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.

Deadshane1 wrote:Gwar, if all movement rules apply, then you would get a cover save.

Your arguement is tenuous at best. You cannot pick and choose which movement rules or rules concerning movement that you use or dont use.

The valkrie either moved, or it didnt. If it didnt move, it wouldnt be 24" away from its previous location.

That is not the point I am making. The rules for the Cover save do not give two gaks if you just "moved", they need to to have "Moved flat out in the Previous Movement Phase." The Movement Phase is a very Specific thing as defined in the BRB

The Scout move Is NOT a movement phase, you just use the rules from it. That is NOT cherry Picking anything, that is following the rules.

Is it Stupid? Yes, but that's the rules.

So RAW only matters when you want it to? Gotcha.

As far as the cover save goes, you don't get one. You go by how far a vehicle moved in its previous turn. You haven't had one yet. You get no bonus. That's fairly cut and dry. I'm sure the wording is "previous movement phase". The only time there's a Movement Phase is as part of the turns, which haven't started yet. I'm sure it's very very similar to one and units moving at that time follow a lot of the same rules such as how far they can go, etc. But there has been no Movement Phase yet because there has been no turn for one to take place during.

Certain instances overrule this. For a while I thought a drop pod would need 6's to be hit in close combat because it moved at cruising speed due to the deepstrike, only to find that immobilized vehicles are always hit automatically, ALWAYS, regardless of how far they moved prior to their newly damaged status.

As far as the Grey Knights bit is concerned, I think I'll fall back to my good old "slap you silly" defense. It's obvious what it's intended. Multiple sources cite terminators as taking up two spaces. And really, saying Grey Knight Terminators are not Terminators because the name is different? Come on. So you're saying only Necrons wearing Arnold skins take up two slots, and not Space Marine, Chaos, Grey Knight, or other types of "Terminator", because they all have types listed prior to the damning word, and poor Arnold doesn't?

Yeah, Slap You Silly is in effect. I'll concede Valks can carry terminators [of any type] as I see no reason why not. But it's stopping at 6 [of any type].

Gwar! wrote:That is not the point I am making. The rules for the Cover save do not give two gaks if you "moved", they need to to have "Moved flat out in the Previous Movement Phase."

You're still ignoring that the scout move is considered "exactly as if it had moved during the movement phase". According to that part of the scout move rules, it can be argued that while there may NOT have BEEN a movement phase, you are supposed to play it as if there were.

The Scout move Is NOT a movement phase, you just use the rules from it. That is NOT cherry Picking anything, that is following the rules.

Using rules from the movement phase...do not movement phases allow for cover saves in following shooting phases? Why wouldnt you use THOSE rules...it IS cherry picking.

Is it Stupid? Yes, but that's the rules.

....I beg to differ.

Deadshane1 wrote:....I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no "Previous Movement Phase" if your Opponent goes First after you have scouted.

@Spellbound.

The how many terminators in a valkrie debate is a much easier one...and not really the same.

In that debate we have to analyse the rules from several books. Some people in this thread are referancing too many rules sources, only 3 are needed, the codexes in question and the rulebook.

In the Scout move/cover save debate. Its an issue within the rulesbook itself.

So, it isnt so clear as "are you using raw or arent you?". The two debates are different on many levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:....I beg to differ.

Beg all you want, doesn't change the fact that there is no "Previous Movement Phase" if your Opponent goes First after you have scouted.

No it doesnt change the fact that there was no "previous movement phase". However, according to the Scout rules, it can be argued that "we are to play exactly as if there were".

...do you really still not see my point?

Deadshane1 wrote:No it doesnt change the fact that there was no "previous movement phase". However, according to the Scout rules, it can be argued that "we are to play exactly as if there were".

...do you really still not see my point?

I see your point, I've seen it from the start, but it is wrong. You move as though it were a Movement Phase, but it is NOT a Movement Phase.

"It can be argued that" applies to the terminators in valks, too, really.

I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Best argument you could really give aside from "lalala I cover my ears and do not listen!" [which is what 'I don't play apocalypse so don't care' essentially is] is that they take up 2 spaces in superheavy transports, but not necessarily in others. I couldn't really concede much else in that case except "really?" and resort once again to SYS defenses.

@Gwar

Well, I see your veiw as wrong, so I guess we're at an impasse.

d6 it.

....and thats in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spellbound wrote:

I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Deadshane1 wrote:@Gwar

Well, I see your veiw as wrong, so I guess we're at an impasse.

d6 it.

....and thats in the rules.

