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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:RAW, however, Templars CAN assault out of their land raider and land raider crusaders. Anything else is blatantly ignoring RAW.

If you're playing in Germany, sure. Anywhere else, you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone that this is actually a valid source of rules.

The problem is, the rules of Warhammer 40000 are written in English, in the studio in the UK. Where translated rules differ from the original, it's somewhat nonsensical to suggest that the translated version is the correct one.

This is complicated further by the fact whoever manages the German website has a bit of a history (similar issues cropped up last edition) of just adding extra bits to their FAQs, that don't appear anywhere else. The logical conclusion being that someone in Germany is taking it on themselves to 'correct' deficiencies in the FAQs.

So the trick is in convincing people that an FAQ that appears to have been written or altered by someone not from the UK studio should be considered valid. If you're happy to use it, go for your life. But don't be too surprised if others aren't so quick to agree that the word of some un-named guy in Germany should be accepted as RAW worldwide, regardless of whether or not he says it is.



For what it's worth, I have no problem whatsoever with allowing BT Landraiders (and DH Inquisitor Landraiders as well) to use the Assault Vehicle rule. But as it stands, unless you're using the German FAQ, it's not RAW.

I did not know about the German FAQ ruling, but as has been said here I don't think it'd be cool to try that mid-game.

I am an honest player who always plays by the rules - I just think that I lost this game due to reasons outwith my control. I concede that I shouldn't have tried to assault with the terminators, but in the heat of the game it was very difficult not to make that assumption, especially given what had happened earlier.

SaintHazard wrote:

Pika_power wrote:Any chance of a translation of that line in the German errata?

"Modelle, die das Fahrzeug durch irgendeine seiner Zugangsluken verlassen, duerfen im Speilzeug des Aussteigens noch angriefen."

Apologies if I get this wrong, my German is a tad rusty, but:

"Models that disembark by any of the vehicle(referencing the Land Raider)'s access points may in the game turn they disembark also assault."

Did I miss anything?

You missed the part which apparently states "This also applies to the English Codex". Unless of course, that line isn't there, in which case you missed nothing.

I didn't see a line that said that. Again, I could have just missed it.

I happen to agree with Insianiak on this one, to a degree - if the tournament is held in the US, UK, Australia, or New Zealand where the national language is English, the English errata and FAQs apply. If it's in Germany or Austria, where the national language is German, the German errata and FAQs apply. That's my opinion on that matter.

As I said, it's a bit of a stretch, but since every other marine codex includes the assault vehicle rule (except maybe DA? Haven't read that one) and the BT HAD the rule before GW screwed up, the RAI is clearly that templars are supposed to have the rule in their dex (and yes, I opened the "clearly something is RAI this way" can o' worms). But really, does it matter who wrote the FAQ? It's on GW's web page, thus it's official.

SaintHazard wrote:I didn't see a line that said that. Again, I could have just missed it.

It's above the page ref. "Deutscher/Englisher Codex:". Shouldn't need translation tho'.

By the way, isnt smoke launchers in the main rulebook (making them follow 5th ed) while specific rules for BT terminator assault is in the codex (and not mentiones in the main rule book,making it 4th ed). I guess the problem for the TO wass that smoke is described in the codices in 4th ed, but in the rulebook in 5th, while termies is still codex specifics? At least in the SW codex, the smoke launcher rules just tell me to read the main rules.

IMO the TO was way out of line, I would have stopped playing there and asked for a refund on the entry fee.

If he wants to enforce your Smoke Launchers as being 5th edition, then he really ought to fix your LR so it works as it clearly was intended to as well.

The Eldar player should be ashamed of himself as well, those shenanigans are ridiculous.

Fayric wrote:By the way, isnt smoke launchers in the main rulebook (making them follow 5th ed) while specific rules for BT terminator assault is in the codex (and not mentiones in the main rule book,making it 4th ed). I guess the problem for the TO wass that smoke is described in the codices in 4th ed, but in the rulebook in 5th, while termies is still codex specifics? At least in the SW codex, the smoke launcher rules just tell me to read the main rules.

It doesn't matter.

The codex always supercedes the BRB, and smoke launchers are a piece of wargear found in codices.

liam0404 wrote:I am an honest player who always plays by the rules - I just think that I lost this game due to reasons outwith my control. I concede that I shouldn't have tried to assault with the terminators, but in the heat of the game it was very difficult not to make that assumption, especially given what had happened earlier.

Don't make that concession. You were right to try and assault out of that Land Raider.

