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.

Strimen wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Then why does the DoM's entry have the warpfield listed? Answer that one.

G

You realize that the Heirophant or whatever that huge ass 'nid thing from Apoc is called has warpfield. You telling me it works on him? The rule states it only works on zoeys. End of story until GW FAQs it or properly writes the rules in a future release (like that will happen).

OH NOES, NEW CODEX FEVER

I can say for sure the DoM as I've seen it repeatedly is a beast. Usually, yes it down out of a pod, but also with friends i.e. multiples of mister "I like to dig under ground and then EXPLODE people " and also teamed with gene stealer teams as well as other units of Zoanthropes.

With the others breaking up defensive lines and causing chaos, getting in B2B for assault and doing other things, the DoM becomes a ridiculous force multiplier.

Especially, since the pod can drop it right into the heart of the enemy.

I've seen it chew on 6-7 units wiping out models in assault, taking out terminator in land raiders, etc.. it's just a beast.

Even if you take the toned down play-version...
(1) Can't get to units inside vehicles
(2) Has the 3+ invlunerable

It's still a nightmare to deal with as you have to get a lucky rocket, lascannon, etc... through--- weapons which are probably needed to use on the whole sale SQUADS of Zoanthropes with the crazy 18" Super-RailCannons and the 6-wounds Toughness 6 club which has just vomited its members all over the Nid codex.

Please don't try to bring APOC into this discussion as it was written prior to the new codex and is a completely different game that uses the rules (some) from 40k.

I have figured out this is just another +1 exercise for Gwar so I'm bowing out now.

G

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:yeah right gwar like anyone actually plays it that way . The funny thing is I actually believe you think you are correct. Don't get so worked up about it, it's just toy soldiers dude.

Can you say for certain that not one single person plays this way? Also, I don't have to think I am correct, I know I am correct, because unlike other people, I read what the actual rules say, rather than crying about it and making up rules to fit what I want the rules to be.

Mother of God. I think this whole argument over the 3++ save can be summed in two thoughts.

First: Missing the forest for the minute variations between two trees of the same species.

Second: Grinding out the minor, and easily resolved, flaws in the codex for the six weeks pre-FAQ.

Can we stop this business and take a more compartmentalized view of things? There are true rules debates (along the lines of the KFF) and then there's this... trivia.

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Gwar!, unlike you, the rest of us realize that the writers of the Codexes for Warhammer 40,000 are a bunch of idiots, and so we need to use COMMON SENSE when interpreting their scribblings. Insisting upon a strict lieral reading of every word they haphazardly dump between the covers is no more than a vessel you use to start and/or perpetuate pointless and absurd arguments. I'm not going to bother trying to attack the merits of you argument, because it's completely pointless. Us normal folks who live in the real world know better, and that's all we need.

Ad hominem is also a logical fallacy.

The purpose of Gwar!'s insistence on his interpretation of the rules has nothing to do with the rules themselves, it's purely his childish need to always be right and get the last word in, so it would be serving his purpose to attack his argument, and that I will not do. Don't get sucked into his downward spiral of self-serving rubbish.

Ok, this whole thread has kind of gone way off topic. I was hoping for an actual discussion, not a slug fest.

Question: Would cover saves be allowed against leech essence? I was just having a discussion with a friend and he claims there would be no save since it's not resolved as a shooting attack. I believe that there would be, just because I'm nice.

Lukus83 wrote:Ok, this whole thread has kind of gone way off topic. I was hoping for an actual discussion, not a slug fest.

Lol at least i makes for a really funny read

Lukus83 wrote:Question: Would cover saves be allowed against leech essence? I was just having a discussion with a friend and he claims there would be no save since it's not resolved as a shooting attack. I believe that there would be, just because I'm nice.

I'd agree with your friend as i was under the impression that you can only take cover save against shooting attacks. I'm sure someone will disagree with me and brawl will begin again.

Looking forward to it!

Ok, like I have said in previous threads that bring up the Heirophant from FW, it has its own self contained Warpfeild rule.

