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.

Ah. Always good to come to the boards and see Gwar question someones maturity. Coming from the man who squirms whenever he does get proven wrong and starts waxing philosophical about how "one can never be proven wrong, they can just be proven not right". Good stuff.

I really missed being on Dakkadakka and it's posts like the one above that make me glad I came back

Doomenbot - care to provide a quote or 3 to back up that OT assertion?

Not really. I have seen it multiple times, but this isn't a courtroom. I know its true, and even were I to provide quotes, what does that accomplish exactly? You can choose to believe it or not, doesn't make any difference to me.

I simply made the assertion because I found his hostility and personal attack uncalled for, and humorous in light of the aforementioned fact.

If you found it uncalled for, then the mod alert button is there for a reason.

Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you found it uncalled for, then the mod alert button is there for a reason.

Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

Reporting someone with nearly 20,000 posts:
"Oh lawdy"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Personally attacking him (which is what you are doing by making unfounded assertions about the persons character) is a bit 2 wrongs, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unfortunatley puma doesnt seem to understand the value of knowing the actual rules

lol

You dont, however. You stated that it is pointless understanding the rules unless you actually play that way. Which is showing you DONT value the idea of knowing the full rules. Not a personal attack at all.

Lordwaffles - yes, why not? Number of posts doesnt mean anything than, like me, he gets bored easily

nosferatu1001 wrote:You dont, however. You stated that it is pointless understanding the rules unless you actually play that way. Which is showing you DONT value the idea of knowing the full rules. Not a personal attack at all.

That's not true. Knowing the rules and "playing by certain rules" are not the same thing. I can know that it is legal to mount Ko'sarro Khan in a Land Raider and still not do it. And, therefore, not argue about it because I would never play it that way to begin with. There's a vast difference of arguing what people would play and why they do. However, when RAW purists such as yourself and Gwar! post in the YMDC forums, it's never stamped with a "but this isn't how people play" disclaimer. It's straight RAW. So, the innocent person that is new to YMDC asks how you play something and the RAW purists say, "Nope, Bjorn doesn't get a save." then that person goes to the table, faces Bjorn and feels slighted when the judge rules against him.

Ignorance is bliss, in this case. If you're not privy to asking "Why doesn't Bjorn get a save?" then it'll never come up in a game and everyone is happy. However, as soon as someone reads, "Well, vehicles don't take wounds so. . yadda yadda yadda," suddenly that person is confused about a rule that shouldn't have been confusing in the first place. Same thing with flickerfields. You bought flickerfields? Great! You get a 5+ invulnerable save. Who cares why it doesn't work. The point is it does when it comes to game time. You can sit here and debate it all day long, but are you going to deny your opponent's their flickerfield that they bought? I doubt it.

And if you're not, then you're sitting in YMDC saying that denying them the save is the correct way to play it, but you don't play it that way. Well, who cares what the "correct" way to play it is, if no one plays it that way? You just want them to know that, in the back of their mind, they're cheating? Thank you, oh Moral Paragon. Or that they shouldn't apply logic because everyone's interpretation could be different than the person's next to him?

The value of knowing the rules and the value of knowing RAW vs. RAI is different. Someone won't stop applying logic to a ruleset until you show them where they can stop applying it. And, at that point, they can't unlearn what you've taught them.

Two problems with your statement nosferatu.

1. My assertion is not unfounded. I have not given evidence for it here. That simply means it has not been proven right here in this thread. The fact of the matter is that it did happen. Again, this isn't a courtroom, Gwar isn't on trial, I am not a lawyer, and there is no judge. Whether you choose to believe me or think that I am bitter over some trivial matter and making it up really doesn't make a lick of difference to me. Nor does it make a difference to how true the statement actually is.

2. I did not make the statement for some sort of vague notion of internet justice. Making a mod alert would have no purpose, and I am a strong proponent of free speech. If Gwar wants to be make a personal attack on someone because they choose not to play a game intended for fun when they believe their opponent is attempting to make it less fun on a technicality, he has that right to. I didn't report Gwar for it, I don't think it would make any difference if I did, and even if I did think it would make a difference I wouldn't.

All that doesn't mean I have to sit here and nod my head and think to myself what a great guy he is attempting to call someone out for immaturity when I myself have witnessed his immaturity first hand.

All that being said, I believe we are well on our way to a mod locking and perhaps a stern slap on the wrist yes?

Well... Now there's a vehicle that can make a save against a destroyer weapon.....


Survivability in apoc

Land raider<DE vehicles>

That's not true. Knowing the rules and "playing by certain rules" are not the same thing. I can know that it is legal to mount Ko'sarro Khan in a Land Raider and still not do it. And, therefore, not argue about it because I would never play it that way to begin with. There's a vast difference of arguing what people would play and why they do. However, when RAW purists such as yourself and Gwar! post in the YMDC forums, it's never stamped with a "but this isn't how people play" disclaimer. It's straight RAW. So, the innocent person that is new to YMDC asks how you play something and the RAW purists say, "Nope, Bjorn doesn't get a save." then that person goes to the table, faces Bjorn and feels slighted when the judge rules against him.

