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.

Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.

Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.

which is redundant because a model can only ever take 1 save

Tau:

Command and Control node is unusable because Target Priority Tests do not exist anymore.

Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.

Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with.

Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws.

If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.

Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with.

Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws.

If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.

I would actually say he does get an armour save, RaW.

The exact wording is:
"During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."

Not "During this period, Ghazghkull's armour saving throw is invulnerable" or "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw granted to him by Mega Armour is invulnerable" but "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."

Which means he WILL get an armour save vs any weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, so long as they are not AP2, AP1 or ignore armour (ala Warscythe or C'Tan Phase Sword).

Gwar! wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Klawz wrote:Iron Hand Straken has two armor saves, a 5+ on his flak armor, and a 3+ from his profile.

Similarly, Ghazghkull has two 2+ armor saves; one on his profile, and one from mega-armor, which he is equipped with.

Taken along with the wording on Ghazghkull's Waagh! which says "Gazghkull's saving throw is Invulnerable", it could be read that one of Ghazghkull's saving throws becomes Invulnerable, but the other remains Armor, giving him survivability against effects which ignore Invulnerable saving throws.

If you DON'T read it that way, however, Ghazghkull gets no save against such things as Immolators when he calls his Waagh!.

I would actually say he does get an armour save, RaW.

The exact wording is:
"During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."

Not "During this period, Ghazghkull's armour saving throw is invulnerable" or "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw granted to him by Mega Armour is invulnerable" but "During this period, Ghazghkull's saving throw is invulnerable."

Which means he WILL get an armour save vs any weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, so long as they are not AP2, AP1 or ignore armour (ala Warscythe or C'Tan Phase Sword).

Right, that's what I said. Ghazghkull's save (the one on his profile) becomes Invulnerable, but he is granted another one by the Mega Armour in his equipment section, which remains Armour.

I would disagree. The fact that it refers to Ghaz's 'saving throw' (rather than specifying Armour) means that, for that turn, any time you take a save you are taking an invulnerable save.


An armour save is a saving throw. Ghaz's saving throw is invulnerable. ergo, Ghaz's armour save is invulnerable for that turn.

If he tries to take a cover save that would likewise at that particular point in time be considered an invulnerable save, as it is a saving throw.

insaniak wrote:I would disagree. The fact that it refers to Ghaz's 'saving throw' (rather than specifying Armour) means that, for that turn, any time you take a save you are taking an invulnerable save.


An armour save is a saving throw. Ghaz's saving throw is invulnerable. ergo, Ghaz's armour save is invulnerable for that turn.

If he tries to take a cover save that would likewise at that particular point in time be considered an invulnerable save, as it is a saving throw.

If you consider "his saving throw" to mean "any saving throw he takes", then yes, you're right.

However, if you consider "his saving throw" to be "the saving throw on his profile", then no, you're wrong.

Depends on your interpretation.

His Saving Throw is invulnerable. Doesn't matter where or how, when you take that save it is considered invulnerable... if this qualifys it as a usable 'invulnerable saving throw' as opposed to an an invulnerable 'saving throw' is a differetn issue

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
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.

On this issue I suppose 'moving as' a bike would save you from JotWW too doubley so for a hive-tyrant.


@Gwar: Zogwort's meant to do that thou

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.

Not from a RaW standpoint (which is the entire point of this thread). It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too. Unless you're a Space Marine IC equiped with a bike as you are still unit type Infantry and therefore can jump in a Rhino (or more effectively in a Landraider) if you want. Fromn a RaW point of view.

FlingitNow wrote: It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too.

Not exactly. As I explained earlier, the rules do restrict riding in transports specifically to Infantry. The issue is with the fact that the bike rules don't specify that having a bike makes a model Type: Bike. They should, and it should be a no-brainer for actual gameplay even without it... but from a RAW standpoint, an Infantry model that is given a Space Marine bike follows the rules for bikes, but remains Type: Infantry.

FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Not from a RaW standpoint (which is the entire point of this thread). It just says unit type infantry can there is no rule saying bikes can't, there is just no rule allowing bikes too. Unless you're a Space Marine IC equiped with a bike as you are still unit type Infantry and therefore can jump in a Rhino (or more effectively in a Landraider) if you want. Fromn a RaW point of view.

The statements "Only infantry can ride in transports" and "You can't ride in a transport if you're not infantry" are logically equivalent. The rule applies to bikes to it applies to models with Space Marine bikes. This is from a RAW point of view.

The statements "Only infantry can ride in transports" and "You can't ride in a transport if you're not infantry" are logically equivalent. The rule applies to bikes to it applies to models with Space Marine bikes. This is from a RAW point of view.

Is the IC on a bike infantry? It is like trying to claim a Hive Tyrant with wings doesn't do 2d6 penetration or ignore armour saves.

Yes they follow the rules for bikers but they are still infantry and thus can still get in a transport. Trying to claim that the only infantry rule some how equates a specific exclusion for bikers is still not follwoing the RaW.

Epic wrong the Tyrant's entry classes him as an MC so he gets to ignore armor and pen with 2D6, regardless of having wings or not, since he only moves as jump infantry other than that he retains alll his own capabilities.

The problem with your argument is that even tho marines who buy bikes move like bikes they'r entry still classes them as infantry, thus allowing transport entry.

I decided to go through the list of silly RAW points and find the flaws. I won't touch any of the armies except Space Marines, as I don't play them.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Wobbly Model Rule means models can move in any direction, including into mid-air, and then be removed from the table as 'unstable', as long as both players know where they should be. Potentially, you can move ALL your models like this if you wish.

Only if terrain makes it difficult to place the model there. The lack of terrain is not terrain.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Non-vehicle models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)

Then just model some eyes on them.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Any weapon which refers to a 'Large Blast Template' or 'Blast Template' cannot be used. There is no such thing. There ARE, however, Blast 'Markers'.

Unless, of course, you speak English.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- 'Moves like Jump Infantry' does not mean 'uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry', so some models with Wings cannot Deep Strike, dependent on codex.

See the tenth point on this list.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)

Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.

Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.

We should care because...

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.

See the fifth point on this list.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'

"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.

I'm skipping the armies I do not play.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Shrike's unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators (since the unit only gets the rule after he joins them, and he can't join them until after deployment)

Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.

By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Master of the Forge cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Lysander cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.

This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.

I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.

ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.

The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.

Honestly, the rules as written for Warptime in the Chaos Codex say that ALL rolls to hit and wound, from ANY source MAY be re-rolled.

So if you went as written for that you could choose to re-roll every single dice thrown in that turn for hitting and wounding.

Of course the Psyker would have to somehow roll the dice...

Warptime is just really poorly worded.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Non-vehicle models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)

Then just model some eyes on them.

In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.

We looked at this extensively a while back. LoS is defined in terms of the shooting phase, no where else. So because it uses terms like "the firing model", we cannot use it in the movement phase. Also, there is free pivot for anyone in the shooting phase when checking LoS. It didn't apply to the rest though. When people were trying to interpret it in a way that allowd them to play properly, they were using arguments such as "They can see through their own head, because they are friendly to themselves" (which still didn't work, IIRC). Anyway, it turned out if you tried to follow the rules there, the entire game locked up. So it's definitely RAWly ambiguous.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Any weapon which refers to a 'Large Blast Template' or 'Blast Template' cannot be used. There is no such thing. There ARE, however, Blast 'Markers'.

Unless, of course, you speak English.

English has nothing to do with it. I cannot RAWly make the jump from "Large Blast Template" to "Large Blast Markers", because in the English I speak, Template=//=Marker. Of course, if you have a rules reference saying that they're the same, it's an entirely different matter.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- 'Moves like Jump Infantry' does not mean 'uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry', so some models with Wings cannot Deep Strike, dependent on codex.

See the tenth point on this list.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)

Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.

Templates are range-checking. It's why weapons are labeled as "Range: Template". And range is measured from weapon barrel on tanks.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.

Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.

He's wrong. It's the deployment types that tell you to "Start the Game!", and all three do it consistently.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.

We should care because...