This isn't a situation like 4++ vs. 3++ Storm Shields. BT Land Raiders have "Assault Ramps." Look at their unit entry. The problem is that "Assault Ramps" went from being a USR in the main rulebook to being printed in each Codex that uses the rule. I don't game in the UK, but I suspect that most gaming groups that have encountered this problem have "read in" the full Assault Ramp rule. (As the INAT does.)

In your particular case, the argument in favor of benefiting from the full rule is watertight. The only justification to using "modern" smoke launchers for an older Codex is an extremely liberal (and uncommon) view that old rules should be "modernized" whenever possible. If you subscribe to that view, it's impossible to deny a BT Land Raider it's Assault Ramps.

There's no way to argue that the Judge didn't make at least one indefensible ruling. And I'd argue he blew both calls.

Watertight nothing.

The opponent was wrong the first time, and he was wrong the second time. Neither should have been allowed.

Two wrongs don't make a right - even though the bad call had happened earlier, OP should not have tried to take liberties based on assumptions that everything was being "updated."

It's not entirely his fault, but don't pat him on the head for it.

Fayric wrote:By the way, isnt smoke launchers in the main rulebook (making them follow 5th ed) while specific rules for BT terminator assault is in the codex (and not mentiones in the main rule book,making it 4th ed).

The Smoke Launcher rules in the main rulebook specifically tell you that when the codex has different Smoke Launcher rules, to use the codex version.

@Liam: That sucks man. I suppose the current trend in this thread is to rag on you, because you didn't obey the holy texts of of the BRB, (Big Red Bible, apparently) to the letter, but from what's been presented in this thread, I think you were in the right, and your opponent and the TO were in they wrong. They have no business holding you to outdated rules in some situations and then going so far as to disqualify you for expecting that trend to be maintained. RAI you should clearly have the ability to make the move you wanted to, anyway. Once he declared that some 5th rules would take precedence, they all did. No one gets to pick and choose in the middle of the game, IMO.

Whenever I go up against Dark Angels or Black Templars, I usually have a long discussion before the game regarding these very issues. My opponent and I will work out what is actually fair and fun for both of us rather than rigidly adhere to boring and sub par rules.

That said, I like the 5th ed. smoke launcher rules far more anyway. I'd prefer the chance to negate any damage then still have to accept some.

Commander Endova wrote:That said, I like the 5th ed. smoke launcher rules far more anyway. I'd prefer the chance to negate any damage then still have to accept some.

BT Land Raiders with smoke popped in cover. Kill that if you can.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:That said, I like the 5th ed. smoke launcher rules far more anyway. I'd prefer the chance to negate any damage then still have to accept some.

BT Land Raiders with smoke popped in cover. Kill that if you can.

Fair enough. Although, since Land raider sized cover isn't always available and is a vehicle designed to move forward to deploy infantry into melee, I think I'll still take the 5th ed. ones.

These sorts of arguments are a constant sort of frustration for us Black Templar players.

We are supposed to use 5th edition rules for Smoke Launchers and Land Raiders, but wait - you still need to use the old 4+ storm shield and POTMS too! It's like a selective form of neutering our codex.

We, just like our opponents, cannot choose which rules to update and which to not.

We get the oldskool smoke launchers (downgrades to glancing) and we do get to assault from our land raiders, as the German FAQ does specifically list itself as an English FAQ. Odd? Yes. Hard to extract? Absolutely. But it is RAW.

On the other hand, we also have to use a BS of 2 for our POTMS (which sucks big time), cannot fire if moving over 6 inches, and our storm shields are close combat, 4+ only.

The TO blew it IMHO. And his disqualifying you was straight-up baloney, unless you were being a major ass while arguing with him.

Fxeni wrote:We are supposed to use 5th edition rules for Smoke Launchers...

Once again, the 5th edition rules are to use the version printed in your codex...

insaniak wrote:

Fxeni wrote:We are supposed to use 5th edition rules for Smoke Launchers...

Once again, the 5th edition rules are to use the version printed in your codex...

I'm aware, hehe. My point is that people neglect that portion of the rule and like to argue we get the 4+ smoke regardless. It's like I said - some people pick and choose what to read and what to accept.

I don't think anyone has debated that the ruling should have been -BT codex smoke, BT codex Assault Ramps (which do nothing).

The thrust of the people supporting Liam is GIVEN the position taken on the first issue, the ruling on the second is inconsistent. One is RAD(Rules Arbitrarily Determined) and the other is RAW.

Many thanks for all your replies on this one guys. I know that my reaction in the game was perhaps not constructive, but I challenge any competitive player on here to not feel frustrated given the same situation. RAW is the law at the end of the day, but all too often there is no common sense in the land of 40k. I'm happy to abide by RAW (I religiously ensure I do target priority too as BT has that penalty ) but where does the blind faith in RAW stop and the fun begin?