Ignorance is bliss, in this case. If you're not privy to asking "Why doesn't Bjorn get a save?" then it'll never come up in a game and everyone is happy. However, as soon as someone reads, "Well, vehicles don't take wounds so. . yadda yadda yadda," suddenly that person is confused about a rule that shouldn't have been confusing in the first place. Same thing with flickerfields. You bought flickerfields? Great! You get a 5+ invulnerable save. Who cares why it doesn't work. The point is it does when it comes to game time. You can sit here and debate it all day long, but are you going to deny your opponent's their flickerfield that they bought? I doubt it.

And if you're not, then you're sitting in YMDC saying that denying them the save is the correct way to play it, but you don't play it that way. Well, who cares what the "correct" way to play it is, if no one plays it that way? You just want them to know that, in the back of their mind, they're cheating? Thank you, oh Moral Paragon. Or that they shouldn't apply logic because everyone's interpretation could be different than the person's next to him?

The value of knowing the rules and the value of knowing RAW vs. RAI is different. Someone won't stop applying logic to a ruleset until you show them where they can stop applying it. And, at that point, they can't unlearn what you've taught them.

+1

Especially the part about being able to put Khan on bike in a LR. People need to use some sense. There was a thread recently about how Njal's terminator armor doesn't have the terminator armor rules so he can go in a rhino. Come on people.

I understand providing the RAW answer is very interesting to talk about, but as it's been said, the hardcore RAW bunch aren't bringing it up to have a laugh or two. They are bringing it up to advocate playing that way. To go into a pickup game with a stranger and say "Oh RAW you can't take those saves on your Raiders, but I'll let you house rule it cause I'm so nice" isn't a way to make friends. It rubs people the wrong way and the intent is someone trying to prop them self up. Again, what's the real point of acting that way? I understand that people do, but if some guy tried to put terminator Njal in a rhino I'd play the game out and probably never want to play them again.

Apply common sense where RAW fails.

A vehicle with a flicker Field gets a 5+ invunerable save

From the codex.

Am i missing something here? Is the argument really that you need to WOUND to take a save? Really? the 5+ would save the vehicle from any damaging attack, be it a missle or powerfist. the word invunerable means it even works against flamers, and as someone stated, "D" weapons in apocalypse! (good catch there!)

If people want to say "It does nothing because a vehicle cannot be wounded", let them.
i don't know anyone jerky enough to pull that...
every tournament i go to would not try to pull that...
And if somehow i got paired against someone who tried, i would hope the player was a girl, because in the rulebook, when it states your opponent, it say "Him", so she is not allowed to play. OBVIOUSLY, we need to play by RAW, so no women allowed!
(MIGHT have been last edition, i will have to check...)

Sorry, but i will let women play.. (they are nicer to look at across the table), and RAW be da*ned!
-Anglacon

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

Yes, they do.
Normally, a saving throw is taken against a wound. Passing the save lets you ignore that wound.
Bjorn's Ward rule lets you take an invulnerable save against a glancing or penetrating hit instead. So you use the same mechanics as you would for any other saving throw, substituting 'glancing or penetrating hit' for 'wound'...

That really is the argument here Anglacon.

We peons are so simple, we attempt to use that which is known to be useless the world over, sometimes referred to as "common sense". Everybody knows that 38,000 years hence, when a chaos space marine fires a missile launcher at a Raider with Flickerfield, he will accompany it with bellowing "YOU KNOW BY RAW THAT INVULNERABLE SAVE DOES NOTHING FOR YOU RIGHT?". After which, the dark eldar pilot will reply with "oh noooooo" and explode in a fiery ball of flames.

JGrand wrote:
To go into a pickup game with a stranger and say "Oh RAW you can't take those saves on your Raiders, but I'll let you house rule it cause I'm so nice" isn't a way to make friends. It rubs people the wrong way and the intent is someone trying to prop them self up. Again, what's the real point of acting that way?

Apply common sense where RAW fails.

This is the crux of my initial post.

Technically right or not, you're not making the game enjoyable in the slightest by doing something like this, and the vast majority of human beings are not going to be happy with you acting like that. If you go to a friendly local hobby store, odds are you are either going to be "that guy", or one of a group of "two guys who are 'that guy'".

How about we drop the RAW vs Actually Playing the Game discussion as it's been done to death elsewhere, and return to the topic, mkay?

