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.

P.S. By Gwar Baiting, He means people trying to Bait me into flaming them.

Is this RAW or RAI ? Esplane!

Orkestra wrote:I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

If anyone was at fault for starting this chaos, it was Gwar!. The African Blond merely pointed out that the DA FAQ says that, with opponent's permission, you may use the updated rules for wargear from Codex: Shadowy Angles. Gwar! then felt obligated to insinuate that playing using that bit of the DA codex is wrong. While the bickering that followed was not excusable, you can't claim that Gwar! was innocent.

Globzog wrote:

P.S. By Gwar Baiting, He means people trying to Bait me into flaming them.

Is this RAW or RAI ? Esplane!

RAI ... Raw involves cookies and hard liquor

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:For example, I'm not going to tell someone they can't infiltrate a unit with Shrike during deployment because the RaW says you can't, when I believe this is just a product of poor quality writing.

And I would tell them they cannot, because that is what the rules say. If they don't like it, they are cheating, because the Rules are clear as day.

No, if they don't like it they can ask to house rule it (as you are told you are allowed to do). If you disagree then it should work as printed. If they don't enjoy the game that way, they shouldn't play you again.

Cheating would be if they did it anyway knowing it was not legal without their opponents consent.

Kaaihn wrote:Cheating would be if they did it anyway knowing it was not legal without their opponents consent.

Doing it even with the opponent knowing is cheating, because it is breaking the rules.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Cheating would be if they did it anyway knowing it was not legal without their opponents consent.

Doing it even with the opponent knowing is cheating, because it is breaking the rules.

Nonsense. One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule. You don't have to agree to change a rule, but saying that both agreeing and changing something is breaking the rules is itself cheating.

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Cheating would be if they did it anyway knowing it was not legal without their opponents consent.

Doing it even with the opponent knowing is cheating, because it is breaking the rules.

Nonsense. One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule. You don't have to agree to change a rule, but saying that both agreeing and changing something is breaking the rules is itself cheating.

Ok then, every single rules discussion on this forum should boil down to:

"I made a House rule where I win on a 1+"

End. If you don't agree, you are TFG and a Cheater.

Gwar is it really true you work for GW?

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Cheating would be if they did it anyway knowing it was not legal without their opponents consent.

Doing it even with the opponent knowing is cheating, because it is breaking the rules.

Nonsense. One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule. You don't have to agree to change a rule, but saying that both agreeing and changing something is breaking the rules is itself cheating.

Ok then, every single rules discussion on this forum should boil down to:

"I made a House rule where I win on a 1+"

End. If you don't agree, you are TFG and a Cheater.

Where do you come up with this stuff? A house rule has to be agreed on by both players, or it isn't used.

Refusing to recognize the written rule that you are allowed to customize the game if both players agree would be ignoring a piece of RaW, and thus cheating.

If your opponent agrees that that you win the game on a 1+, then you do. No cheating has occurred. If he doesn't agree, then you don't, and still no cheating has occurred.

If you ask for a house rule that says you win on a 1+ and your opponent says you are cheating to even ask, he is the one that just cheated by ignoring a clear piece of RaW.

See the difference? By RaW, you are allowed to ask for a house rule, and your opponent is allowed to say no.

Gwar!, noone ever said that you had to follow what people thought was a good house rule. Kaaihn just said that you can't pretend TMIR doesn't exist.

Kaaihn wrote:One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule.

Therefore, by your own admission, if I propose to change the rules, and you refuse, you are cheating, because I can "decide to change the rules".

I see you are ignoring my question.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I see you are ignoring my question.

Yes, because you are an ignorable person.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule.

Therefore, by your own admission, if I propose to change the rules, and you refuse, you are cheating, because I can "decide to change the rules".

Nope. In context with the entirety of TMIR, the 'you' in the sentence in question is plural, not singular. You both need to agree for the rule to change.

-If you propose to change the rule and I refuse, no cheating has occurred.
-If you propose to change the rule and I agree, no cheating has occurred.
-If you propose to change the rule and I say 'that would be cheating', then I just cheated by ignoring a piece of RaW that makes it allowed for you to ask.