You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Spellbound wrote:I quoted a rules source that said terminators [and I'm positive it means any type, any army] take up two slots in transports.

Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Sod That, let me Crack out my Rouge trader Book! Or my 2nd Edition Space Wolf Codex (oh 2nd Edition Space Wolf Codex, no one must know of our Forbidden love)

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

I love you too hunnybuns

Deadshane1 wrote:
Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Bloodbowl is a different game, so no.

Tau? Hell yes. If there was a passage in the Tau codex that said something akin to "In certain situations terminators may end up riding in a devilfish, in which case they count as two models" I'd totally toss that in as yet another 40k related example that states terminators as taking up 2 slots.

Look, terminators take up 2 transport slots. It's all over 40k, in all kinds of different examples. Getting into "Well, SPACE MARINE terminators aren't CHAOS SPACE MARINE terminators nor GREY KNIGHT terminators so that thing in the SM codex doesn't apply!" is really, REALLY idiotic. I can't even SAY how idiotic it is. Do you really need every single nitty gritty advantage to win your games? Do you really need to deny your opponents every single possible avenue of creative tactics to win your games? If the answer is no to either of those, then are you arguing this point just for the sake of having an argument? Do you even plan to seriously try putting 12 terminators in a valkyrie and using them in a game? Is the headache of the rules argument and bad blood through the game/tournament really worth it when you could just put 6 termies or 10 regular GK in it and not have anyone bother you?

Gwar! wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You only D6 it when it is Unclear. It is pretty clear here, from a RaW standpoint anyway. RaI i would think they should get the save, but unless Cavatore comes and gives me a noterised affidavit signed in his own blood stating that to be the RaI, I'll stick to the RaW

If it was so clear...I dont think that two ruleslawyers would be arguing so much about it.

....d6 it.

I love you too hunnybuns

You sure about that? We play it my way on a 4+ and I just rolled a "5".

...looks like you're screwed.

Spellbound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
Was it a 40k rules source? Or an IG, Daemonhunters, or main rulebook point? Didnt think so. You gonna quote some Bloodbowl or Tau rules to us next to enforce your point?

Bloodbowl is a different game, so no.

Apoc is a Different Game too.

Tau? Hell yes. If there was a passage in the Tau codex that said something akin to "In certain situations terminators may end up riding in a devilfish, in which case they count as two models" I'd totally toss that in as yet another 40k related example that states terminators as taking up 2 slots.

hate to Burst your bubble, but show me in the IG or DH codexes where it states "Grey Knight Terminators take up 2 Slots in a Valkarie" that is an Actual Rule and not Fluff.

Oh wait.... you can't.

BUT ROLLING A D6 TO DECIDE AN ARGUMENT IS BREAKING EVERY SINGLE RULE! And if its unclear that your valkyrie gets a cover save when moving then its also unclear that I win just by putting my models on the board, so lets D6 for that too.

I also think you should get over your bias against precedents. They are not Binding precedents, but they are Persuasive precedents and covering your ears to them does not make you a better interpreter of the rules. If you want to be a rules lawyer, use the same methods that lawyers do.
In most (all?) other reference to Terminators being transported, they take up 2 slots (if they can be transported at all). It is a bigger break from the rules for Valkyrie's to be the exception.

Spellbound wrote:
Look, terminators take up 2 transport slots. It's all over 40k, in all kinds of different examples. Getting into "Well, SPACE MARINE terminators aren't CHAOS SPACE MARINE terminators nor GREY KNIGHT terminators so that thing in the SM codex doesn't apply!" is really, REALLY idiotic. I can't even SAY how idiotic it is. Do you really need every single nitty gritty advantage to win your games? Do you really need to deny your opponents every single possible avenue of creative tactics to win your games? If the answer is no to either of those, then are you arguing this point just for the sake of having an argument? Do you even plan to seriously try putting 12 terminators in a valkyrie and using them in a game? Is the headache of the rules argument and bad blood through the game/tournament really worth it when you could just put 6 termies or 10 regular GK in it and not have anyone bother you?

Space Marine Assault Cannons-4 shots rending
Dark Angel Assault Cannons-4 shots rending
Blood Angel Assault Cannons-4 shots Rending
Black Templar Assault Cannons-4 shots Rending

Daemonhunter Assault Cannons (on GK Crusader)-3 shots no Rending....According to all rules and FAQ


Your arguement is a hopeless stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:BUT ROLLING A D6 TO DECIDE AN ARGUMENT IS BREAKING EVERY SINGLE RULE! And if its unclear that your valkyrie gets a cover save when moving then its also unclear that I win just by putting my models on the board, so lets D6 for that too.