The topic *is* RAW vs. RAI ;D

RAI, if it's really a 5++, and not a 5+ obscured save, then you get it for melee, even - to add to the discussion of how awesome this wargear piece is.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

Yes, they do.
Normally, a saving throw is taken against a wound. Passing the save lets you ignore that wound.
Bjorn's Ward rule lets you take an invulnerable save against a glancing or penetrating hit instead. So you use the same mechanics as you would for any other saving throw, substituting 'glancing or penetrating hit' for 'wound'...

I find it positively insane how often the "Bjorn" rule problem is quoted, when there is no problem. Thank you insaniak for consistently pointing out to people that the "Bjorn" issue is non-existant.

I really don't understand how some people who I've seen you correct on this time and again can still refer to it in the same way.

this still going on? lol
thought everyone knew the answer to this already...

trolling aside, c'mon ladies and gents, we all know how we will play the rule on the TT, even the RAW crowd will play it the same way.. which is.. it gets the save.
you can all argue on but t he point is, despite what is said here, it will get the 5++

Dracos wrote:I really don't understand how some people who I've seen you correct on this time and again can still refer to it in the same way.

Here you go, I explained part of that on the previous page.

kirsanth wrote:The annoying part is that the people writing the rules apparently know this, as they have written clear versions before.
Using rules with different words makes it hard to assert that the rules are the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lordwaffles - yes, why not? Number of posts doesnt mean anything than, like me, he gets bored easily

With post count comes recognition, with recognition in hand you can slowly build a career of clout with other people on the board. So long as Rawr has good standing with the mods, and judging from his post count and general non-dickish attitudes(From what I've seen), I'm pretty sure he's goddamn Air Force One level bullet proof.

Very no.

Formosa wrote:even the RAW crowd will play it the same way.. which is.. it gets the save.

I think we all know the RAW crowd well enough to know they won't, that's why people are getting heated over it.

They can say they will online, but if it's not even going to affect the vast majority of games in that case then why even bring it up? If you know how it's supposed to work then why even make a point that the rules aren't written clearly enough to begin with, if you weren't going to try and bring it up during a game and hold people to it? Is it just so everyone can say "you're right"? lol

Well okay, you're right. We're never going to play it that way because we clearly know that's not what GW meant, but you're still right. Enjoy your cookie.

Actually, you have NO idea how the "RAW" crowd will play, as you havent played them *in real life*

Stop conflating board with real life. It isnt. Thats the GREAT thing about boards - you can discuss those areas that seem obvious to people (that ramming is a type of tank shock) but are not obvious to others.

Which brings me onto Puma: in this case the rules are clear, but still some people dont understand them. In other cases that understanding is even less broad. Discussing what you consider to be stupid topics has merit, despite your claims otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which brings me onto Puma: in this case the rules are clear, but still some people dont understand them. In other cases that understanding is even less broad. Discussing what you consider to be stupid topics has merit, despite your claims otherwise.

Did I say stupid? What I said was in those "other cases" in which understanding is less broad, the RAW crowd doesn't give a clear answer. They give a RAW answer, no matter how widely accepted it is. And, while you may think a RAW answer is as clear as it gets, the constant RAI vs. RAW threads should prove otherwise.

That and my post was a rebuttal to your assuming I place no value on the importance of knowing the rules (or something to that effect), which isn't true. Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules "should" be played (but still aren't - ie., RAW fun thread), is less so and simply clutters the issue.

If someone asks how to play something, tell them how it is played, not how it should be played in a perfect, grammatical, well-edited world.

Isnt' there a precedent that specific rules (codex) always overrites the general rules (rulebook)? If that were the case, wouldn't the 5+ invulnerable save work.

And fyi, if I was playing a game with you, and you pulled that, I'd make sure to never play you again. I don't play 40k to nit-pick sentence structure and correct usage of pronouns in the rules.

If the damned wargear says it gives the vehicle a 5+ save against glancing and penetrating hits, then it gets the damn save.

Vehicles get cover saves don't they? Doesn't passing a cover save ignore the glancing/penetrating hit? Why wouldn't an invulnerable save fuction in the same way.?

All you're doing is trying to look "intelligent" by making snide points about loopholes in writing. In the end, you look like a jerk.

envy - well, specific DOES override general. However there is no specific rule stating that you can take invulnerable saves against penetrating or glancing hits in the same way as wounds. So you HAVE a 5++, but can only USE it against Wounds, as that is all you have been given permission for.

Vehicles get cover saves that are useful by being obscured (e.g. KFF) - because the rules on page 62 say how they work against hits.

RAI is a hideous term. Even less consistent than peoples attempts at reading the rules that are written. Hence the deffrolla issues - too much attempt at RAI

puma713 wrote:Knowing the rules and therefore, how to play, is very important. Knowing how the rules should be played. . .is less so and simply clutters the issue.

It seems to read that you are saying the rules are very important but the way people should apply them is clutter.

Did I mis-read that?

Editing to add:
Sorry for adding to the off-topic, undeserved derailment--that part confused me.