Without out beloved RAW, we can't start the game. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing Warhammer 40K, and this is a WH40K forum.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.

See the fifth point on this list.

Am I counting wrong, or have you directed me to the scouts question?

If so, there's no point of objection from you here, so the RAW stays firm in the face of tyranny.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'

"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.

I'm skipping the armies I do not play.

Even more reason it can't be meaning Scouts moves. Not even capitalised. Honestly, how difficult is it for you people to learn to read the rules?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Shrike's unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators (since the unit only gets the rule after he joins them, and he can't join them until after deployment)

Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.

Define 'works fine'. I would say being unusable is not 'works fine'.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.

Still no rebuttal? Even so, he is merely being thorough, as some of us appreciate good writing without holes.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.

By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.

Can you provide a rules reference for that statement of both being DCCW?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Master of the Forge cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Lysander cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.

This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.

If the rule only applies to a certain model, it clearly can't be applied to another model, even if that model has the rule. It'd be like trying to WAARGH with a grot (pre-FAQ). So you do not get to add +1 to a cover save, as the rule only comes into effect with a techmarine.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.

I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.

Valid rules interpretation, young trooper! Let's add that to the list.

"An independent character cannot join a Techmarine with a Thunderfire cannon"

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.

The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.

Thanks for that Pika I couldn't do it without lecturing about the 'spirit' of the 'spirit' of the 'rules' (you know them things in books and occasionally in .pdf form marked as clarification)

Then just model some eyes on them.

In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.

They'd also cease to be Citadel miniatures at this point and would become inelligible for use. Remember by RaW only unconverted Citadel Miniatures can be used...

Im gone for two days and this thread smells like smoke again

Meh... Lawyers...

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Non-vehicle models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)

Then just model some eyes on them.

In that case, they are non-vehicle models WITH eyes, so they don't fit the critera of the rule. The (silly) RAW still stands.

I don't get it. What are you arguing?

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.

We looked at this extensively a while back. LoS is defined in terms of the shooting phase, no where else. So because it uses terms like "the firing model", we cannot use it in the movement phase. Also, there is free pivot for anyone in the shooting phase when checking LoS. It didn't apply to the rest though. When people were trying to interpret it in a way that allowd them to play properly, they were using arguments such as "They can see through their own head, because they are friendly to themselves" (which still didn't work, IIRC). Anyway, it turned out if you tried to follow the rules there, the entire game locked up. So it's definitely RAWly ambiguous.

I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Any weapon which refers to a 'Large Blast Template' or 'Blast Template' cannot be used. There is no such thing. There ARE, however, Blast 'Markers'.

Unless, of course, you speak English.

English has nothing to do with it. I cannot RAWly make the jump from "Large Blast Template" to "Large Blast Markers", because in the English I speak, Template=//=Marker. Of course, if you have a rules reference saying that they're the same, it's an entirely different matter.

The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)

Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.

Templates are range-checking. It's why weapons are labeled as "Range: Template". And range is measured from weapon barrel on tanks.

You're the one who needs a rule reference.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.

We should care because...

Without out beloved RAW, we can't start the game. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing Warhammer 40K, and this is a WH40K forum.

"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.

See the fifth point on this list.

Am I counting wrong, or have you directed me to the scouts question?

If so, there's no point of objection from you here, so the RAW stays firm in the face of tyranny.

You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'

"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.

I'm skipping the armies I do not play.

Even more reason it can't be meaning Scouts moves. Not even capitalised. Honestly, how difficult is it for you people to learn to read the rules?

You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Shrike's unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators (since the unit only gets the rule after he joins them, and he can't join them until after deployment)

Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.

Define 'works fine'. I would say being unusable is not 'works fine'.

The squad does get Infiltrators, just as his ability says. Infiltrators has effects beyond allowing the unit to infiltrate.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.

By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.

Can you provide a rules reference for that statement of both being DCCW?

Codex: Space Marines

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Master of the Forge cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Lysander cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.

This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.

