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.

Ludovic wrote:And both the Honour Guard and Command Squad from Codex:Space Marines are identified as "retinues" in their fluff, but they aren't Retinues.

Command Squads are never identified as retinues. Captains are said to have them, but none are listed in the codex.

The Honour Guard instance is non-rule fluff because it contradicts the army list, that is, unless you believe every Honour Guard squad has to carry a chapter banner. Not to mention the possibility of a real-world meaning for "retinue." In Nork Deggog's case, he is identified as an Ogryn, and nothing suggests otherwise, while his special rules suggest he is one.

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.

Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.

I know. But, this is "RAW" not "RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.

Klawz wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.

Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.

I know. But, this is "RAW" not "RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.

Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.

Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.

I know. But, this is "RAW" not "RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.

Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?

Do you even know what "quote" means? I see no quote.

Ludovic wrote:Do you even know what "quote" means? I see no quote.

Fine, because the burden of proof is definitely on the person not claiming the rules work in a funny way:

page 67 wrote:Nork Deddog is a legend in his own lifetime, an Ogryn...

Now do you have any actual arguments or do you just want to troll?

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Klawz wrote:Nork Deggog only counts as one model for the purpose of transports.

Nork Deggog is identified as an Ogryn. Call it fluff all you want; the codex still says otherwise.

I know. But, this is "RAW" not "RAI". Nork Deggog is a Nork Deggog not an Ogryn.

Do you even know what RAW stands for? I quoted the rules as written, yet you call it an intent argument?

The exact wording of the rules is:

Bulky: Ogryns are colossal thugs with thick-set frames and immense guts. Each Ogryn counts as two models for the purposes of transport capacity.

Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.

The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.

Please remember that no-one would seriously expect you to play that Nork takes up one seat in a Chimera. This thread is about times that the RAW is silly, after all

Aelyn wrote:
Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.

The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.

What gives you the right to arbitrarily say that one part of the codex is flavor text that has no bearing on the rules and another part is not? In almost all cases, flavor text simply does nothing in the game; for example, you cannot do anything based on the fact that Space Marines can win battles when outnumbered 100 to 1. In this case, where Nork's status as an Ogryn would make or break the effect of a known rule, why would you ignore it?

thebetter1 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Whilst Nork Deddog does have the Bulky rule, nowhere in Nork Deddog's rules does it state that he is an Ogryn, and therefore there is no RAW reason for the Bulky rule to affect him.

The only place Nork is identified as an Ogryn is the flavour text at the beginning of his page in the Forces of the Imperial Guard section of the book. If that section (and the equivalent section in other books) were counted as rules, then Captain Tycho would need to be removed from the table at the start of every game, because the equivalent section states that Tycho is dead.

What gives you the right to arbitrarily say that one part of the codex is flavor text that has no bearing on the rules and another part is not? In almost all cases, flavor text simply does nothing in the game; for example, you cannot do anything based on the fact that Space Marines can win battles when outnumbered 100 to 1. In this case, where Nork's status as an Ogryn would make or break the effect of a known rule, why would you ignore it?

So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?

I never claimed to the right to arbitrarily say one part of the codex was flavour. My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.

Aelyn wrote:So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?

No, unless you are seeing something in his rules that actually says he is dead (I never found this) and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties.

Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.

I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.


I would also like to point out that, in addition to the large number of flawed entries on the list, there is a huge inconsistency for the main rulebook. It first says that models that move like jump infantry cannot deep strike because deep striking is not moving, but it then says that mishaps cannot occur because deep striking is movement.

thebetter1 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:So you agree that Tycho should be removed at the start of every game as a casualty?

No, unless you are seeing something in his rules that actually says he is dead (I never found this) and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties.

*shrug* I admit I may be misremembering this point, as I do not have the Blood Angels codex myself - though I could have sworn that Tycho's history/background section explicitly said he was dead.

thebetter1 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.

I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.

