Become fearless whilst fleeing

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.

**obsidianaura**

Had a strange one come up yesterday.

Squad of wyches were fleeing, but then shot and killed a unit, as a result they had enough pain tokens to become fearless.

So we had a fearless unit fleeing, we deicided the rules are that they would auto-rally next turn. However keeping another unit within 6 inches meant that they couldn't rally anyway. Do you think thats right or not?

**MasterSlowPoke**

Read the rules for Fearless.

**nosferatu1001**

P75, final sentence

**Sir_Prometheus**

God, I hate this, just give the man his answer will you? Someone else may have the same question, is needful for every one of them run and get their book, because you think quoting one sentence violates IP? (Hint: it doesn't)

If they're fearless, it automatically rally's regardless of all other restrictions.

There.

**Akroma06**

Sir_Prometheus wrote:God, I hate this, just give the man his answer will you? Someone else may have the same question, is needful for every one of them run and get their book, because you think quoting one sentence violates IP? (Hint: it doesn't)

If they're fearless, it automatically rally's regardless of all other restrictions.

There.

Yes but having them look it up themselves allows them to learn something new by actually read the book instead of just being given a hand out. My sig has it quite well.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Akroma06 wrote:
Sir_Prometheus wrote:God, I hate this, just give the man his answer will you? Someone else may have the same question, is needful for every one of them run and get their book, because you think quoting one sentence violates IP? (Hint: it doesn't)

If they're fearless, it automatically rally's regardless of all other restrictions.

There.

Yes but having them look it up themselves allows them to learn something new by actually read the book instead of just being given a hand out. My sig has it quite well.

Which no one can actually read...

**Sir_Prometheus**

Akroma06 wrote:
Sir_Prometheus wrote:God, I hate this, just give the man his answer will you? Someone else may have the same question, is needful for every one of them run and get their book, because you think quoting one sentence violates IP? (Hint: it doesn't)

If they're fearless, it automatically rally's regardless of all other restrictions.

There.

Yes but having them look it up themselves allows them to learn something new by actually read the book instead of just being given a hand out. My sig has it quite well.

There is a huge arrogance there, in that you are basically treating others as your students, that need your teaching.

IN some cases, that may be true. In many others, it may not.

For instance, the OP seems a reasonably experienced player; his question is not, on it's face, a simple one. I might ask a similar question. Since I'm at work, and my rulebook is at home (though I MIGHT have a scanned .pdf, for just such reasons, which definitely would be illegal, at least if it came from Bittorrent, rather than scanned for my own personal use) telling "read the book" would just be a kick in the nuts.

**Flinty**

If he's at work could he not just wait a few hours until he is home to read his rulebook? If it was that urgent the rulebook would be at hand already.

Some 40k rules are a bit vague and can need a bit of interpretation. The Fearless rule is written in black and white. So it is in fact much more useful to be told where to find the rule, and therefore know exactly where it is in future, rather than having to rely on the rather flimsy argument of "oh, because some guy on the interweb said so."

**nosferatu1001**

Its actually against the rules of the forum - you know, the ones you agreed to when posting here?

The question IS a simple one, as it is explicitly covered in the rules for Fearless. That would be the USR the unit has suddenly gained, so its not unreasonable to point them to the rules for said USR.

This forum isnt a replacement for your rulebook. Again, see the tenets.

**Sir_Prometheus**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Its actually against the rules of the forum - you know, the ones you agreed to when posting here?

The question IS a simple one, as it is explicitly covered in the rules for Fearless. That would be the USR the unit has suddenly gained, so its not unreasonable to point them to the rules for said USR.

This forum isnt a replacement for your rulebook. Again, see the tenets.

Actually, no, I don't see it. Many forums have such rules, such as warseer, and they are applied in a stupid and thoughtless manner. However, this forum does not seem to have them. In addition, fair use does exist. Quoting a sentence or two does not violate anyone's IP, it's perfectly legal, and it's the neighborly thing to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flinty wrote:If he's at work could he not just wait a few hours until he is home to read his rulebook? If it was that urgent the rulebook would be at hand already.

Some 40k rules are a bit vague and can need a bit of interpretation. The Fearless rule is written in black and white. So it is in fact much more useful to be told where to find the rule, and therefore know exactly where it is in future, rather than having to rely on the rather flimsy argument of "oh, because some guy on the interweb said so."

Right. He could wait several hours, or you could just not be a pain and give him the answer. If it's not worth your time to answer in a helpful way, then it's not worth your time to answer what amounts to, "lurn 2 R33d, NOOB!"

**Rampage**

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Its actually against the rules of the forum - you know, the ones you agreed to when posting here?

The question IS a simple one, as it is explicitly covered in the rules for Fearless. That would be the USR the unit has suddenly gained, so its not unreasonable to point them to the rules for said USR.

This forum isnt a replacement for your rulebook. Again, see the tenets.

Actually, no, I don't see it. Many forums have such rules, such as warseer, and they are applied in a stupid and thoughtless manner. However, this forum does not seem to have them. In addition, fair use does exist. Quoting a sentence or two does not violate anyone's IP, it's perfectly legal, and it's the neighborly thing to do.

No, I don't think quoting a single sentance would matter too much. However, why can a sentence from the rulebook be quoted in this instance and not in all of the other YMDC threads here? Here's why, because if that happened, somebody would probably be able to glean the entire rulebook from here, and that would definately be a violation. So what is the difference between the rule being quoted in this thread as oppose to others? There isn't, one rule for everyone otherwise there would definately be a violation.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flinty wrote:If he's at work could he not just wait a few hours until he is home to read his rulebook? If it was that urgent the rulebook would be at hand already.