If the rule only applies to a certain model, it clearly can't be applied to another model, even if that model has the rule. It'd be like trying to WAARGH with a grot (pre-FAQ). So you do not get to add +1 to a cover save, as the rule only comes into effect with a techmarine.

You would be correct if we were arguing about different cases, such as the Doom of Malanthai. In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.

The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.

It's never stated the player whose turn it is has to do the "select a unit".

I don't get it. What are you arguing?

That they are no longer models with no eyes if you've modelled eyes onto them. However as I pointed out once you start converting models your models cease to be purely citadel miniatures and thus cease to be lgeal under RaW.

I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.

Where are the parts that allow you to check LoS outside the shooting phase? Even with that you can simply turn your models around so they are facing the opposite way to the enemy (although that too opens a can of worms).

The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.

Except there is an in game definition of template and it refers to the conshaped template. The problem is large blast template could refer to anything the actual template, the large blast marker or even the small blast marker (it is still a template and you could consider it large depending on what you are comparing it to), without the correct way it is "impossible" (via RaW) to determine which template they are refering to.

You're the one who needs a rule reference.

Template is checking range it is done just like any other range check except you us ethe template rather than the tape measure. Please pont to a rules reference that states it works differently if you have one.

"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.

Yes it is but unfortunately it is not a word in the English language that relates to placing models on a table...

You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.

The Wings DS is a contentious issue it is not correct pure RaW but older Codexes had rules that prevented models with wings from DSing, however this was before all JI could DS...

However the mishaps can occur just very rarely and never to single models DSing as they would stop within 1" of the enemy and then the extra models placed around them could cause mishap. This is the most strict adherence to the letter of the rules hence it is RaW.

You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.

Clear yes, 100% defined no. Again by RaW your argument doesn;t stand up. By the slightest amount of common sense it does but that is not what this thread is about.

The squad does get Infiltrators, just as his ability says. Infiltrators has effects beyond allowing the unit to infiltrate.

Then if outflank was the ony bonus he was giving his squad why doesn't it say he gives them out flank rather than infiltrate? Seriously you think this rule works as is? Are you really trying to claim that the intention of them saying you give the squad infiltrate was that the squad could not infiltrate? Seriously?

Codex: Space Marines

Not a rules reference that would be this:

C:SM pg65 - "A seismic hammer is treated as a dreadnought CCW that adds +1 to rolls on the vehicle damage chart."

Which clearly illustrates it ios no more a DCCW than a thunderhammer is a powerfist or a powerfist is a power weapon...

In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.

Please read the rule it requires a techmarine for you to nominate to bolster defences. This does not work if you have a MotF...

Another example of picking the worst possible interpretation and labeling it as the rules. Interpreting the rules this way means that your opponent can force you to assault.

This is exactly what this thread is about. Funny things that the rules say if you interpret them literallly and don't engage your brain. This is known as the RaW interpretation. Just because this interpretation results in another stupid result doesn't stop it from being correct. So if anything you've just proven that players are free to declare assault for other players models more than disproved that you can perform this assault move. However i don't think you are ever allowed to declare actions for your opponents models but might be wrong. Can anyone find a rules quote or this should go onto the list .

I think you;ve misinterpreted the point of this thread. it is a fun list of stupid rules interpretations using RaW. It is a harmless bit of fun and is poking a biut of fun at the RaW loyalists out there who often hide behind "well it is RaW so you have to play it that way or you are cheating/Housing ruling/ not playing 40K...."

FlingitNow wrote:

I don't get it. What are you arguing?

That they are no longer models with no eyes if you've modelled eyes onto them. However as I pointed out once you start converting models your models cease to be purely citadel miniatures and thus cease to be lgeal under RaW.

If they are no longer models with no eyes, great. The game works. As for your view on converted models, try telling GW it is okay to recast their models as long as you change them a little bit first.

FlingitNow wrote:

I considered only the parts that do not reference any firing model.

Where are the parts that allow you to check LoS outside the shooting phase? Even with that you can simply turn your models around so they are facing the opposite way to the enemy (although that too opens a can of worms).

More relevantly, where are the parts that say LoS can only be checked during the shooting phase, despite the fact that rules tell you to check it in other phases?

