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.

DoW: I will never agree with you because you still cling to this erroneous assumption:

A LRBT could be a Unit in third edition, but it can no longer. Units can definitely consist of single models, but that is only when the rules specifically state that they are not part of a squad or squadron. A LRBT is no more a Unit than a Veteran Guardsman with a Flamer is a Unit. If you disagree with that, well then I'm sorry but you are genuinely misunderstanding the rules.

Does a single LRBT follow the rules for Squadrons? No. But this is still irrelevant to the discussion. You can satisfy the requirements of the "By the authority" rule without referencing the Imperial Guard army list. A LRBT is undoubtedly a unit in their army, and therefore it's a legal choice.

Now, to those who hold up the "Leman Russ, whats that?" typo of proof positive of broken RAW, then fine. My only response is to laugh at you for letting a very simple typo break an otherwise tightly written unit entry.

I think you might be playing the the definition of RAW here. The typo is what is written. Recognizing the typo and filling in the intended meaning would be RAI. It would also be perfectly sensible, and no one would argue with you.

Once you accept this it further strengthen my original stance that playing strictly RAW is nonsense. One needs to go to a FAQ or create house rules to get back to RAI. Otherwise the game starts getting very unfun.

Once a broken rule is identified then RAW is only interesting to try and piece together RAI. At least that is my opinion.

Once a broken rule is identified then RAW is only interesting to try and piece together RAI. At least that is my opinion.

QFT

Debating on what is actually RAW, and debating on whether you should use that RAW are totally different things.

In regards to the epic battle I've been having with ColonelEllios, I think I've pretty much said I'd back down twice now... but I'm a notorious liar and just CAN'T! Argh!

You can satisfy the requirements of the "By the authority" rule without referencing the Imperial Guard army list. A LRBT is undoubtedly a unit in their army, and therefore it's a legal choice.

Actually you can't, and I just realized why. If this isn't supercheese I don't know what is!

The current Imperial Guard Codex is not called "Codex: Imperial Guard" anymore. It's called "Imperial Guard" and it is a codex. Look at the top of the Codex: Daemonhunters, Codex: Witchunters, and the old Codex: Imperial Guard and you'll see what I'm talking about. In fact, I'll link the images to illustrate just in case you don't have copies:



Codex: Daemonhunters tells you to reference Codex: Imperial Guard. You pull you our third edition copy (the only one that satisfies that description) but newer Codices render older ones invalid so you have no-where to determine your source material without referring to a Codex that is not specifically mentioned in "By the Authority..." rule.

Now none of us can have ANY Imperial Guard in our Daemonhunters army. You brought this down on us, ColonelEllios!

Note: The above is true and cannot be disagreed with in any way, shape or form. Also, elephants are larger than the moon - I can prove this on an abacus.

DoW

ColonelEllios wrote:Does a single LRBT follow the rules for Squadrons? No. But this is still irrelevant to the discussion.

Just a nitpick here, but actually it does follow the rules for squadrons until it is shot at.

DogOfWar wrote:The current Imperial Guard Codex is not called "Codex: Imperial Guard" anymore. It's called "Imperial Guard" and it is a codex.

Take a look at the spine of the book and you'll notice it says "Codex: Imperial Guard". It's a codex for the Imperial Guard, hence it's still "Codex: Imperial Guard".

@DogofWar: SUPERCHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone even TRIED to pull that off while I was around, they would find themselves hanging from a tree by thier te$ticles!

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) What happens to Armoured fist? Is it replaced by Veterans? (Pleeeez)

Gone, not replaced.

2) Can 0-1 Leman Russ be interperated as 0-1 Leman Russ Squad?

No, it cannot. RaW you can no longer take Inducted Leman Russes of any Kind.

3) What about the Russ variants?

4) Commands?

5) Anything else?

No

Seems right to me. Gwar is right again.

Take a look at the spine of the book and you'll notice it says "Codex: Imperial Guard". It's a codex for the Imperial Guard, hence it's still "Codex: Imperial Guard".

Someone didn't read my note. Elephants. Moon. Abacus!

(Damn, I really thought I had him there. Especially with something so completely ridiculous. I guess it was too good to be true...)

@DogofWar: SUPERCHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE!!!!!!!!!!! If anyone even TRIED to pull that off while I was around, they would find themselves hanging from a tree by thier te$ticles!

