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.

Happyjew wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:A+B is never the same as A=B.

Unless A=0 and B=0. In which case A+B=A=B

Not even then. When A and B are the same you skip to A=B and the problem is solved. There is no opportunity to use A+B because we already know the answer.

DeathReaper wrote:

Texanity wrote:... but to me a lightening claw is a lightening claw is a lightening claw.

lightening claw? Is his claw Lighter than the others?

Is there a Darkening claw that goes on the other hand?

Actually, its a Heavying Claw that goes on the other, for a special gravity based attack.

I'm going to preface this all off by saying I'm a DA player, with heavy Deathwing Preference. I got plenty of well painted models, I play them most out of my armies, and I eagerly await the new codex. I gotta say I'm in the camp of a lightning claw is a lightning claw is a lightning claw.

The DA codex is about 4.5-5 years old by now and was written by one of about four authors who write for all the Marine (and CSM) codices. You're going to see different wordings on the individual books, it's the nature of having multiple guys performing like tasks. I think it's a little WAAC even if you're not TFG to try and ignore the new ruleset when it weakens your army. Everyone's army got changed for better or worse in some way. You know even if it's not RAW ATM it's RAI. And the only reason it's not RAW is that the people are going for the WAAC are squirming around the amendment disclaimers that are in the FAQ's claiming it doesn't apply to their [insert favorite item, vehicle, etc here], and GW's not going to address the same question 20 times because it's worded a shade differently from asking to asking "how many times can I tell you little Timmy it's like THIS!!".

In 4th and 5th editions the Lightning Claw used by the Dark Angels was the exact same as the lightning claws used by other Astartes Marines (both loyalist and traitors). In 6th edition they wanted to make 2+ armors a little cooler by having some weapons not affect them....including the lighter end of the power weapon spectrum....those weapons they gave ap3. The LC was one of them. Every codex that uses LCs had them nerfed, because there is a centralilzed rule for them. It's not every MEQ except for SWs, or every MEQ except for BTs, and it's certainly not every MEQ except for DAs. No where in the DA codex or the DA FAQ does it say the DAs LC is a more potent form of a regular LC used by other Astartes armies, so it got nerfed too. Hence my stance on the lightning claw is a lightning claw is a lightning claw.

One of the things you'll need to remember is that we're not getting new codices, and certainly not the ones we want for months/years out. Nature of this beast. If you're going to ignore the rules of 6th, why bother playing it? Keep playing 5th, 4th, or what ever made you happy. There are strengthening and balancing rules in this new edition, and your army is not the only one that got changed.


Edited for spelling, grammar, & general clarity. No theme or stance changes.

Green is Best! wrote:Well, this would work two ways would it not?

The DA codex says Lightning Claws ignore armor. So, if you were playing another marine chapter, your rule would also apply to them? Would it not?

I really think this is a case of "Look, I found a loophole, Ha ha." Great. You found a glitch in the game. Now, can we get back to other arguments about the importance of clarifying rules for our little toy army men?

I wouldn't even begin to call this a "loophole." It's written in plain english that lightning claws from the codex are equal to the ones listed in the BRB. Honestly, this isn't even up for debate. I would seriously laugh in my opponent's face if they tried to argue this in a game. It is that ridiculous. Straw grasping at best.

MightyGodzilla wrote:I'm going to preface this all off by saying I'm a DA player, with heavy Deathwing Preference. I got plenty of well painted models, I play them most out of my armies, and I eagerly await the new codex. I gotta say I'm in the camp of a lightning claw is a lightning claw is a lightning claw.

The DA codex is about 4.5-5 years old by now written by one of about four authors who write for all the Marine (and CSM) codices. You're going to see different wordings on the individual, it's the nature of having multiple guys performing like tasks. I think it's a little WAAC even if you're not TFG to try and ignore the new ruleset when it weakens your army. Everyone's army got changed for better or worse in some way. You know even if it's not RAW ATM it's RAI. And the only reason it's not RAW is that the people are going for the WAAC are squirming around the amendment disclaimer that are in the FAQ's claiming it doesn't apply to their [insert favorite item, vehicle, etc here], and GW's not going to address the same question 20 times because it's worded a shade differently from asking to asking "how many times can I tell you little Timmy it's like THIS!!".

In 4th and 5th editions the Lightning Claw used by the Dark Angels was the exact same as the lightning claws used by other Astartes Marines (both loyat and traitors). In 6th edition they wanted to make 2+ armors a little cooler by having some weapons not affect them....including the lighter end of the power weapon spectrum....those weapons they gave ap3. The LC was one of them. Every codex that uses LCs had them nerfed, because there is a centralilzed rule for them. It's not every MEQ except for SWs, or every MEQ except for BTs, and it's certainly not every MEQ ecept for DAs. No where in the DA codex or the DA FAQ does it say the DAs LC is a more potent form of a regular LC used by other Astartes armies, so it got nerfed too. Hence my stance on the lightning claw is a lightning claw is a lightning claw.

