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.

It's not hardcore RAW, it's avoiding using a term incorrectly that WILL cause confusion - both DoW and Outflanking will be playued incorrectly* if you dont play "hardcore" RAW. By default that is how the game is played - you check if you want to houserule, not if you want to play the actual rules.

You mistake rage for finding it amusing that Steelmage tried to correct the OP in a long winded and obtuse fashion while getting it SO wrong...

*If you dont think this is wrong, have a 2x 20 unit platoons deploy in DOW and watch as it guns you down as you arrive from reserves. The use of "unit" also fails as DoW even reminds you that vehicles are units...

Nosferatu, please drop the crusade on the term "unit."

I don't believe anyone was trying to deploy entire platoons in DoW. The only thing I was suggesting you discuss before the game is if the platoon would come in from outflanking as a single platoon "RAI" or spread out on either side of the board "RAW."

Even then you cannot really claim "RAI", as it is only rules how you think they were intended. Any reliance on fluff can be made to support either side.

Playing the actual rules is far simpler...

As we have demonstrated, there may be disagreements on what the "RAI" were, and therefor it would be a good idea to discuss it briefly with your opponent before the game.

There is no problem discussing changes to the rules before the game, however there should be no expectation that you will be able to force a change just because you decide that "RAI" this is what was meant.

Hence simply expecting to play by the rules makes things far simpler, and reduces the amount of discussion before the game, making more time to actually, you know, PLAY the game....

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no problem discussing changes to the rules before the game, however there should be no expectation that you will be able to force a change just because you decide that "RAI" this is what was meant.

Hence simply expecting to play by the rules makes things far simpler, and reduces the amount of discussion before the game, making more time to actually, you know, PLAY the game....

Even if it just flies in the face of common sense? Oh wait, we're talking about GW here.

Given the entire game is an abstraction of a fantasy universe that is self contradictory there is no such thing as common sense.

How do you rationalise the outflank rolls at all with common sense? Surely "common sense" the commander would know where the battle was taking place and be abkle to, you know, say which side of the damn field the scouts shoud appear from....?

Which is why "common sense" is utterly bunk in a game of 40k. Common sense has a terminator not being felled by 1 lasgun shot, but its happened to me twice now.... (technically a laspistol, when the meltas in the vet squad either missed or failed to wound...)

Them the breaks.

And that termie dying to a lasgun is why I think it's funny when people see the 2+ save and go must have, they will not die.

Meh, I remember 3+ saves on 2D6....absolute PITA to roll them, but they were almost unstoppable....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You mistake rage for finding it amusing that Steelmage tried to correct the OP in a long winded and obtuse fashion while getting it SO wrong...

Oh My God!. This is why I am saying that you completely and continuously miss the point of my original post.

I did not try to correct the OP. Go back and read my first post.
I asked him to clarify what had prompted him to ask the question.

You, on the other hand, found it necessary to latch on to a detail in one of my examples.
A detail that was part of a greater attempt at getting the OP to clarify. A detail that, in no way, detracted from the main point of my post, namely the need for clarification.
Doing that you derailed the thread.

I totally agree with you that a Platoon can never be one, single unit in the eyes of the rules.
The original issue, as mentioned by the OP, might have sprung up due to just this.
We both agree that the Platoon might have mistakenly been thought and spoken of as being one unit, across the table, during Reserve rolls.

This might have been the reason for the original issue. THIS was what I was trying to determine.

Well, that was a productive use of everyone's time.