject with an open mind) and we have a few people at the local store who insist on using RAW rather than RAI (although, funnily enough, only when it applies in their favor).

For me, the interesting part of this discussion is the implications it has for the various 'uniques' that the tyranids have - if my interpretation is correct (that page 33 logically dictates that the DoM is a type of Zoanthrope), then Old One Eye is a Carnifex and Death Leaper is a Lictor, but the same support isn't granted to the Swarmlord or the Parasite of Mortrex, as they do not follow the 'unique' special rules.

Right they don't, but in there description/fluff it states what base unit they are coming from. Swarmlord being a hive tyrant etc as you have pointed out.

Yep - I agree that the intention was that the DoM was supposed to be a 'special' zoanthrope, the Swarmlord a 'special' hive tyrant, Old One Eye a special carnifex, etc - but the argument was that according to RAW, this isn't the case.

Please note that the RAW interpretation as presented by Gwar! and others precludes Death Leaper from using Chameleonic Skin and Pheremone Trail but NOT Flesh Hooks (the distinction being that Flesh Hooks states that the "model armed with..." rather than "Flesh Hooks grants the Lictor..."). Likewise, Old One Eye wouldn't get to take advantage of Living Battering Ram as that one states that "A carnifex gains +2 Initiative..."

What I am seeing here is a writing convention wherein (with the exception of the Flesh Hooks on the Lictor) they refer to the unit under which the rule is written rather than in a generic sense (again, the Lictor's flesh hooks being the exception).

Whether or not a writing convention has any validity in a RAW discussion is best left to people who usually argue RAW interpretations of the rules (we'll call them Rules Advocates as it doesn't carry the negative stigma).

Then again if you read the top of page 33, Forces of the Tyranids, you are told you could choose such legendary creatures, "such as the Swarmlord most dangerous of all the Hive Mind's Hive Tyrants...".

Seriously, if I was to play someone that continued throughout the game to point out RAW and make a point that they are then "allowing" me to play it RAI will not be playing me very long.

Rules Advocates: It does now, because I say it does and I was offended. Oh noes now we can't use that either. Another PC attempt down the drain All kidding aside I could care less what you call them. Words are just that, words. Why should anyone find offense to being called a Rules Lawyer is beyond me, so they come up with a new way of saying the same thing and it is all better. I do not like being PC can you tell.

This thread will not end well.

Do we need another one? ( sorry not sure if the previous ones were locked )

Lol - I was attempting to avoid RL as per the ... err... YMTC rules.

But anyways, I'm hoping that Gwar! comes back at some point to continue the discussion, as I do find it interesting.

Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously, if I was to play someone that continued throughout the game to point out RAW and make a point that they are then "allowing" me to play it RAI will not be playing me very long.

Ask them to explain in RAW terms how you deploy at the start of a game.

forkbanger wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously, if I was to play someone that continued throughout the game to point out RAW and make a point that they are then "allowing" me to play it RAI will not be playing me very long.

Ask them to explain in RAW terms how you deploy at the start of a game.

I don't have a problem with RAW, just those that act as if they are doing me a huge favor when you play the accepted RAI when not only do we both know GW screwed up or that the RAW was not as intended.

"Ok, going to roll for my warp field on DoM against that krak missile."

"Well you know, technically the DoM is not a zoanthrope so does not get a 3+ inv, but I will let you nonetheless."

"Gee, thanks for the favor, /armbar, have fun rolling dice with that hand."

Brother Ramses wrote:

forkbanger wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously, if I was to play someone that continued throughout the game to point out RAW and make a point that they are then "allowing" me to play it RAI will not be playing me very long.

Ask them to explain in RAW terms how you deploy at the start of a game.

I don't have a problem with RAW, just those that act as if they are doing me a huge favor when you play the accepted RAI when not only do we both know GW screwed up or that the RAW was not as intended.

"Ok, going to roll for my warp field on DoM against that krak missile."

"Well you know, technically the DoM is not a zoanthrope so does not get a 3+ inv, but I will let you nonetheless."

"Gee, thanks for the favor, /armbar, have fun rolling dice with that hand."

"Hello, Police, I would like to report an assault."

LunaHound wrote:This thread will not end well.

Do we need another one? ( sorry not sure if the previous ones were locked )

This is the thread that never ends!~
It goes on and on my friend!~

On a more serious not GW requires players to make leaps of judgement ... If a model has something it should be able to use it. RAW can be damned since GW rarely writes everything down.

Then I do the other arm so you are dialing with your tongue!

LOL!

Gwar! wrote:

niceas wrote: If it is a rule that is unique to Zoanthropes, would it not follow that the Doom of Malan'tai is a Zoanthrope?

No.

Yes.

Gwar! wrote:"Hello, Police, I would like to report an assault."

Assault and battery, by RAW - voluntary act for the purpose of offensive contact, that causes that contact.

Ummmm.... it says that The DoM has the Warp Field Ability?... so doesn't that mean it gets the Save?

RAW, no. But don't be that guy.

Bloodhorror wrote:Ummmm.... it says that The DoM has the Warp Field Ability?... so doesn't that mean it gets the Save?

Page 44 it specifies that a Zoanthrope is conferred a 3++. The argument by the group denying the save is that since it specifies that Zoanthropes get the save, but doesn't specify the Doom of Malan'tai gets the save, the Zoes get it, the DoM does not.