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.

The last eldar codex had a piece of wargear that allowed the vehicle to shoot during the movement phase which was an effective counter to siren princes. This sets a precedent that an action can occur during a non action phase.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:FAQs are not house rules. All large events in the US use them.

Previous editions show intent... yes I know that is a dirty word here but some of us understand why it is needed at times.

Yeah, because the US is the Ruler of the World. Protip, read the GW Website. They say themselves the FAQ's are house rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:The last eldar codex had a piece of wargear that allowed the vehicle to shoot during the movement phase which was an effective counter to siren princes. This sets a precedent that an action can occur during a non action phase.

Last Eldar Codex isn't used anymore.

Again, Will you let me DeepStrike, Shoot then assault my Space Wolves?

Gwar are you advocating against the use of GW FAQs when they don't agree with your POV?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar are you advocating against the use of GW FAQs when they don't agree with your POV?

No, I am against using GW FAQ's when they try to pass them off as official rule changes. And STILL haven't answered my question.

Yes Gwar, we're all aware of your opinion of the FAQs. And Blonde, quit bringing up previopus edition stuff, it means nothing.

I was using a previous edition to help establish intent and set precedents.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I was using a previous edition to help establish intent and set precedents.

Yeah, and you still haven't answered my question about my space wolves. By now I hope everyone sees you for the uselss troll that you are (not the good troll like me.)

Your question was unclear to me. What exactly do you want to know?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Your question was unclear to me. What exactly do you want to know?

Unclear? I have stated it 3 times.

Slightly edited Question so you understand it:
As you seem to have a fetish for 3rd ed rules, would it be ok for me to Move my Space Wolf Rhinos 12", Disembark, Shoot their Bolters and then Assault a different unit than the one they shot at, as It was possible in 3rd edition because that was the framework the rules were written in?

I think everyone knows the answer is no. I understand your point but it is not always as cut and dry as that.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I think everyone knows the answer is no. I understand your point but it is not always as cut and dry as that.

Wow, Hypocritical much? You go off spewing off about 3rd ed rules having some meaning for Daemonhunters, but suddenly they do not apply to my Space Wolves?

You are being over dramatic at this point.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:You are being over dramatic at this point.

No, You are just being hypocritical.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:You are being over dramatic at this point.

No, You are just being hypocritical.

You are both right!

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:You are being over dramatic at this point.

No, You are just being hypocritical.

You are both right!

Yeah, but being overly dramatical is excusable. Being a Hypocrite is Bad M'kay?

My examples were cited to show how to use an older edition of the rules to examine how rules from a codex written at that time work in correlation to 5th edition. The DH codex is a can of worms because the developers have opted for codex trumps rulebook instead of going back and doing their work like they should.

You are advocating twisting the rules if you really want to advocate SW rhino rush. Nowhere in the SW codex does it say you can assault the same turn you disembark from a moving rhino.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:My examples were cited to show how to use an older edition of the rules to examine how rules from a codex written at that time work in correlation to 5th edition. The DH codex is a can of worms because the developers have opted for codex trumps rulebook instead of going back and doing their work like they should.

You are advocating twisting the rules if you really want to advocate SW rhino rush. Nowhere in the SW codex does it say you can assault the same turn you disembark from a moving rhino.

Nowhere in the Daemonhunters codex does it say Holocaust is a Shooting attack.

Why are you repeating yourself?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Why are you repeating yourself?

Pot, meet Kettle.


Kettle, Pot.

At this point, It's over.

I don't think it's a psychic shooting attack, as codex doesn't say so.

Did you read the post by Don Mondo?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Did you read the post by Don Mondo?

i did but I don't agree with it so I'm ignoring that house rule

I am okay with that.

I treat guidance from official GW rules answer sources as having the same weight as the printed rules, but that one just looks like a mistake. Probably a good idea to bring it to their attention. It is entirely possible they haven't even noticed it.

If you ignore one then there is no reason why an opponent can't ignore another.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If you ignore one then there is no reason why an opponent can't ignore another.

Or you and your opponent could play by the rules, thus negating the need to ignore house rules altogether!

Tri wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Did you read the post by Don Mondo?

i did but I don't agree with it so I'm ignoring that house rule

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I am okay with that.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If you ignore one then there is no reason why an opponent can't ignore another.

... Thing is I only turn to the FAQ if i have a problem playing with a rule ... I have no problem using holocaust so no reason to use the FAQ if i got in a debate about holocaust with some one the FAQ still would be no uses unless the debate was about where it counted as a shooting attack.

and to be honest the fact if its treated as a shooting attack, that happens in the assault phase, it creates more problems. By RAW a shooting attack can't happen in CC. The fact that it takes place at I1 just means every one gets their attack before they're killed off.

Don't you run in the shooting phase?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Don't you run in the shooting phase?

What does that have to do with anything?

If you don't understand I don't think it will help if I try to explain.