Some 40k rules are a bit vague and can need a bit of interpretation. The Fearless rule is written in black and white. So it is in fact much more useful to be told where to find the rule, and therefore know exactly where it is in future, rather than having to rely on the rather flimsy argument of "oh, because some guy on the interweb said so."

Right. He could wait several hours, or you could just not be a pain and give him the answer. If it's not worth your time to answer in a helpful way, then it's not worth your time to answer what amounts to, "lurn 2 R33d, NOOB!"

Do grow up.

**nosferatu1001**

SirP - what this site lets you do trumps fair use - you do realise that, right?

It may be legal, but this forum is NOT a replacement for your rulebook. If you think it is, youre in for a surprise.

**Sir_Prometheus**

nosferatu1001 wrote:SirP - what this site lets you do trumps fair use - you do realise that, right?

It may be legal, but this forum is NOT a replacement for your rulebook. If you think it is, youre in for a surprise.

The rules don't say anything about quoting rules - you do realize that, right?

**Rampage**

To be honest, I think that nosferatu is more familiar with the forum than you.

Now I'm going to regurgitate most of the contents of my post. If you allow someone to post a rule in one of the threads, whats to say that rules can't be posted in all of the other YMDC threads, and so you'd end up with all of the rules having been posted in this sub forum creating what is effectively a replacement rulebook!

**Corrode**

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:SirP - what this site lets you do trumps fair use - you do realise that, right?

It may be legal, but this forum is NOT a replacement for your rulebook. If you think it is, youre in for a surprise.

The rules don't say anything about quoting rules - you do realize that, right?

You are an angry, angry little man. Breathe and relax.

**daedalus**

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
There is a huge arrogance there, in that you are basically treating others as your students, that need your teaching.

You should read this: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

It was written by Eric Steven Raymond, so it's written moreso with technology in mind, but it certainly applies here.

I've pasted one of the more meaningful areas below.

How To Interpret Answers
RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up

There is an ancient and hallowed tradition: if you get a reply that reads RTFM, the person who sent it thinks you should have Read The fething Manual. He or she is almost certainly right. Go read it.

RTFM has a younger relative. If you get a reply that reads STFW, the person who sent it thinks you should have Searched The fething Web. He or she is almost certainly right. Go search it. (The milder version of this is when you are told Google is your friend!)

In Web forums, you may also be told to search the forum archives. In fact, someone may even be so kind as to provide a pointer to the previous thread where this problem was solved. But do not rely on this consideration; do your archive-searching before asking.

Often, the person telling you to do a search has the manual or the web page with the information you need open, and is looking at it as he or she types. These replies mean that he thinks (a) the information you need is easy to find, and (b) you will learn more if you seek out the information than if you have it spoon-fed to you.

You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness.

We're not a rulebook. We're people who post here. Sometimes we answer questions too. For free.

**Sir_Prometheus**

Rampage wrote:To be honest, I think that nosferatu is more familiar with the forum than you.

Now I'm going to regurgitate most of the contents of my post. If you allow someone to post a rule in one of the threads, whats to say that rules can't be posted in all of the other YMDC threads, and so you'd end up with all of the rules having
been posted in this sub forum creating what is effectively a replacement rulebook!

He is not, apparently, more familiar with the forum. Or at least he could have proved so by linking the rule to which he was referring, rather than quoting it apprently in error, twice. Moreover, I will stipulate that even if there is such a rule, that doesn't make it a smart idea.

No, I do not feel people quoting rules here and there makes for a replacement rule book, any more than people quoting Abraham Lincoln makes for the Gettysburg Address. Even if it did, still legal.

[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
Sir_Prometheus wrote:
There is a huge arrogance there, in that you are basically treating others as your students, that need your teaching.

You should read this: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

We're not a rulebook. We're people who post here. Sometimes we answer questions too. For free.

Hey, Daedalus? Go screw. If you don't want to answer a question, don't, but don't be a pool and post a half-answer that is unhelpful.

**daedalus**

Sir_Prometheus wrote:more than people quoting Abraham Lincoln makes for the Gettysburg Address. Even if it did, still legal.

What if people quoted the Gettysburg Address in a searchable forum, over long periods of time, such that eventually the entirety of it was replicated?

Also, and this is something that so many people have a hard time grasping, but it's not about what's legal. You could do legal things your entire life, and if you attract the attention of a corporation who doesn't think the perfectly legal things you're doing are so, then they can get you mired in costly and expensive court battles. For all of it's ills, I like Dakka, but I'm not ready to finance it's court battle against GW, or any other corporation.

Are you? No? Then why not err on the side of caution?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your quotes are broken.

**liam0404**

Guys, come on, you should have just told him the rule.

"Any fleeing units which become fearless are accosted as they rally by Chuck norris, and count as destroyed."

It says that in page 95 of my rulebook, not sure about yours though.

**Rampage**

Ok, I'm going to dissect your statement and address it as I'm not quite sure how you're failing to understand this.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Even if it did, still legal.

Let's start at the end. Whether it is legal in law is something that I'm not sure on. But if a replacement rulebook did occur on dakka (hence 'even if it did') it would not be legal according to the DakkaDakka rules, so your statement is false.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:No, I do not feel people quoting rules here and there makes for a replacement rule book

Let's jump to the beginning now. If I post the fearless rule in this thread, why can't other people post the rule for hit and run, or the ballistic skill/to hit roll ratio? So if I'm allowed to post this rule, i'd also be allowed to post any of the rules in the book, and eventually, all of the rules that I have posted would probably make a sizable portion of the book if I keep posting them to answer questions in YMDC because people don't want to look in their rulebook. Posting the fearless rule would create a replacement for the section of the rulebook that states the fearless rule, and slowly the amount of the rulebook that is being replaced on Dakka due to me posting rules would increase, so the rulebook is slowly being replaced.

**Janthkin**