Warhammer is supposed to be fun after all.

liam0404 wrote:... but where does the blind faith in RAW stop and the fun begin?

That comes down entirely to the two people standing at the table. Or the judge, in the case of organised play.

For my own games, I'll follow RAW except where I feel it doesn't make sense, or leads to a silly situation. But I'm quite willing to accept that any other player's interpretation of what makes sense, or whether a given situation is a silly loophole or a tactical bit of thinking may differ from my own. Which is in large part why I prefer playing with an established group of players where we're all familiar with each other's way of playing, than pick-up games.

I don't think anyone has debated that the ruling should have been -BT codex smoke, BT codex Assault Ramps (which do nothing).

They have. He should be allowed to assault from his LR (his reasoning for doing so I disagreed with). They have the assault ramps rule which used to be in the BrB. It was ommitted from the current version but it is still clear what they do and as others have pointed out it is covered in an Official GW FAQ. Just like I know what Target locks do for Tau (which again isn't nothing). As I know what Scout does for Space Wolf Scouts etc...

You can play strict RaW if you want but then you're not playing 40k, in fact you're not even playing a playable game and you are making up lots of houserules...

This is all true.

Then again, YMDC is not a forum to discuss potential house rules.

It's a forum for discussing and interpreting RAW.

You play a codex which has questionable rules in the latest edition. There is obviously confusion and a variety of interpretations of how they should be played due to the number of debates we see. You need to approach the organiser before you play and ask wether they want to play BRB< or >codex. It doesn't matter what the actual RAW are because the TO has the final word and, as we see here, can be regarded as inflaible in his tourney. This gives you one of two sets of rules to play by and immunity from opponent dickery.

It is definitely unfair that you should have to go to extra lengths just to play your army, but to do anything else seems foolish, especially considering what happened here.

I think that if the decision was that the newer rules overrode the BT: Codex rules, then the concession is that if there is no specific BT rules to go by, then the BT rules are voided and the Vanilla SM rules would enter into effect.

Having said that. Sounds like the TO was being unfair in his rulings. Not saying you were robbed, but I would definately consider not participating in the tourney's hosted by that TOP. Vote with your wallet, if enough people have the same problems, the Shop Owners will get a new TO.

My $0.02....

GERMAN/ENGLISH CODEX:
Page 42, Land Raider and Land Raider Crusader. Supplement both tanks with the following special rule:
Assault Vehicle:
Models disembarking from any access point on a Land Raider can launch an assault on the turn they do so.

Thats the complete translation from the German FAQ, which I keep printed out and that bit translated.

I have come across people who have tried to argue the BRB over the BT codex with Smoke Launchers, but then won't let me assault from my LRC.

In those cases I pack up and leave, I won't play someone trying to bend and abuse the rules to put me at a disadvantage and them at an advantage.

I think it's funny that the opponent knew about the LRC which seems like something you wouldn't know unless you studied the codex, but he was ignorant of the smoke launchers?!?!

TFG?

The english book says to use the FAQ on the GW site (I can only assume this is true in other languages).

When visiting the site, it asks where you are.

If you are not in Germany, you should not be able to find that German FAQ on the site.

Unless you are being dishonest--which is never a place to be in a debate about being correct.

That is honestly ridiculous, if you change the rules for one thing, you change the rules for all things, especially in a tournament. There are plenty of places where it says codex trumps all (or most? not sure). Just because BT doesnt have an updated rulebook doesn't mean you just go willy nilly with your power and ruin someones chances of winning a bit of money... all that money could probably pay for your whole army.

liam0404 wrote:@Cheexsta - I was disqualified because this was my "second" attempt at a rule breach in the same game - as per the rules of that particular tournament that was it - two strikes and you're out.

IMO you got hosed on the first ruling. Disqualifying you for that is pretty ridiculous.

Having an ignorant TO happens. They're people and not rules machines. Sure, he didn't make the correct decisions according to the rules, and these are easy mistakes to make, but it does seem like the Eldar guy knew about the discrepancies and wanted to meta-game on them. Maybe he didn't try to get anyone disqualified, but from all the descriptions we have it does seem like he's popping the rules questions simply to entrap his opponent into making bad moves.
I.e. "I'll wait until he's disembarked before I tell him his codex doesn't have the rules for assault ramps and that'll leave his squad open to fire."

Doesn't make him TFG by default, but it certainly helps pushing him in that direction.