FlingitNow wrote:

You're the one who needs a rule reference.

Template is checking range it is done just like any other range check except you us ethe template rather than the tape measure. Please pont to a rules reference that states it works differently if you have one.

Again, you have provided no rule to back up your argument that placing the template is checking range. Yes, you miss automatically if the unit is more than a template's length away, but beyond that, you cannot put the burden of proof on me to show that it is not a form of checking range.

FlingitNow wrote:

The in-game definition of marker in this context matches an English definition of template pretty well.

Except there is an in game definition of template and it refers to the conshaped template. The problem is large blast template could refer to anything the actual template, the large blast marker or even the small blast marker (it is still a template and you could consider it large depending on what you are comparing it to), without the correct way it is "impossible" (via RaW) to determine which template they are refering to.

If you consider template and marker as synonyms (which they are in this context) then you can derive the fact that large blast template is the same as large blast marker.

FlingitNow wrote:

"Deploy" is a word, and words mean things in English. You are expecting to see rules beyond being told to deploy, which really is not necessary.

Yes it is but unfortunately it is not a word in the English language that relates to placing models on a table...

Words have many meanings depending on the context, and they are often not all in the dictionary. If you can honestly tell me that when you first read the rule you did not know what they meant by deploy, only then can deploy be seen as a meaningless term.

FlingitNow wrote:

You are counting wrong. I directed you to the claim about models with wings not being able to deep strike. This is a perfect example of taking the most outrageous viewpoint just to make the rules look bad, as he took two opposing viewpoints on different issues so that they would both be silly.

The Wings DS is a contentious issue it is not correct pure RaW but older Codexes had rules that prevented models with wings from DSing, however this was before all JI could DS...

However the mishaps can occur just very rarely and never to single models DSing as they would stop within 1" of the enemy and then the extra models placed around them could cause mishap. This is the most strict adherence to the letter of the rules hence it is RaW.

Are you actually making an argument or just stating you are right?

FlingitNow wrote:

You do realize the rules aren't inclusive, right? As I said, in the English language "scout" would be an adjective with a clear meaning in this context.

Clear yes, 100% defined no. Again by RaW your argument doesn;t stand up. By the slightest amount of common sense it does but that is not what this thread is about.

Clearly my argument must be wrong if you say so.

FlingitNow wrote:

Codex: Space Marines

Not a rules reference that would be this:

C:SM pg65 - "A seismic hammer is treated as a dreadnought CCW that adds +1 to rolls on the vehicle damage chart."

Which clearly illustrates it ios no more a DCCW than a thunderhammer is a powerfist or a powerfist is a power weapon...

You quote where it says that it is treated as a DCCW yet you then say it is not. A thunderhammer is a power fist and a power fist is a power weapon, again all by definition.

FlingitNow wrote:

In this case, the model is prevented from bolstering because he is not a Techmarine, but the player is not prevented from nominating a ruin to get +1 to its cover save, as he is clearly still a player.

Please read the rule it requires a techmarine for you to nominate to bolster defences. This does not work if you have a MotF...

The rule doesn't say that. Remember, just because the Doom of Malanthai does not get a 3+ invulnerable save does not suddenly mean all the rules that have been around for years working in a similar way must not work either.

FlingitNow wrote:
I think you;ve misinterpreted the point of this thread. it is a fun list of stupid rules interpretations using RaW. It is a harmless bit of fun and is poking a biut of fun at the RaW loyalists out there who often hide behind "well it is RaW so you have to play it that way or you are cheating/Housing ruling/ not playing 40K...."

So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?

Science Project - Rough outline for J.F.

Goal/Aim: Investigate the effects of various household chemicals on plant cuttings.

Equipment

Plants: Carrot, Potato, Onion.

Chemicals: Salt, Iodine,

thebetter1 wrote:So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?

Mate if for some reason the premise of this thread subtly disturbs you or you simply can not grasp it, just stay away.
We've managed to get through 17 pages of discussion through pain, flames, tears, laughter, slaughter and people such as yourself, who seem to take it all a little too seriously.


