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.

Shatter.proof wrote:Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony.

Yes, I just pointed that out...

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.

Just went through that as well...

Shatter.proof wrote: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.

You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.

thebetter1 wrote:

Shatter.proof wrote: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.

You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.

Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.

insaniak wrote:

Shatter.proof wrote:Well then it is the same as the warpfield because doom doesnt have it because its not a zony.

Yes, I just pointed that out...

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.

Just went through that as well...

Then we shall do it again! AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!! For that is truly how Game's Workshop meant us to use RaW for they are evil master minds. Circles. They love them.

Norade wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Shatter.proof wrote: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.

You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.

Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.

Why does this section need to be proven above all the others? Using your logic, anything without "Rules" in its title is not a rules section.

thebetter1 wrote:

Norade wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

Shatter.proof wrote: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.

You obviously haven't read my arguments. You have not backed up your claim that it is a "fluff section" therefore it is not and should be read as rules wherever it tells you something that could affect the game, such as the statement that he is an Ogryn.

Burden of proof is on you to show that it is a rules section, we can't prove a negative.

Why does this section need to be proven above all the others? Using your logic, anything without "Rules" in its title is not a rules section.

Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.

Norade wrote:
Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.

Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."

thebetter1 wrote:

Norade wrote:
Because no other portion of the section most commonly labeled as fluff has any effect on game-play.

Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."

All precedents point to fluff having no say in rules debates; thus Nork is not an Orgyn, The Doom is not a Zoanthrope, and the Swarmlord is not a Hive Tyrant.

Are you serious? It's fluff, therefore it's fluff? Not to mention that you are using precedents to defend a hardline RAW "interpretation."

If you go down this route then Nork has ALL the rules of an Ogryn which would also include the stat line. Ditto for Doom who would gain Warp Lance and Warp Blast, you could also claim he would have to be the same points value.

Nork is an Ogryn here are the rules for Ogryn he must therefore follow those rules... You can't pick and choose when he's an Ogryn (which is something defined in the rules with a statline points value etc) and he's a Nork...

Norade wrote:
All precedents point to fluff having no say in rules debates; thus Nork is not an Orgyn, The Doom is not a Zoanthrope, and the Swarmlord is not a Hive Tyrant.

This is extremely flawed. First, precedents have no influence in the RAW extremism you are arguing. Second, the Doom does not say it is a Zoanthrope (I haven't checked the Swarmlord). Third, the intent (which is what you are arguing) is clearly against you on this. Fourth, you yourself decided that it is fluff, not the codex, and not based on any written rules (more intent on your part in a RAW discussion).

FlingitNow wrote:
If you go down this route then Nork has ALL the rules of an Ogryn which would also include the stat line. Ditto for Doom who would gain Warp Lance and Warp Blast, you could also claim he would have to be the same points value.

Nork is an Ogryn here are the rules for Ogryn he must therefore follow those rules... You can't pick and choose when he's an Ogryn (which is something defined in the rules with a statline points value etc) and he's a Nork...

Specific rules override general ones. Nork has a listed statline that he follows. This is similar to how Seismic Hammers (which are by definition dreadnought close combat weapons) have traits in addition to the standard dreadnought close combat weapon.

Here are two, not sure if they have been brought up, not bothered to actually READ this thread:

Tellion is not Unique.

Absural Vect (the Dark Eldars Flying Land Raider of Doom) can be turned into a Squig by Zogwort as he has the Independent Character rule!

Gwar! wrote:
Tellion is not Unique.

I fail to see the silliness.

thebetter1 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Tellion is not Unique.

I fail to see the silliness.

Because it means that he's not an individual. Unique means he's a specific guy, so there's only one of him. All 'squad upgrade' characters are supposed to be unique, but he is not. 'Tellion' is like a title, for incredibly old scouts who have awesome bolters, I guess.

Gwar! wrote:Tellion is not Unique.

He doesn't have the Unique rule, but the rule in his entry that only allows you to upgrade a single Scout squad to include him does the exact same thing.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Tellion is not Unique.

He doesn't have the Unique rule, but the rule in his entry that only allows you to upgrade a single Scout squad to include him does the exact same thing.

Oh, I know, but this is for Silly RaW!

And Telion not being Unique is not silly RAW. It's not RAW at all, as explained here.

