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.

If you recall, the BA list was printed in WD as a *Codex*.

It may be a Codex, but it is not a "Codex book," which is what the rulebook requires.

Rules-wise, as a printed Codex, players are required to accept it.

And if it's printed off the GW site by the player? What then?

When you start with a 40k rules chain, you start with the BBB.

Nice claim. Evidence, please?

I agree with Mannahnin about the LOS rules. Well put!

My 2 cents, I would never shoot at anything if all I could see is a spikey bit or some other insignificant piece of a model. If all I could see was the leg of a defilier, I would take the shot. I would consider that part of the hull of the model.

I agree with Mannahnin about the lack of a base for the defilier being practical. I also like the look of the defilier "crawling" over and/or through terrain features. I will add that I played a guy in the Blatimore GT that had two defiliers modeled like the brass scorpians and they were on large round bases touching all the legs. They looked awesome and when he was trying to balance one on a terrain feature, I suggested he remove the terrain feature so the model could lay flat on the table. When he moved off, we replaced the original terrain piece, no big deal. If it were to be destroyed, just leave that bad boy there, it is big enough to be terrain anyway and looks better.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
By definition, the Rulebook *is* authoritative - there is no claim process necessary.

A rule book is only authoritative as those who stand behind it. If GW decide to print a new book they don't need to have put that the new book over rules the old one into the old book, last I checked the 3rd edition rules never said that the 4th edition counted, I don't know for sure but Im guessing the same thing is true of 2nd edition. Should I claim foul if we don't play by the older edition rules, all of those were rulebooks, and apparently by deffinition they are authoritative? No, because authority steams from the creaters, and the creaters no longer say they are authoritative.

That is where you are totally wrong. Not everything is published to the same standards. What's next? Claiming Necromunda is Official?

When you start with a 40k rules chain, you start with the BBB. The BBB specifies Codices as sources for specialized rules. So those are also valid. Once you step outside the defined rules chain (which only goes as far as the Codices, as far as I can tell), at that point, it's all up to mutual agreement.

Where the heck in the deffinition of authority does publishing standards enter in, and no the authority chain starts with GW, not the rule book. Anything they say is authorative is authorative, irrespective of how badly they write it.

And bringing up another one of GW formally official rules sets into the discussion is silly, at one time it was official, but has nothing to do with 40K rules as GW never said it did, it was a different game. However, if by some chance, we woke up tommorrow and GW told us that 40K now followed Necromunda rules instead of the BGB, guess which book you'ld have to use to play 40K.

The BBB does NOT mention FAQs or Droolzboyz or flowcharts. So those are merely guidance, but non-binding. If I don't want to abide by them, you can't make me if I don't agree.

OTOH, if something is in the BBB (or, by reference, a Codex), I am forced to follow it.

The BGB doesn't have to say they are if the creaters of the game, that which the BGB draws its own authortiy from, says they are.

The fact that I and my opponent agree to play a game of 40k4 is what makes the 40k4 BBB the official source for the rules we must play by if our basic agreement to play a game of 40k4 remains valid.

If we had agreed to play RT, 40k2, 40k3, Necro, or Epic then we would be playing that instead. But we agreed to play 40k4, then things are pretty simple.

All this mushy stuff you're talking about is just smoke.