I also think you should get over your bias against precedents. They are not Binding precedents, but they are Persuasive precedents and covering your ears to them does not make you a better interpreter of the rules. If you want to be a rules lawyer, use the same methods that lawyers do.
In most (all?) other reference to Terminators being transported, they take up 2 slots (if they can be transported at all). It is a bigger break from the rules for Valkyrie's to be the exception.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes yet they cannot see.

That is most definatly NOT how RAW works. Since the inception of RAW and no FAQ's the rules are indeed binding AND restrictive.

The point about this argument isn't 'does this rule make sense?'. It's not 'you are doing this for an advantage'. It's not 'Using logic and reason we can see that the rule is clearly meant to be X'

What it is, is 'The rules say X'.
In this case, from the BRB we know that infantry can ride in vehicles. We know that specific rules and rules from codexes can override this (specific > general, codex > RB).
We know that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry. We know that infantry can ride in transports unless specified otherwise (for example, in the rules for Obliterators it states that although they are infantry, they may not ride in transports.) We know there are no rules that state Grey Knight Terminators take up two slots in Valkyries in either Codex: Deamon Hunters or the RB. Finally, we know that Grey Knight Terminators are not the same as Space Marine Terminators are not the same as Tau Fire warriors.

You can argue that it makes sense that GKT's shouldn't take up only 1 slot in a Valkyrie, and you'd be right, it doesn't make sense. You could argue that it makes sense that GKT's are the same as any other terminators and should be treated as such ruleswise, and that'd be pretty reasonable. I can't imagine that many people would object if you asked to houserule it otherwise (and even if they did, I'm sure at the least they'd see your logic.)

However, and this is the important part: It is not the rules.
According to the rules, GKT's are not the same as any thing but GKT's, and they only take up one slot in Valkyries.

These are the rules, anything else is a houserule.

Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

Trasvi wrote:Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

I'll repeat:
The rulebook states that infantry can ride in transports.
The Grey Knights Codex states that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry.
Questions?

I would love someone to put 10 GKT in a Valkyrie, move flat-out, then deploy as deep-striking, scatter, then roll badly and watch the unit get destroyed. That would be funny! 800+ pts down the drain! I'd actually encourage that!

Crucius wrote:The point about this argument isn't 'does this rule make sense?'. It's not 'you are doing this for an advantage'. It's not 'Using logic and reason we can see that the rule is clearly meant to be X'

What it is, is 'The rules say X'.
In this case, from the BRB we know that infantry can ride in vehicles. We know that specific rules and rules from codexes can override this (specific > general, codex > RB).
We know that Grey Knight Terminators are infantry. We know that infantry can ride in transports unless specified otherwise (for example, in the rules for Obliterators it states that although they are infantry, they may not ride in transports.) We know there are no rules that state Grey Knight Terminators take up two slots in Valkyries in either Codex: Deamon Hunters or the RB. Finally, we know that Grey Knight Terminators are not the same as Space Marine Terminators are not the same as Tau Fire warriors.

You're comparing Apples and Oranges.
I'm comparing Pink Lady's to Royal Gala's.. A Pink Lady is not a Royal Gala is not an orbital battlestation... but the two apples do have a lot more in common with each other than either do with the battlestation, so you can apply the same rules to the apples.

You can argue that it makes sense that GKT's shouldn't take up only 1 slot in a Valkyrie, and you'd be right, it doesn't make sense. You could argue that it makes sense that GKT's are the same as any other terminators and should be treated as such ruleswise, and that'd be pretty reasonable. I can't imagine that many people would object if you asked to houserule it otherwise (and even if they did, I'm sure at the least they'd see your logic.)

However, and this is the important part: It is not the rules.
According to the rules, GKT's are not the same as any thing but GKT's, and they only take up one slot in Valkyries.

Fine. Following RAW to its logical conclusion, we reach the illogical conclusion that GKT's can ride 10 per Valkyrie. Again, I have yet to see evidence that RAW can be logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma.

These are the rules, anything else is a houserule.

See, around here, a house rule goes something like this:

"Models in terminator armour have the ability to run through walls. Place the flame template at the point that the terminator hits the wall, in the direction the terminator is running. Any models touched by the template take a S3, Ap- hit, cover/armor saves allowed. Roll a difficult terrain test: on a 1, the terminator / his unit become pinned"

Which I think is a lot different to applying rules precedents in a logical manner.