Dunno if this has been listed in the list of RAW fun yet (16 pages is getting a bit much to go through!) but:

Ko'sarro Khan on Moondrakkan is still infantry. Nowhere does it say his unit type changes, despite the fact that he's riding a bike. So, he may drive Moondrakkan out of the front of a Land Raider, Knight Rider style.

Which, I guess goes for the Command Squad too.

Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

Insaniak, can you change this thread's title to "Poor Reading Comprehension Fun"?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.

Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.

It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.



For what it's worth, can everyone please try to remember that this thread is not intended as anything more than a little harmless fun. You may not agree with all of the rules interpretations raised here (I know I don't) but there's really no reason to take umbrage at any of it. If you can't see the funny side of it, that's fine. Move on and leave it to those who do.

Maybe it should be moved to 40k general discussion then?

Loving this thread.

On a semi-related note, got into an argument concerning "real world" RAW/RAI

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

insaniak wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.

Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.

It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Insaniak, can you change this thread's title to "Poor Reading Comprehension Fun"?

How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.

16 pages. Let's not end this in flaming here.


WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.

Pika_power wrote:WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.

Unless you have a codex like CSM (or Dark Angels, or Space Marines ...) which includes the statement "Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just because I'm bored and have too much time right now...

Chaos Daemons doesn't have anything requiring unit upgrades to be modeled. Eldar, Necron and Dark Eldar have contra-WYSIWYG, "... you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear if they are not shown on the model".

Pika_power wrote:WYSIWYG only applies to optional equipment on independent characters.

WYSIWYG has never really been a product of the rules, aside from in tournament play. It's a gaming convention.

insaniak wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.

Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.

It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.

A model on a Space Marine Bike follows all the rules for bikes in the rulebook, not just the ones on page 53. They can't go in transports. The distinction between this and having the unit type "Bike" is about the same as a unit like Tellion being a 0-1 choice and being Unique.

puma713 wrote:How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.

Even if I was wrong, what's ironic about that?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

insaniak wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Page 100, Space Marine Bike. Read it.

Actually, it's a valid point. The Moondrakken entry says it follows the rules for Space Marine Bikes... it doesn't say he becomes the unit type: Bike. The Space Marine Bike entry likewise doesn't say the rider becomes Type: Bike... just that they follow the rules for Bikes in the rulebook.

Moving on, nothing in the Bike rules says that a model with a bike becomes Type: Bike. Nor does it restrict them from riding in transports... It's being a Type other than infantry that does that. So if a model has a bike, but is for some reason still classed as Infantry, they can ride in a transport.

It would definitely get you into raised eyebrow territory to try it on the table, though. It would seem quite clear that any model with a bike should be considered Type: Bike... it's just that the rules fall short of actually pointing that out anywhere.

A model on a Space Marine Bike follows all the rules for bikes in the rulebook, not just the ones on page 53. They can't go in transports. The distinction between this and having the unit type "Bike" is about the same as a unit like Tellion being a 0-1 choice and being Unique.

Really? What page does it say that? That bikes can't go in transports? The type of unit: Bike can't. But that's the point of what I posted - that by RAW, those units are not Unit: Bike. I think you're missing the point of this thread.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

puma713 wrote:How ironic. What you get for being a jerk for no apparent reason, though - instant karma.

Even if I was wrong, what's ironic about that?

What was ironic was you commenting on how the thread should be changed to "Poor Reading Comprehension" and yet, it was you who couldn't read.

You'd have a hard time saying that a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook isn't a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:You'd have a hard time saying that a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook isn't a rule that applies to bikes in the 40k rulebook.

Which rule are you referring to? Can you find a rule in the 40K rulebook that says that bikes can't ride in transports?


Units of the Type: Bike can't, because the rules specify that only Infantry can... but a unit that follows the rules for bikes, but is still Infantry would be fine under that rule.

The rules for bikes don't tell us that a unit with a bike is the unit Type: Bike. They simply lay out the rules for bikes. The unit actually has to have the Type specified in order to be considered that type.


It's a very clear hole in the rules, but that's kind of the point of the thread.

Models have to be Type: Infantry to fit in a transport - effectively this is a rule saying models of the Type: Bike cannot fit in a transport. It's a rule that effects bikes, thus it's a rule for bikes, thus it's applied to models with Space Marine Bikes.

There's a hole here where things outside the main rulebook that effect Type: Bike don't work on models with Space Marine Bikes - JotWW is the obvious suggestion.