Your aggressive stance and what is essentially name calling and ignoring of the idea that the thread is built on is quite frustrating. I would use the yellow triangle, but in all honesty you are not breaking any rules - just annoying the people who enjoy this thread and ruining the chuckles it brings them.

A unit may move off the table, they are only removed from play if they touch the edge of the table if falling back. The following turn they would be able to move back on or around without any penalty.

this was faq'd because of the stupid.

If they are no longer models with no eyes, great. The game works.

But still not for models with out eyes, which is entirely the point. nAs to the later point and "my view" on cionvertions I really don't get what you're saying. Comnvertions by RaW are not allowed, you're free to try to get GW to caste models that currently have no eyes in versions with eyes. I guessing they won't and until they do the rule is still true.

More relevantly, where are the parts that say LoS can only be checked during the shooting phase, despite the fact that rules tell you to check it in other phases?

Please provide a rules reference for when you are given direct permission to check LoS outside of the shooting phase. You are given permission do to it during the shooting phase I see no rules that allow you to do it at other times.

Again, you have provided no rule to back up your argument that placing the template is checking range. Yes, you miss automatically if the unit is more than a template's length away, but beyond that, you cannot put the burden of proof on me to show that it is not a form of checking range.

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. A template weapon is a ranged weapon and follows ALL the normal rules for firing a ranged weapon except any specific exceptions for template weapons. Thus it is assumed to be checking range and done how all other measuring is done unloess you can prove otherwise.

If you consider template and marker as synonyms (which they are in this context) then you can derive the fact that large blast template is the same as large blast marker.

If you consider, context and derive are not RaW arguments.

Words have many meanings depending on the context, and they are often not all in the dictionary. If you can honestly tell me that when you first read the rule you did not know what they meant by deploy, only then can deploy be seen as a meaningless term.

What has this got to do with wghat I understood when i first read the rule? I understood when I first read the rule that the Doom has a 3++ save, that Shrike allows a unit without infiltrate to infiltrate with him, that the Swarmlord is Hive Tyrant for rules purposes etc etc etc.

Are you actually making an argument or just stating you are right?

Read the thread. DSing is movement therefore all restrictions apply that would to movement. Thus your initial placement mjust be a legal move. You are told to move your model 2d6" in a random direction and we know from the movement rules if you do this you stop when you come within 1" of the enemy. There is no specific permission to break this 1" rule with this movement in the DS rules.

Clearly my argument must be wrong if you say so.

As soon as you start clinging to words like context and obvious you are no longer arguing RaW.

You quote where it says that it is treated as a DCCW yet you then say it is not. A thunderhammer is a power fist and a power fist is a power weapon, again all by definition.

Treat as something doesn't mean it is that something, particularly as it also has other effects. Does a model with a powerfist and power weapon get to use both in CC and gain +1A? Or one with a thunderhammer and Powerfist?

The rule doesn't say that. Remember, just because the Doom of Malanthai does not get a 3+ invulnerable save does not suddenly mean all the rules that have been around for years working in a similar way must not work either.

"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."

Get it now?

So you admit the point of this thread is to troll yet you don't see the problem?

The pint of the thread is to have a laugh and a joke at some of GWs more lax rule writing whilst also having a laugh at miscomprehension possible if you take literalism too far.

If you have such a problem with the thread why are you even bothering to post on it?

Seriphis wrote:A unit may move off the table, they are only removed from play if they touch the edge of the table if falling back. The following turn they would be able to move back on or around without any penalty.

this was faq'd because of the stupid.

Add it to the list. FAQ=//=RAW, as stated by GW themselves.

Here's a great one from another thread:

Vehcile moves 12" to contest objective. Gets assaulted by MC, hitting on 6s stuns the Vehcile.

Back to the vehicles turn it can't move due to stun. MC doesn't get blown away in shooting phase so can now assault the vehicle. We check the rules for the to hit rule and it states movement in "its previous turn". The Vehicle's previous turn was when it moved 12" it was stationary in its current turn (it states turn not movement phase), so MC is hitting on 6s again against the stationary vehcile...