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.

BuFFo wrote:

Insaniak wrote:But, as I said before, I doubt it's meant to work that way. Frankly, I doubt the writer even considered the idea that players would want to field the Duke without having the appropriate unit there for him to join, since it would defy the point of him having the special rule in the first place.

Or, you want to field him in a Cult list with Wyches because he helps out wyches with his drug rule. Why didn't Lelith or a Succubus get the rule for an additional drug roll then?

I find it odd he has a rule which is meant to help out Wych Units, but he cannot be deployed with said army?

Just an observation.

Personally, I think he's designed to be fielded with a combined arms type army. He buffs Trueborn/Warrios, Wych cult units, and vehicles, so it would make sense for an army to include all of these to make best use of his abilities; at least, from a fluff perspective it does.

Mann: you are free to take Sliscus whith or whithout Kabalites of some sort, you just cannot deploy him.

If it was not a KP scenario and you had the points to burn you could freely take the Duke, utilize his Contraband and low orbit raid Special rules then never deploy him(since you do not have the unit required to actually deploy him); then at the end of game he counts as destroyed. You can do the same thing in KP missions but you net a free KP for your enemy. He is only 1/10th of a 1500 point army so it's not like you are loosing too many points, plus you get the Contraband rules.

For this reason when writing a Wych-cuklt list i included him and a Cheap unit of Trueborn(well not really "cheap" I added 9 with Carbines and a Raider; but that was more to spend more of his "points" cost on upgrading the unit with better weapons) For 265 points you can take him, 5 Warriors and a Raider with Splinter racks(that is less than some other Armies Special characters and you gain 3 units for the cost)

Kommissar Kel wrote:If it was not a KP scenario and you had the points to burn you could freely take the Duke, utilize his Contraband and low orbit raid Special rules then never deploy him(since you do not have the unit required to actually deploy him); then at the end of game he counts as destroyed.

If you're taking the hardline 'Must deploy with a Warrior or Trueborn unit' appoach, I would think here that, going by the current rulebook FAQ on units in Reserve being unable to move onto the table, he is going to count as destroyed the moment he passes a Reserve roll. No need to wait until the end of the game.

I would basically count him as destroyed at initial Deployment(i.e. when reserves are withheld to begin with).

I mean sure you could put him in reserve, but what would be the point?

solkan wrote:Claiming that just because the rule's condition isn't possible means that it becomes optional invites any number of abuses.

Should we start claiming that a Tyranid army which has lost its synapse creatures is now immune to Instinctive Behavior? That Eldar Wraithlords and Wraithguard in an army without warlocks get to ignore Wraithsight?

That is a very large, incorrect over-generalization. Both Tyranids and Wrath warriors have those special rules that are always in effect. It is dependent on said unit to not have that rule in effect. The Duke's rule is a benefit,not a penalty.

The rule for said deployment is not listed as a general rule, as, say, an Emperor's Champion is. The rule stating specific deployment is clearly under a special rule, that of the Serpent's Bite. RAI, and arguably RAW, mean that this only matters for that specific special ability to work. If they wanted the Duke to only be playable with either Warriors or Trueborn, they would have specifically stated something along the lines of

"To select Duke Sliscus as an HQ, you MUST have either a squad of Kabalite Warriors or Kabalite Trueborn in your army," as the Emperor's Champion specifically states.

What part of must in this rule are people not seeing? That means to legally field him, you follow that rule. Period. If you don't deploy him into a Kabalite Warrior or Trueborn squad, I would say he can't be deployed at all and counts as destroyed for game purposes. Simple as that. If it has said may, this might be an argument, but must seals the deal, imo.

This argument smacks of Easter Egg hunting. If he could only be used in an army with either KT or KW, they would either have made him an upgrade character for said units or make KT or KW 1+ when he is in the army.

Homer

em_en_oh_pee wrote:What part of must in this rule are people not seeing? That means to legally field him, you follow that rule. Period. If you don't deploy him into a Kabalite Warrior or Trueborn squad, I would say he can't be deployed at all and counts as destroyed for game purposes. Simple as that. If it has said may, this might be an argument, but must seals the deal, imo.