...

Strawman much?

thebetter1 wrote:I would also like to point out that, in addition to the large number of flawed entries on the list, there is a huge inconsistency for the main rulebook. It first says that models that move like jump infantry cannot deep strike because deep striking is not moving, but it then says that mishaps cannot occur because deep striking is movement.

This... intrigues me. I don't recall seeing the second part - nice find! May I ask where those quotes are from?

... and a rule that says dead models are immediately removed as casualties...

Makes me actually want to find in the book if it actually states anything about killed/dead models and referring to them as casualties.

It would break any and all weapons that say "kills x models" or "model is counted as dead" or "dead models...blah"?

While I don't think there's many or any weapons or rules for attacks/shooting that refer to killing models or dead models, its just amusing that if something were to come into the game saying that "x models in target unit are killed...", it wouldn't actually do anything without the corresponding passage saying that "models killed" or "dead models" are "removed from the game as casualties".

There are rules that run into the opposite problem... The last few codexes have introduced special rules that function while the model is 'alive' ... which is problematic as the casualty removal rules actually mention that casualties are not necessarily dead, but give no way of determining it either way.

Aelyn wrote:
*shrug* I admit I may be misremembering this point, as I do not have the Blood Angels codex myself - though I could have sworn that Tycho's history/background section explicitly said he was dead.

It describes a situation when he fell in battle. This is not nearly enough for a rules argument.

Aelyn wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:My reasoning is anything but arbitrary - it's based purely on the fact that one section of his page is titled "Special Rules". And nowhere in these rules does it state he is an Ogryn.

I guess, in that case, only the Special Rules section ever counts as rules, therefore no unit can ever be included in an army as the army list is not in the Special Rules section.

...

Strawman much?

You do realize this is your argument, not mine, right? I'm not the one saying that only the Special Rules section is a valid source for rules.

Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.

H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.

So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.

Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.

thebetter1 wrote:

H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.

So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.

You're wrong for the same reason people saying Doom and a Zoanthrope, or Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant are wrong.

Mahtamori wrote:Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.

I see no reason for skilled spazz elf warriors not to be able to defend whoever is in the fight with them.

Mahtamori wrote:Eldar Dire Avanger Exarch power Defend: Enemy models directing attacks on the Dire Avenger Exarch's squad "lose one attack in each assault phase".
Implication: There is no end condition. One attack is lost in every assault phase after having attacked the Dire Avengers, regardless if attacking the Dire Avangers or not.

I think there is the line saying "to a minimum of 1"

Mah - except you ignore the first condition, which is not fulfilled unless you are in combat with them. If you are not in combat with them you cannot get to the second line saying you have lost an attack...

Actually as long as the DA unit is involved, even with just base to base, in that fight they are technically in the fight and are capable of effecting it – by attacking and deffending.

Edit: To praphrase my answer – youd don't have to be trying to hit the avengers for them to get in your way with they'r sparkly spazz elf skills.

WRong - when DIRECTING attacks on the DA unit you lose attacks. If you are not directing any attacks on them at all then you cannot trigger the "lose one attack" rule.

Seriously, can people *please* read the first condition, it spells out exactly when and what this power does....

Since this is RAW, what the rules actually say is that a) you have to attack the Dire Avengers to lose the attacks (which is in the spirit of the rules) and b) once the model has attacked the Dire Avengers they will lose the attack (to a minimum of 1) for the rest of the game, regardless of whether still in close combat with the Dire Avengers or not. It's b I'm getting at. The RAI clearly mean just that single turn, but going by RAW it's forever.

nosferatu1001 - that is how it's meant to be read. It's not how it's written, though. It doesn't state "as long as an enemy model is attacking" nor does it state "whenever attacking the Dire Avengers". It simply reads "if [you attack the DA] you'll [lose one attack each assault phase] to [a minimum of 1]". A true rules lawyer might even state the attacks lost are cumulative.
A better way for GW to have written it is
In each assault phase any model which directs attacks towards a member of the Exarch's squad will lose one attack to a minimum of one.