One of the things you'll need to remember is that we're not getting new codices, and certainly not the ones we want for months/years out. Nature of this beast. If you're going to ignore the rules of 6th, why bother playing it. Keep playing 5th, 4th, or what every made you happy. Their are strengthen and balancing rules in this new edition, and your army is not the only one that got changed.

Wow, that's incredibly well said.

Maybe I missed it (3 pages deep already!) but the FAQ says to look in the BYB: "You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document."

So flip to the BYB page 60 and you see Lightning Claws are AP 3, and not because they are "power weapons". They are AP 3 because they are Lightning Claws.

So the Dark Angels FAQ says that the Codex entry is functionally the same as the BYB. Hence, your FAQ says your Lightning Claws are AP 3.

Also, don't try to out WAAC against a WAAC player. Just don't play against them if you don't want to go into WAAC mode yourself.

Would anybody here sit across a table from a stranger and actually claim that a DA LC is better than a BRB LC?

Or either A or B equals zero.

Stay Classy San Diego.

-Matt

Captain Antivas wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:A+B is never the same as A=B.

Unless A=0 and B=0. In which case A+B=A=B

Not even then. When A and B are the same you skip to A=B and the problem is solved. There is no opportunity to use A+B because we already know the answer.

0 is the additive identity, one of the two fundamental axioms of mathematics. SO yes, A+B when A=B=0 is still evaluated, by definition.

Lobukia wrote:Would anybody here sit across a table from a stranger and actually claim that a DA LC is better than a BRB LC?

Yes. If Black Templars and Dark Angels had to deal with having 4+ Storm Shields, crappy CMLs and Typhoons, you bet your sweet ass I'd back any DA player in this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:A+B is never the same as A=B.

Unless A=0 and B=0. In which case A+B=A=B

Not even then. When A and B are the same you skip to A=B and the problem is solved. There is no opportunity to use A+B because we already know the answer.

0 is the additive identity, one of the two fundamental axioms of mathematics. SO yes, A+B when A=B=0 is still evaluated, by definition.

In Mathematics yes. In Logic, no. When solving a mathematical equation you can, and should, follow that all the way through. In a Logical equation you would not. Since the rules about lightning claws is not a mathematical equation it does not apply.

Lobukia wrote:Would anybody here sit across a table from a stranger and actually claim that a DA LC is better than a BRB LC?

This one player I've seen with nercon flyer, deathmark and cyptek spam would. Some people will do anything to win.

Antivas, in that case it should be A and B, not A+B. Which means that if A is true, and B is true, then A and B is true.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lobukia wrote:Would anybody here sit across a table from a stranger and actually claim that a DA LC is better than a BRB LC?

Yes. If Black Templars and Dark Angels had to deal with having 4+ Storm Shields, crappy CMLs and Typhoons, you bet your sweet ass I'd back any DA player in this.

Well, considering that that the 5th edition, and now the 6th edition, FAQs give them 3+ Storm Shields, Heavy 2 CMLs, and the same Typhoons as other SM chapters, at least according to Army Builder, I think the point is a bit moot.

DA Lightning Claws are like regular lightning claws, regardless of people's BS attempts to purposely ignore parts of the rules so that they have a little advantage.

The guy above made an excellent point.

kcwm While many may be arguing that it is allowed to use the rules for DA Lightning Claws as it appears in the codex, I highly doubt that any of them would actually play that way. The whole point of this forum, is based on the rules as they are written. Just because somebody argues RAW does not meant that that is HTWPI.

Arguing rules on the forum, particularly controversial ones, is a really good way to learn the rules, as long as you take the time to look up each rule in question.

Happyjew wrote:kcwm While many may be arguing that it is allowed to use the rules for DA Lightning Claws as it appears in the codex, I highly doubt that any of them would actually play that way. The whole point of this forum, is based on the rules as they are written. Just because somebody argues RAW does not meant that that is HTWPI.

For me, it comes across differently, and across the threads of YMDC I've read, more often than not, I get the distinct impression that people are arguing, sometimes vehemently, for how they play it instead of engaging in a friendly rules debate. I saw your post earlier that you will argue it all day but you don't play it that way. If this is truly the case, you, I feel, are in the minority. I don't give people that benefit of the doubt, especially the way that I see some people argue their point.

I do love this section of the forum. It's helped clarify some things I was iffy on.

Technically you are suppose to clarify if you are discussing HYWPI or RAW. While it may seem that almost everybody argues HTWPI, that really isn't true.

Classic example(s): 5th edition FNP and Rage.