What part of that specification being in a special abilities use are people not seeing? The reason why "must" is in that is so his use to upgrade posioned weapons is used specifically with those units. Most likely so people wouldn't do silly things like giving Wracks 3+ poison in close combat, or attempting to give units poison when they don't have it.

Vishra; were that the Case the rule could still have just as easily stated May. as in pick a unit of these specified unit types, the duke may be deployed with them, they get 3+ poison.

Also GW could have just as easily thrown in 1 more sentence in that rule: "If there are no Kabalite warriors or Kabalite trueborn in your army, Duke Sliscus may be deployed as normal."

I agree the RAI seems to be that the bonus to poison weapons is intended but I think it is not intended to make it mandatory to take a Trueborn or Kalabite to field him just to benefit from this rule. Just that this bonus is unuseable if you don't have a Trueborn or Kalabite.

However it is vague and therefore open to house rule at this point with a hope that it will be clarified in a FAQ.

solkan wrote:Claiming that just because the rule's condition isn't possible means that it becomes optional invites any number of abuses.

Should we start claiming that a Tyranid army which has lost its synapse creatures is now immune to Instinctive Behavior? That Eldar Wraithlords and Wraithguard in an army without warlocks get to ignore Wraithsight?

The best one is that, if you look at the rules, there's nothing requiring you to bring dice. Clearly, this means that any rule that requires you to roll dice is optional if you didn't bring any.

Honestly, I think people should accept that the rule was poorly written. RAW, you have to have warriors or trueborn to deploy the Duke. RAI, maybe or maybe not... but if I were planning out my army without waiting for the FAQ ruling, I wouldn't assume he could get out of it. Bring a unit of warriors or trueborn... it's not as if they're bad, anyway, especially with the upgrade.

Nothing in his rules specifically state he must be deployedwitb KT or KW to be deployed. Its the serpents venom special rule, that to use must be deployed as above. If you want the serpents venom, deploy him with KW or KT. otherwise he acts as IC and whatever. I don't have my 'dex handy, but if he required KT/KW to use then his entry would be similar to vects Dias, "must deploy carrying x" it's not. It simply says, pick unit of x or y, deploy him with it, and choice gets a buff. Telling me otherwise in a game gets you an auto win as I pack up and leave.

insaniak wrote: The problem is, if you can't pick, you're left with a rule that has to apply that you can not resolve, as you are not given an option. Picking a unit is presented as a requirement, not a choice. So if you have no applicable unit to choose, you're left in a rules limbo, as there is no way provided by the rules to resolve the situation.

I think the answer is really fairly simple. The rule is under the Special Rules for that character. In order for the Duke to have The Seprent's Venom Special Rule, there must be a unit of either Kabalite Warriors or Kabalite Trueborn in the army and the Duke must be deployed with one of them.

If there are none, then the Duke does not get The Serpent's Venom Special Rule.

This is similat to Urien Rakarth's Father of Pain Special Rule. He starts with a pain token. You also get pain tokens for D3 units at the beginning of the game, but these must be Wrack or Grotesque units. Does this mean that you must have Wracks or Grotesques to field Urien? No, but if you don't have either one, you don't roll for D3 units to get pain tokens.

He doesn't meet the criteria for that special rule to kick in, so it does not apply. Nothing in the rules says that it is a requirement. IMO, I think it's pretty clear.

Right but urien doesn't say must, if it said you must give d3 tokens to X units ... that'd be a better comparison

As it stands right now if you don't have what you need to deploy duke than well he can't be deployed imo

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Right but urien doesn't say must, if it said you must give d3 tokens to X units ... that'd be a better comparison

As it stands right now if you don't have what you need to deploy duke than well he can't be deployed imo

But my point is that in order to gain the special rule, you have to have to meet the requirements.

Urien has the Father of Pain special rule, but it has no effect if there are no Wracks or Grotesques in the army, so the rule is disregarded.

The Duke has The Serpent's Venom special rule, but it only affects units of Kabalite Warriors or Trueborn. If there are none in the army, the rule has no effect and so can be disregarded.

It would be different if somewhere it said the Duke can only be selected if there were a Kabalite Warrior or Trueborn unit in the army.

time wizard wrote:
But my point is that in order to gain the special rule, you have to have to meet the requirements.