Ok, let's rule lawyer:

How are terms incorporated into a contract? Express terms are terms that have been specifically mentioned and agreed by both parties at the time the contract is made. They can either be oral or in writing (let’s conclude that the rulebook and codices are the contract in writing between us, the consumers, and GW, the producer).

However, sometimes a term which has not been mentioned by either party will nonetheless be ‘included’ in the contract, often because the contract doesn’t make commercial sense without that term. Terms like this are called implied terms.

One kind of implied term does not have to be mentioned, because it is a matter of fact. Something that’s so obviously included that it didn’t need to be mentioned in the contract. Fine.

Another kind of term, customary terms, are generally known to be included in contracts in a particular trade or locality. Amongst bakers, “one dozen” means thirteen – they don’t have to include terms in every contract specifying that.

At this point it seems obvious that the Doom should receive it’s Warpfield save, as it is so obvious to everyone involved that this is the intent, and GW even gave it Warpfield in its special rules.

However! Any term, implied or customary, can be excluded with the use of an express term; an express term as mentioned above, agreed by both parties when the contract is made. In this case, when you bought the Codex. Unfortunately the rule Warpfield makes specific mention to Zoanthropes. The Doom is not a Zoanthrope as the Codex is written. In this case, the judge would most likely have to find in favour of the save not being awarded to the Doom, and though he would be very unhappy about it he would have no choice in the matter. There are many legal cases where the judge was extremely unhappy about the outcome but due to a poorly written contract had no option but to find in favour of the “wrong party”!

So in conclusion, your honour, I would say that it sucks for the Doom not to have a 3+, but life isn’t fair and GW should proof-read their gak.

And that’s why I also hate rules-lawyering because you end up with the above discussion instead of getting on with the beers and game

I grappled the shoggoth wrote:Why wouldnt the doom be right in having a 3+ invulnerable? It has the warp field power. This means two things.

Either all things with the warp field power gain 3+ invulnerable saves or
The printing of warp field is a typo by GW

The argument being presented is that the Warp Field only grants a specific benefit to Zoanthropes. So anything that has the Warp Field that isn't a Zoanthrope gains no actual benefit from it.

Where people are getting stuck is in thinking that this is how anyone would actually play the game.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Doom is a Zoanthrope? Certainly seems that way, given the fluff in his entry.
Is it reasonable to assume that the Doom is supposed to benefit from the Warp Field, even if he isn't considered a Zoanthrope? Since he was given the rule, that certainly seems reasonable. Although it's also a reasonable interpretation that giving him the Warp Field despite the fact that it does nothing for him was simply an error (See the various units in the Ork Codex originally given the Waaagh! rule despite it not granting them any benefit).

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people will play that the Doom is a type of Zoanthrope, or simply that he gets the save from the Warp Field. It's certainly how I would be playing it. I strongly suspect that Gwar would play it that way, despite his rigid adherence to RAW in this thread.

At this point, most of the gnashing of teeth in this thread seems to come from people objecting to Gwar's insistence on RAW here, as if his pointing out that the RAW says one thing is going to have any effect on how they choose to play the game. And to be fair, Gwar's insistence on RAW with no regard to how the rule will be interpreted during an actual game conveys the impression that he thinks it's the only way the game should be played...

So this seems like a good time to ask for two things:
1: For posters to remember that we're talking about a game of toy soldiers, and so to try to keep an open mind when it is pointed out that the rules don't actually say what they think they say.
and
2: For posters to stop and consider how a given rule is actually played, and when pointing out the fact that a given rule doesn't actually work as generally assumed, to mention in their explanation of the rule that it is generally played differently.

I realise that second one is a little off-track from the normal style of YMDC, which tends to focus fairly strictly on RAW. But a rules discussion focussing on functionless RAW just for the sake of argument doesn't really accomplish anything beyond (sometimes) giving a couple of people the opportunity to have a good argument. Taking that functionless RAW and turning the conversation towards how to make it work... that actually accomplishes something useful.

It's late here, and I've had a long day... so if any of this doesn't make sense, feel free to PM me for clarification. In the meantime, the original question has been resolved, and the rest of this thread is a mess. So I'm going to go ahead and close it.