Trasvi wrote:Just because it doesn't say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can. Isn't that an argument that gets thrown around a lot on these boards? It doesn't say (explicitly) that you can't have 10 GKT's in a Valk, but its rather heavily implied.

That arguement is used when people are attempting things like "what do you mean my Grots cannot voluntarily fall back, the rules dont state that I 'cant'!" It's not exactly the same thing we're talking about here.

I also don't think I've ever seen the rule that says that precedents set by other extremely closely related rules should be ignored. Could you point the page number out to me? It might change my mind. On the other hand, most pages in the BRB (starting with rule #1) state that the RAW isn't as important as the spirit.

The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

I don't see how anyone can take such a fundamentally flawed rules set and seriously attempt to apply RAW in an absolute way without any outside influences and, still expect it to result in a logical and fair game.

As a regular Tournement player, I'll tell you thats its actually quite easy. Many of the rules questions that we all argue dont normally come up on a regular basis. I'm here to tell you that I dont expect to EVER see a fully loaded Valkrie toting 11 grey knights into combat...its just not going to happen very often. The same can be said about MOST RAW debates that result in tons of posts and pages of threads.

GBF and I filled 5-6 pages debating on whether or not Nemesis FW's can outright slay Eternal Warriors. In the many many games that I've played with my Grey Knights featuring a grand master...the issue has come up once in a game.

This fundamentally flawed ruleset can be played seriously. It truly can. You just have to have two people agreeing to "play a game" as it were, and not trying to point out each others errors in rules. RAW actually provides a good foundation for this...what you build on that foundation is up to you. You can either be lenient with each other in order to have a great game....it which case you build a strong building....or you can point out every single rules issue even if it doenst have a bearing on the game...and wind up with a game that falls apart into arguements ...or a rickety shack....if you get my analogy.

At any rate, if both players are well versed in RAW to SOME extent, you should have a decent game so long as both are willing and prepared to compromise in some small way to accomodate their opponents, but RAW is where you start, and RAW is what we discuss in YMDC.

Trasvi wrote:
See, around here, a house rule goes something like this:

"Models in terminator armour have the ability to run through walls. Place the flame template at the point that the terminator hits the wall, in the direction the terminator is running. Any models touched by the template take a S3, Ap- hit, cover/armor saves allowed. Roll a difficult terrain test: on a 1, the terminator / his unit become pinned"

Which I think is a lot different to applying rules precedents in a logical manner.

That's a pretty funny houserule.
I think you'll find however, that the most common definition of a houserule is 'a rule which differs from the official GW ruleset'
Sometimes houserules are required to allow the game to work (disembarking from a Valkyrie as an example). This does not make them any less of a houserule.

Trasvi wrote:
Fine. Following RAW to its logical conclusion, we reach the illogical conclusion that GKT's can ride 10 per Valkyrie. Again, I have yet to see evidence that RAW can be logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma.

I agree with you 90%.
However, that's not the point. The argument is not 'does RAW make sense?'. The argument is 'What is RAW?'.
If there was a typo which said Chaos Space Marines had 100 attacks, instead of 1, then as RAW goes, they would have 100 until an errata was issued. It makes no sense. It is clearly illogical. No one is going to play it like that (except as a joke perhaps). RAW does not have to be 'logically and consistently applied to every rules dilemma'. RAW is just that, Rules As Written, i.e. exactly what the rules say, word for word, regardless of meaning, logic, or sense.

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

Trasvi wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

What? It's inherently obvious that GW thinks GKT's shouldn't take up any slots at all, but had to make them take up at least one for balance (lol GW balance) purposes.
My point is, while you can hazard a fairly accurate guess what was intended, you can't know for certain (because for all we know, the GW rulemakers are some otherworldly beings on another plane of existence having a big joke at our expense, unlikely, but not impossible).

As far as a middle ground, the basic process you should use is:
1) RAW. If there is a disagreement or RAW is not clear, goto 2.
2) Discuss with your opponent. If an agreement cannot be reached, goto 3
3) Roll off.
At any point during this process feel free to pack up your stuff, although bear in mind there may be consequences outside the immediate game (tournament losses etc)

Trasvi wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:
The fact is that "spirit of the rules" can cause more arguements by playing THAT way than by playing by RAW. One man's fluff is another man's BS. In friendly games, sure, play spirit of the rules if you can agree on them, if not you have to refer to RAW, then d6ing. It's the only way of doing things. Since we're in YMDC, we bypass "spirit of the rules" because we're instantly talking about hard and fast rules...what's accepted in tournement, how refs will call it, so on and so forth. "Spirit of the rules" and fluff is VERY beside the point.