Mahtamori wrote:Since this is RAW, what the rules actually say is that a) you have to attack the Dire Avengers to lose the attacks (which is in the spirit of the rules) and b) once the model has attacked the Dire Avengers they will lose the attack (to a minimum of 1) for the rest of the game, regardless of whether still in close combat with the Dire Avengers or not. It's b I'm getting at. The RAI clearly mean just that single turn, but going by RAW it's forever.[/i]

Oooh now i get it, that is silly RAW

It simply reads "if [you attack the DA] you'll [lose one attack each assault phase] to [a minimum of 1]". A true rules lawyer might even state the attacks lost are cumulative.

I have to disagree it says, not "if you attack the dire Avengers", but if "Directing your attacks at the Dire Avengers" which is an ongoing action. To satisfy that language you don't have to have attacked the DAs at some point but must be directly attacking them now.

Like the statement:

If I am running I am moving fast.

Means you have to actually be running to gain the property of moving fast. Having run several weeks ago does not mean you are now moving fast. However if the statement read:

If I ran I am moving fast.

Then having at any point run would mean I am now moving fast. The language of the Defend special rule follows the pattern of the first example thus you must be actually directing your attacks at the DAs to lose the attack. Nos is spot on as usual...

Mah - reread the sentence and *put back* the tense you removed.

"Directing" is present tense, continuiing action. As soon as you stop "directing" the effect ends.

Norade wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

H3ct0r wrote:Just about every unit I have encountered has a flavor text section and a rules section where the actual function of the model in game is described. The flavor text is clearly not written as rules and are there to provide background and spark interest in units. Furthermore, I do believe that he was only disputing the flavor text's validity as rules not implying that only the special rules section counts out of the entire codex.

So you're saying that the only reference making the rules work does not count, just because you think it doesn't count? Furthermore, I was only pointing out a vital flaw in leaving out one part of the codex for no reason except to prove the other person wrong in a debate.

You're wrong for the same reason people saying Doom and a Zoanthrope, or Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant are wrong.

Those people have not backed up their arguments. I have, therefore you cannot lump me into their group.

Yes they can because you are doing the same thing as other people. You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such. Its the same way that Doom says and acts like its a zony yet it is not it is Doom and does not benefit or have the same things as a zony. It is the same thing as the Swarmlord which is just a special hive tyrant yet it does not specifically say that he is a hive tyrant so he isn't one.

Shatter.proof wrote: You assume because it says he is an ogre in the fluff section yet within the rules it doesnt say he is bulky and such.

He has the Bulky rule. The problem isn't that he isn't Bulky. It's that the Bulky rule has an effect that applies to Ogryns and he doesn't have a rule that specifically says he is an Ogryn, just a fluff section that describes him as such.

Personally, I'm thinking the RAW can actually go either way. Yes, you can take the hardline approach that the rules don't say he is an Ogryn so he isn't. But you can also take the rule within the context in which it is provided... if the rule only applies to Ogryns, and he has the rule, then in that context he must be an Ogryn.

You can apply the same argument to the Warpfield/DoM issue in the Nid codex.

RAW doesn't mean taking the specific rule in isolation. You have to apply it within the context of the rules as a whole. That's why a lot of the 'rulings' in this thread are questionable... Taking RAW to silly extremes isn't really RAW. In many cases, it's simply applying the silliest possible interpretation to a rule that can be read several ways.

Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony. So in theory it is the same (all be it different rule application). So by the strict wording of bulky and warpfield and a lot of other things do not apply to special named unites because it isn't the same thing named in the rule.

Like Y has the X rule. The X rule says all Zs act or get A. This doesn't meant that Y is a Z because it has X rule, it just means that technically X rule doesn't apply to Y because it only applies to Z.