Urien has the Father of Pain special rule, but it has no effect if there are no Wracks or Grotesques in the army, so the rule is disregarded.

The Duke has The Serpent's Venom special rule, but it only affects units of Kabalite Warriors or Trueborn. If there are none in the army, the rule has no effect and so can be disregarded.

It would be different if somewhere it said the Duke can only be selected if there were a Kabalite Warrior or Trueborn unit in the army.

Actually, as Father of Pain is written, I'd say you have to have at least 3 units of wracks or grotesques in your army if you have Urien. Not that anybody's likely to complain, since there's not any point to not having lots of wracks and grotesques in an army with Urien.

Serpents venom does not only effect Kabalites though; it directly effects sliscus as he Must deploy with his chosen unit.

Father of pain just grants special abilities to the questioned units.

It doesn't need to say that you can only select Sliscus in your army if you have a unit of kabalites; you can only deploy him if you have one.

As i said before select him all you want; you reap benefits for his cost(especially in an all-drug using army like a wych cult). But you can never deploy him without the kabalites so he is destroyed before the game even starts.

time wizard wrote:I think the answer is really fairly simple. The rule is under the Special Rules for that character. In order for the Duke to have The Seprent's Venom Special Rule, there must be a unit of either Kabalite Warriors or Kabalite Trueborn in the army and the Duke must be deployed with one of them.

If there are none, then the Duke does not get The Serpent's Venom Special Rule.

Yes, and the Decapitator's Special Rules include Shade Stalker. If you deploy normally with the Decapitator, you can't hold him in reserve, so the rule obviously doesn't apply then. Having to hold him in reserve is only necessary if you want to use the Shade Stalker rule.
[/sarcasm]

Again: RAI, it's debatable. RAW, it's not. The Duke MUST DEPLOY with a unit of warriors or trueborn. Not "if there is a unit of warriors or trueborn." Claiming rules are optional if you don't have the appropriate pieces is only slightly less silly than claiming that you can choose the results of your dice rules if you forgot your dice. (Because, as I pointed out before, there's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice.)

DaveL wrote:(Because, as I pointed out before, there's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice.)

True enough, and there is nothing in the rules that requires you to bring an army, or a measuring device, or a template, or blast markers or even a rulebook. Except maybe for the items listed on page vi and vii of the rulebook that tell you what you need to play the game. But this is all beside the point.

As far as the Duke, I think it is still a bit unclear if you need to have a warrior or trueborn unit to have the Duke, but hopefully a future FAQ will clarify it. The Serpent's Venom rule is written poorly and needs some clarification.

time wizard wrote:True enough, and there is nothing in the rules that requires you to bring an army, or a measuring device, or a template, or blast markers or even a rulebook. Except maybe for the items listed on page vi and vii of the rulebook that tell you what you need to play the game. But this is all beside the point.

Oh, it's easily possible to read that page in such a way that the book just tells you lots of dice would be handy, not that any will be necessary to play.

Edit: as for the actual rules issue, I'll agree with you. It's simply poorly written, and needs an FAQ ruling.

DaveL wrote:Because, as I pointed out before, there's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice

Page 'vi' of the rulebook. 'What You Need'...

DaveL wrote:Oh, it's easily possible to read that page in such a way that the book just tells you lots of dice would be handy, not that any will be necessary to play.

That page is telling you what you need to play the game. Hence the title.

I have run this by everyone at the shop and they all drew the same conclusion I did. No Kabalites, no Duke. That keyword must just makes it all too clear. If it was may, I could see this argument, as it obviously is an option.

The rule is in the Characters rules, thus it effects how you use him. With that stipulation being a must, you have no choice but to deploy him with one unit of Kabalites. Period. If you cannot, he cannot be deployed because he does not meet the required criteria within his rules concerning how he must be deployed.

insaniak wrote:

DaveL wrote:Because, as I pointed out before, there's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice

Page 'vi' of the rulebook. 'What You Need'...

DaveL wrote:Oh, it's easily possible to read that page in such a way that the book just tells you lots of dice would be handy, not that any will be necessary to play.

That page is telling you what you need to play the game. Hence the title.