So Gwar I will take it you are in fact not an employee of GW.

tri wrote:
RAI ... Raw involves cookies and hard liquor

So that's why everyone's so excited about RaW around here. Hell, cookies and hard liquor would make my games of 40K more fun. But not too much more fun (imagines the chaos that would ensue).

My point wasn't 'someone here is innocent' or 'someone is guilty'. More along the lines of 'hey look, a thread about dark angles which is on page two of two members arguing about things that are CLEARLY not angles'.

Maybe you should take it to PMs? It's more fun, because then people worry less about being clever and impressing everyone else with how much more awesome they are, and can get really nasty.

so simply put house rules are fine, if playing with friends on rules you have agreed with since gwar likes playing exactly as raw thats how he plays thats how i play and thats how tournaments work so why not get used to the rules as there supposed to be?

kight wrote:so simply put house rules are fine, if playing with friends on rules you have agreed with since gwar likes playing exactly as raw thats how he plays thats how i play and thats how tournaments work so why not get used to the rules as there supposed to be?

Tournaments use house rules all the time. It's important to understand how the printed RAW works, and to recognize that house rules get used in most games in some form or another. House rules, if agreed on by both are not cheating, even in a single game in most tournaments.

The tournaments I have been in and seen run don't tell people they may not do something that is not pure RAW if they both agree to it, as the rules say they can. In the event of a dispute, a judge will generally, but not always, rule by RAW. That's the same thing as what I have been saying is in effect in a normal game. Use RAW unless you both agree to something different.

You can absolutely play Dark Angels and ask your opponent in a tournament if he minds if you can use 5th edition wargear rules. He is under no obligation whatsoever to say yes, and the FAQ gives guidance to a TO that they shouldn't force it either. But your opponent can say yes if he wants to.

Yeah no, I am either painting a specialty chapter, or painting one from thee SM codex. I won't be painting anything and then using another codex. We always play by the rules whenever possible. We also play what you see is what you get unless we are experimenting with new builds / using unfinished guys.

My biggest issue with the GW FAQ for the DA is that it makes me the @$$hole. In my opinion, i can't field termies as troops in my ultramarines army, why should a DA player get to use a land raider redeemer? The way GW worded that, it basically says, "Make an army list comprised of all the coolies of the DA army and all the new good shiny things the 5E SM's got. When codex DA came out, i wasnt allowed to give all my ultramarines bolt pistols was I? No, of course not. it's not in my codex. That is why this rule pisses me off so much. DA shouldn't get to use SM equipment thats not in their codex because it's NOT in their effin codex. I shouldn't have to be the guy on the other side of the table sayin," No, i won't allow you to take a Redeemer or storm shields that give you 3+invul from shooting". Then I, by following the rules of the game that EVERY army is forced to adhere to (select only from this codex), become the jerk that he is gonna complain about being unfriendly and unsportsmanlike. I don't ask people to allow me to run other Land raider variants in my WH army, or ask to let my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers use the new AP3 hellguns, cause they aren't like that in MY codex. I think GW should have gave a concrete ruling on this, yes or no. my .02

Son of Guilliman wrote:My biggest issue with the GW FAQ for the DA is that it makes me the @$$hole. In my opinion, i can't field termies as troops in my ultramarines army, why should a DA player get to use a land raider redeemer? The way GW worded that, it basically says, "Make an army list comprised of all the coolies of the DA army and all the new good shiny things the 5E SM's got. When codex DA came out, i wasnt allowed to give all my ultramarines bolt pistols was I? No, of course not. it's not in my codex. That is why this rule pisses me off so much. DA shouldn't get to use SM equipment thats not in their codex because it's NOT in their effin codex. I shouldn't have to be the guy on the other side of the table sayin," No, i won't allow you to take a Redeemer or storm shields that give you 3+invul from shooting". Then I, by following the rules of the game that EVERY army is forced to adhere to (select only from this codex), become the jerk that he is gonna complain about being unfriendly and unsportsmanlike. I don't ask people to allow me to run other Land raider variants in my WH army, or ask to let my Inquisitorial Stormtroopers use the new AP3 hellguns, cause they aren't like that in MY codex. I think GW should have gave a concrete ruling on this, yes or no. my .02

I found trying to use 5th edition rules for DA is much simpler and far more palatable if you stick to the Wargear list only. Anything in the DA codex that is listed specifically in the Wargear list would then use the updated rules for that item.

