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.

I can't find a single other HQ that can't be deployed if certain units are not taken. Plenty that enhance certain units. Are you saying this one unit suddenly is changing what all other codex's already have done before.

Maybe his rule isn't meant to work like similar rules that are written differently!

veritechc wrote:Sometimes the rules lawyers really make me want to not play this game. Thank god my gaming group isn't like that. If I wanted to play Magic the Gathering I would. I would rather have fun.

Do those of you who wish to argue that GW meant to have a HQ that could be chosen and not used really think that makes the game more fun? This is just like the Doom of Malintai argument. Look how that works now.

So lighten up.

I hate when 'rules lawyers' try to ignore a rule that forces you to deploy with certain units and then tries to use that character in an army without said units. Thank god may gaming group isn't like that. If I wanted to play the Magic the Gathering I would. But I would rather have fun.

Do those of you who argue that you can take the Duke without including a Kabalite Warrior or Kabalite Trueborn really think that this makes the game more fun? This is just like the Doom of Malan'tai argument. Look how that works now.

So lighten up.



---


Do you see the hyperbole of your post when it is changed to represent the opposite viewpoint? Why is it the 'rules lawyers' are ruining the game when they're actually trying to follow what the rules say, but when you choose to ignore the rule somehow this is the 'fun' viewpoint?

Clearly Duke Sliscus is supposed to deploy with a unit of Warriors or Trueborn, so why would allowing that rule to be broken be 'more fun' while following it is 'rules lawyering'? I think following the rule and forcing him to deploy with said units is characterful and fluffy (more fun) and allowing him to deploy not joined to such units to be an attempt at 'rules lawyering' to break the clear restriction given to him.

Inflammatory comments removed.

This is an argument that's going on at BoLS, 40k online, Wargamerau, here, probably a dozen other forums.

We all have a way we think the words make the most sense. Big whoop. That the argument is raging at all should clue you up that the rules need more clarity.

Why, if the character can't be fielded without Kabalites, is there not a rule for the character overall saying so, instead of tucked away under a specific special effect?

If I was to put money on which interpretation gets up in the end, my bet would be on "...add the words 'in order to take advantage of this rule' after 'must be deployed with"

But that's just my interpretation, and it holds no more official water than the "What part of 'must' do you not understand" crew, or the "oh, you can TAKE him alright, but he's instantly destroyed when you try to put him on the table" bunch.

Whatever GW decide to go with, I'm sure this is really just a "d'oh" moment for Phil, and the amount of angst being worked up over it is insane.

I just wanted to say "I told you so" to the rules lawyers about the Duke. The GW FAQ on the Dark Eldar shows that sometimes logic does work. If you have to work that hard to try to figure out how to not allow me to take a unit then maybe you line of thinking is WRONG!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620226a_Dark_Eldar_Version_1_0.pdf

veritechc wrote:I just wanted to say "I told you so" to the rules lawyers about the Duke.

There were two ways that GW could have ruled on this, and they chose one of them. They could as easily have chosen the other... but until they did, there was really no 'right' way to play this, as it was ambiguous either way.

Neither side was 'right' in this argument before the FAQ. So crowing 'I told you so' now doesn't add anything productive to the discussion.

veritechc wrote:I just wanted to say "I told you so" to the rules lawyers about the Duke. The GW FAQ on the Dark Eldar shows that sometimes logic does work. If you have to work that hard to try to figure out how to not allow me to take a unit then maybe you line of thinking is WRONG!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620226a_Dark_Eldar_Version_1_0.pdf

I did not have a dog in this fight, but that post is really stupid.

It is equally possible that the rules actually do support the "rules lawyers" as they are written, but GW intended a different effect. Thus they fixed that in the FAQ.

(The first nimrod to try to point out that" if that was the case then the question would be addressed in the Errata part and not the FAQ" is giving GW more credit for consistency than they deserve.

Steelmage99 wrote:

veritechc wrote:I just wanted to say "I told you so" to the rules lawyers about the Duke. The GW FAQ on the Dark Eldar shows that sometimes logic does work. If you have to work that hard to try to figure out how to not allow me to take a unit then maybe you line of thinking is WRONG!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620226a_Dark_Eldar_Version_1_0.pdf

I did not have a dog in this fight, but that post is really stupid.

It is equally possible that the rules actually do support the "rules lawyers" as they are written, but GW intended a different effect. Thus they fixed that in the FAQ.

(The first nimrod to try to point out that" if that was the case then the question would be addressed in the Errata part and not the FAQ" is giving GW more credit for consistency than they deserve.

GW does have like 98% consistency.



In being inconsistent.

FAQ says Deploy as normal now; so deploy as normal; just means I can take the trueborn out of my Wych list with Sliscus(though I may still keep them just for the 2+ poison Carbines). It's a toss-up really; another unit of bloodbrides with the increased drug options, or 2+ Poison Carbine trueborn.

Kommissar Kel wrote:FAQ says Deploy as normal now; so deploy as normal; just means I can take the trueborn out of my Wych list with Sliscus(though I may still keep them just for the 2+ poison Carbines). It's a toss-up really; another unit of bloodbrides with the increased drug options, or 2+ Poison Carbine trueborn.

I don't know why you even bothered forcing a unit of Trueborn in your army, but I am glad you don't feel the need to anymore.

As for your list, go with Bloodbrides! It is a Wych list, after all, right?

Kommissar Kel wrote:2+ Poison Carbine trueborn.

How do you get 2+?

I thought The Serpent's Venom gave you 3+?

you are correct 3+ I did not even bother double checking; still is a bit better than 4+.

Aw man, don't wind me up like that! I'm taking these guys in a tourney next weekend and I was getting all excited for 2+!