Is there not some middle ground between RAW and D6ing? (Is it called RAI?) For instance, in cases like this, where it is inherently obvious that GW thinks Terminators take up more space in a transport.

Nope.

d6ing would happen when interpretation of the rules differs between to people...such as in the cover save question that Gwar and I were debating a bit.

Concerning the number of Terminators riding in valkries, only in rulebooks that have nothing to do with the question at hand do you find rules stating that GK Terminators take up 2 spaces in a valkrie. This of course is in opposition to the rules within the main rulebook that state that rules can change from codex to codex (I.E. Smoke Launchers). This is why you can only refer to the IG and Daemonhunters codexes when trying to debate this rule. If you ONLY refer to those two books (which you should be doing) It's clear that there is no reason that Valkries should not be able to transport 10 GK terminators. You've read all rules that apply to the situation and the final ruling should be clear according to RAW. You confuse yourself when you go to other rulesources that are not to be reference in this situation....no d6ing is neccessary.

i have to say i see the point of both sides... but i really dislike the apple example, cause if one is a gala, the other another kind of apple, if it says anywheres that apples are not allowed, wouldnt that include all apples?

SonofTerra wrote:i have to say i see the point of both sides... but i really dislike the apple example, cause if one is a gala, the other another kind of apple, if it says anywheres that apples are not allowed, wouldnt that include all apples?

Lets pretend that it says in the Big Red Fruity Rulebook that Fruit take up one slot in a hamper unless otherwise specified, and in the Codex: Apples it says galas take up two slots in a hamper, but in the Codex: Gala, which is quite an old codex, it says makes no mention of how many slots galas take up.
Then if you are using a gala army from Codex: Gala, they only take up one hamper slot. If you are using Codex: Apples, your galas take up two gala slots.

I must say I find this analogy a little too fruity for my liking.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Concerning the number of Terminators riding in valkries, only in rulebooks that have nothing to do with the question at hand do you find rules stating that GK Terminators take up 2 spaces in a valkrie. This of course is in opposition to the rules within the main rulebook that state that rules can change from codex to codex (I.E. Smoke Launchers). This is why you can only refer to the IG and Daemonhunters codexes when trying to debate this rule. If you ONLY refer to those two books (which you should be doing) It's clear that there is no reason that Valkries should not be able to transport 10 GK terminators. You've read all rules that apply to the situation and the final ruling should be clear according to RAW. You confuse yourself when you go to other rulesources that are not to be reference in this situation....no d6ing is neccessary.

No, a d6 IS required, because I AM using those books and regardless of whether you THINK I shouldn't or not, I see the other MANY instances of terminators of various types all taking 2 slots as VERY important to the discussion and VERY valid and I will NOT be told that they "don't count".

And how can anyone say Apocalypse is a different game? It's the same game with certain adaptations to make bigger battles more interesting and more fun. Is Starcraft: Broodwar NOT Starcraft? Of course it's Starcraft, it's just got additional things added to it. We could play a 10,000 point game using 5 detachments and setup as per "pitched battle" if we wanted, but I think it's cool that my four vindicators can actually team up to do something special, or that my reserves can perform a dramatic flanking maneouver so I add more to the game with the expansion. In no way is the game NO LONGER Warhammer 40,000, it's just got additional rules for the scenario. That's like saying that when you play a unique mission at a tournament [Battle in the Eye of Terror for example] with special victory conditions or rules that you're no longer playing 40k, or that when you and a friend decide to play your own home-grown mission that it's no longer 40k. It's 40k armies, 40k rules....and a bit more for FUN.

Here's when you roll a d6: When you can't agree on rules. It doesn't matter if I'm pulling my reasoning from a 10 year old WD article or voices in my head. If we don't agree, we roll a d6. Your style of play differs from mine. In your style of play, Slaanesh combat drugs would make any character ABSOLUTELY INVINCIBLE FOREVER in the old chaos codex, because that's what the RAW said. Mine differs, and thus we would have to roll a d6.

It doesn't matter how clear-cut you think the rule is. We don't agree, so it's decided by a d6 or by someone packing up models and going home - or a tournament organizer, and I'd put good money down on what any halfway decent organizer would rule in this case.

I distinctly remember a thread a few weeks ago where people came to an agreement on them not getting a save because it's not a movement phase.

I'm having deja-vu reading this and thinking "did no one read the that last thread"

does anyone remember the name so we can search and link it?



Also, the game hasn't started. The movement phases only exist once the game's begun. The scout moves happen before this don't they? How can you have a movement phase when there's no game to have a phase in yet?