That means not using a different codexes profile stats for units, no redeemers, etc. Just updated Wargear rules. Works very smoothly that way.

And I will see your two cents, and raise you another two cents by agreeing with you 100% that GW really took the pansy way out on this. They really need to change their thinking about their web-based support for the game. BA FAQ is online only, they could easily have updated all the codexes to use fifth wargear and released the changes as an online supplement. GW seem to be technophobes in many ways.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Orkestra wrote:
I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

Gwar ruins many threads. Apparently this okay.

So stop encouraging the troll. Put him on your Ignore list and enjoy the golden silence.

Nurglitch wrote:So stop encouraging the troll. Put him on your Ignore list and enjoy the golden silence.

Ignore is for people who cannot deal with their problems.

Gwar! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:So stop encouraging the troll. Put him on your Ignore list and enjoy the golden silence.

Ignore is for people who cannot deal with their problems.

Ignore is for problems not worth dealing with.

I'm not saying you fit into that category; I'm saying that looking down on people for using ignore is ridiculous. Random internet troll #4287491 is not worth any of my time, ignore is the correct answer.

Kaaihn wrote:I'm not saying you fit into that category; I'm saying that looking down on people for using ignore is ridiculous. Random internet troll #4287491 is not worth any of my time, ignore is the correct answer.

Except I am not random Internet troll. People ignore me because they are jealous of me, because they do not like me being right, always following the rules etc. It is sad and pathetic that because they cannot form an argument to counter mine they feel the need to "Ignore" me.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:I'm not saying you fit into that category; I'm saying that looking down on people for using ignore is ridiculous. Random internet troll #4287491 is not worth any of my time, ignore is the correct answer.

Except I am not random Internet troll. People ignore me because they are jealous of me, because they do not like me being right, always following the rules etc. It is sad and pathetic that because they cannot form an argument to counter mine they feel the need to "Ignore" me.

You have said it yourself, you are blunt. Blunt on a message board typically just comes off as rude in many cases. Why would someone put up with that if they don't have to?

Ignore is for people being obnoxious (as in rude, insulting, etc) enough that you just don't have any interest in anything else they have to say. Someone could have a brilliant point to make, but if they start it off by being insulting, I stop caring about whatever they are saying and move on to the next post by someone else. If I notice that style as a standard from someone, they will probably end up on ignore.

Kaaihn wrote:You have said it yourself, you are blunt. Blunt on a message board typically just comes off as rude in many cases. Why would someone put up with that if they don't have to?

Ignore is for people being obnoxious (as in rude, insulting, etc) enough that you just don't have any interest in anything else they have to say. Someone could have a brilliant point to make, but if they start it off by being insulting, I stop caring about whatever they are saying and move on to the next post by someone else. If I notice that style as a standard from someone, they will probably end up on ignore.

Well then that is a character flaw in you, not in me.

Really? You are interested in what some random foul mouthed 10 year old screaming at you is actually saying? You honestly think that because I'm not, I have a character flaw?

And yes, people that can't manage to maintain a basic level of politeness are just as useless to actually listen to as some random foul mouthed 10 year old. A worthless source is a worthless source.

Kaaihn wrote:Really? You are interested in what some random foul mouthed 10 year old screaming at you is actually saying? You honestly think that because I'm not, I have a character flaw?

You already admitted that I am not some Foul Mouthed 10 year old, I am just blunt. If you ignore me because of that, it is you who has the flawed character, not me.

Your missing the point. How rude someone finds someone else is relative, and largely going to be based on whether it was directed at them personally. You have never been rude or insulting to me personally, so I have no reason to ignore you.

That may not be the case with others, so they may have completely valid reason to ignore you.