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.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:One of the first rules of the game is "You could even decide to change the rules to suit you better (this is known as a 'house rule')"

You would be the one cheating by ignoring this rule.

Therefore, by your own admission, if I propose to change the rules, and you refuse, you are cheating, because I can "decide to change the rules".

It seems as if you don't read what people type.

The guy said the rules can be changed with the consent of both players. That is different to you proposing a change which your opponent refuses.

It's obvious that any game can only proceed if both players agree on the rules, equally, they can agree to change them if they like.

Mod: I am getting complaints off this thread, and I will close it if there are any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will also dish out warnings and suspensions if necessary.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Really? You are interested in what some random foul mouthed 10 year old screaming at you is actually saying? You honestly think that because I'm not, I have a character flaw?

You already admitted that I am not some Foul Mouthed 10 year old, I am just blunt. If you ignore me because of that, it is you who has the flawed character, not me.

Based on the fact that he is responding to you, I think that its safe to assume he is not ignoring you. Furthurmore, just because HE admitted that he found you blunt but not rude does not mean others agree.

BTW, saying that people are "jealous" of you is pretty revealing of your character, and is frankly laughable.

You know...

Guys, I think Alpharius is trying to send us a message.

Alpha, are you hungry? Do you want a hot dog? How 'bout a dog in a blanket?

I think he needs Visine.

I don't see anything wrong in the conversation itself per se; Gwar and I were not flaming each other at all. However, we definitely went way off track from the original topic, which I am guessing might be the cause for the complaint.

Sorry about the sidetracking!

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Orkestra wrote:
I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

Gwar ruins many threads. Apparently this okay.

-looks at sig-
-looks at Troll's Afrikan Blonde's sig-

Nuff Said.

P.S. By Gwar Baiting, He means people trying to Bait me into flaming them.

Personally, I would find it quite amusing if you did swim across the Atlantic and kick in my door for not playing RAW. Possibly followed by a yell of "OH YEAH", or then leading into a Brinks Home Security Commercial.

To get back on topic I let one of my buddies play using the new "Mk2" versions of a lot of the new items in his DW (namely the Cyclones and storm shields).

He was up in arms about the whole thing at first but after doing so (playing with new gear) he now sees why GW did not errata the DA codex to allow DA new stormshields and CML.

Those gear pieces are not OP in the regular marine codex but they ARE so broken for DW that not even all the techmarines and techpriests in the 40k universe could patch that craziness.

Even regular DA (non-death/ravenwing) would still have it too good using the new shields/cml....

Yeah, do be honest I never even read the DA codex or own it. I just am playing Primed / glued space marines as 2nd army when I am tired of playing Eldar. I was just asking, considering that the new SM Codex was released if it overrode or replaced the majority of the DA codes. As it seems, this is rather a touchy subject. I was also considering making a BT army because I like how they look as well, but haven't decided.

Forsakenmantra wrote:Yeah, do be honest I never even read the DA codex or own it. I just am playing Primed / glued space marines as 2nd army when I am tired of playing Eldar. I was just asking, considering that the new SM Codex was released if it overrode or replaced the majority of the DA codes. As it seems, this is rather a touchy subject. I was also considering making a BT army because I like how they look as well, but haven't decided.

Do BT army. OK they can't share transports but they can take a Land Raider Crusader as a dedicated transport (oh and they can bless the hell to ignore lancing).

I am a HUGE fan of the Emperor's Chosen model too.

Completely back on topic, you can paint them DA and use the space marine codex, not a big problem, no one will mind.

Yeah, I know I could do that, but honestly I wouldn't feel right. As it is I try to adhere to WYSIWYG and am currently magnetizing all my gak, including 2 Autarchs, which looks like its going to be kind of a bitch.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:RAW is always the best place to start but it cannot by any means answer all the problems with the rules.

I sort of have to agree with this. RAW is great for most situations, but for like a thread I saw up here yesterday, it doesn't work, and reading it RAW just makes a loophole, which doesn't make sense.

The thread I'm talking about is guardsman Yarrick vs the Ctan (Drain Life special rule), RAW says Yarrick can get back up, but RAI makes much much more sense, the fact that anything getting hit with a C'tan shouldn't be able to get back up ever.