I shall DEFINITELY keep that in mind next time I walk into a new LGS. I'm rather fond of my testicles.

DoW

I read your 'note'. It doesn't change the fact that it's called "Codex: Imperial Guard" on the spine making your whole line of reasoning false. A codex for the Imperial Guard is "Codex: Imperial Guard" whether you like it or not.

I read your 'note'. It doesn't change the fact that it's called "Codex: Imperial Guard" on the spine making your whole line of reasoning false. A codex for the Imperial Guard is "Codex: Imperial Guard" whether you like it or not.

Did you really think I was serious?

I'm really actually kinda disappointed, the first post you made was great because it totally derailed me. I didn't notice the spine at all and you got me good.

I figured you would read my "(Damn, I really thought I had him there. Especially with something so completely ridiculous. I guess it was too good to be true...)" and think "ah he's a good sport, I'm glad I convinced him" instead of taking it way too seriously and re-iterating your post to rub it in my face in a really unpleasant way.

All I can say is I hope you're being very sarcastic and you've just got a really dry wit. Otherwise, that's kinda sad.

Come on people, arguments are great, but if someone's trying to give you kudos and bow out gracefully with a bit of a joke, don't be a jerk about it.

Man that bummed me out way more than it should have... oh well.

DoW

DoW I had a good laugh looking at the old (3rd Ed) IG codex. I haven't seen that in years! Thanks for that little trip down memory lane...

However, your sarcastic commentary has proven an important point to make. What use is RAW, and debating RAW on a forum that is supposed to help people decide how to play the game, when such "proofs" are deemed acceptable? It has been said multiple times that nobody would reasonably deny their Demonhunter opponent the option to take a Leman Russ in their army. Likewise, I don't think that it is a valid point to claim that a unit entry entitled "Leman Russ Battle Tank" does not reasonably equate to "Leman Russ" in the army list when referencing points values and upgrades.

Bottom line is that, in the case of simple typos, when the intended unit entry/rule is beyond doubt obvious, this conclusion can and should be included in rules disputes. A certain amount of this "rational reading" of the rules is necessary in every single codex.

debating RAW is important because rules debates are much like fighting a court case. The RAW is the evidence. We need to establish what will happen if the rules are played literally before we can decide that they are broken and need a house rule. I agree with you ColonelEllios, but the first step is accepting what is actually written on the page and that needs to be seperated from what later will be constructed to fix it. RAW has a strict definition. It's the rules that are actually written on the page no matter how silly or broken they are in reality. Once you have that foundation we can start building ontop of it with our own interpretations. Some of the examples in this thread are admittedly silly, but we need to be disciplined in how we make these debates. Once you start saying "RAW are the rules as written except for these exceptions which are pretty obvious", you've opened a door of ambiguity, which allows people is misinterpret the rules.

What we are really debating here is the definition of RAW. I don't think we are debating this ruling anymore.


Also I think we've opened ourselves up to another very fascinating debate. Why would the spine of the IG codex be more of an authority than the front cover of the book

Trasvi wrote:

I also don't see a mandate on this forum that says its is the RAW forum. (shrug).

Trasvi has a point that is not often discussed.

@ColonelEllios - You are most welcome! I love reading the old codices... even if it makes me nostalgic and irritated about these new-fangled modern whatsits.

@Phillosmaster - I couldn't agree more. I lose interest in the actual "how would you play it" aspect because it really doesn't matter if you or I play it differently, only that we compromise if we were to actually play against each other. I find that the answer to OP's question, even in ambiguous rules cases, is answered pretty quickly and it only gets interesting when we all start diving into the meat and potatoes of the actual rule language.

All in all, you're both absolutely right. I definitely get drawn into a RAW discussion because I like the 'court-case' feel of it - but it's easy to lose the point of the discussion, which is to find out the 'best' way to interpret and implement the rules as they are currently written. I'm no Gwar! (could there be more than one?) and the full on "RAW or Don't Play" seems a little ridiculous a lot of the time. This being said, it's a lot easier to argue for or against the actual text, rather than the intention. When you get into the intentions, it's purely opinion based and there's no real way to prove anything, you can just say your piece and move on. C'mon, where's the fun in that!?

As a side note, I feel the name on the front of the book is CLEARLY the correct choice. The spine name is for people who keep it on the shelf. Then again, a REAL player should never close the book and see the front cover at all...

Oh the tangled webs we weave!

DoW