I'm not arguing that it's reasonable to interpret it that way. I'm arguing that it's possible, and the line of reasoning is similar (if, of course, obviously more absurdist). There is no actual line saying "You must bring dice." It is, of course, very strongly implied both by the page and by common sense, but the need to bring dice isn't spelled out specifically as an actual rule.

Again, I'm not claiming this is a reasonable interpretation. I'm saying that "The rules don't specifically state I have to bring this, so if I choose not to bring it I can ignore rules that are associated because they don't have a valid target" is a silly RAW argument, and offering this as a reason why. If you want to say the RAI is different for the Duke, fine.

The thing is, if you're not presenting it as a reasonable interpretation of the rules, what's the point of even mentioning it, beyond argument for the sake of argument?

It is unreasonable to assume that not bringing dice means you don't have to follow any rules that require a dice roll. If for no other reason than it would result in the game rules simply not functioning.

It's not unreasonable to assume that you are required to field the appropriate units in order to field the Duke. It's also not unreasonable to assume that GW didn't write the rules that way deliberately, and simply didn't consider that people would want to field him without the appropriate unit... and so the rule isn't meant to force him to have one of those units to deploy with.

Neither viewpoint is unreasonable. Neither viewpoint breaks the game. They're simply two different ways of interpreting the rules as presented. So pointing out that other, completely unrelated rules can be interpreted in an unreasonable way doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion.

insaniak wrote:
Neither viewpoint is unreasonable. Neither viewpoint breaks the game. They're simply two different ways of interpreting the rules as presented. So pointing out that other, completely unrelated rules can be interpreted in an unreasonable way doesn't really add anything constructive to the discussion.

Fair enough. I was trying to make a RAW/RAI distinction, but I suppose at some point it just doesn't matter.

insaniak wrote:It's not unreasonable to assume that you are required to field the appropriate units in order to field the Duke. It's also not unreasonable to assume that GW didn't write the rules that way deliberately, and simply didn't consider that people would want to field him without the appropriate unit... and so the rule isn't meant to force him to have one of those units to deploy with.

Neither viewpoint is unreasonable. Neither viewpoint breaks the game. They're simply two different ways of interpreting the rules as presented.

This.

Arguing for either interpretation is really irrelevant. Both sides make sense (until they start getting authoritiarian).

The only fact here is that a FAQ is needed, to add either "Your army must have kabalites in order to field The Duke" or "if you don't have kabalites then The Serpent's Venom is lost, but the Duke can deploy normally".

I don't have a dog in this fight, I field The Duke with Kabalites, but I can see it's ambiguous because of the way it's written.

Senexis wrote:The only fact here is that a FAQ is needed, to add either "Your army must have kabalites in order to field The Duke" or "if you don't have kabalites then The Serpent's Venom is lost, but the Duke can deploy normally".

Aye... was it too hard to say either that the Venom only works on the listed units or that you must have those units to take Sliscus in the first place?

Personally I won't protest if you field him without those units - it's a special rule turned mostly useless, hardly a gamebreaking benefit for you.

It's not ambiguous! He must be deployed with a unit of Warriors or Trueborn. It says it right there in his rules. People are inventing some bizzare arbitration system that doesn't exist to claim that he can be deployed on foot and magically ignore his poison rule.

Sometimes the rules lawyers really make me want to not play this game. Thank god my gaming group isn't like that. If I wanted to play Magic the Gathering I would. I would rather have fun.

Do those of you who wish to argue that GW meant to have a HQ that could be chosen and not used really think that makes the game more fun? This is just like the Doom of Malintai argument. Look how that works now.

So lighten up.

veritechc wrote:Sometimes the rules lawyers really make me want to not play this game. Thank god my gaming group isn't like that. If I wanted to play Magic the Gathering I would. I would rather have fun.

Do those of you who wish to argue that GW meant to have a HQ that could be chosen and not used really think that makes the game more fun? This is just like the Doom of Malintai argument. Look how that works now.

So lighten up.

You're right this isn't MTG, rules don't fizzle, so when a rule says 'must be deployed with' it doesn't suddenly dissappear when one can't satisfy the conditions. If one deploys the duke in another fashion one is breaking his rule... GW gave you a HQ that can be selected and used with certain conditions... why are people so intent to try and break them