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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Use the Ghost ark to add more ghostarks for infinite model win button?

Hell yes. Someone do this and film their opponent's reaction.

On topic, I voted for the wrong thing. I mean to say that RC members can be brought back, rather than IC. Yakface basically already summed up my line of reasoning.

Also you are advocating cheating because you accept the rule is one thing yet are trying to argue you can do something else because it is RaW. Deliberately breaking RaI is by definition cheating.

Are you serious? I think you have that the wrong way round. Breaking RAW is cheating. RAI is only speculation of an authors intent.

I play DA. The new FAQ says terminators can only change their SB and PF for additional weapons. This leaves out the sergeant and his powersword. This is RAW, you must follow it, or ask your opponent about it. I believe the RAI should allow them to change weapons. So I am cheating by removing the option from myself to arm my sergeants? Nice logic. Thanks for the insult.


Also where have I advocated adding any models? I believe as it stands RC models in a warrior unit could be added with whatever wargear they have had purchased for them, up to their starting number, as they are part of the units original size at the start of the game and are already able to be added to a squad of warriors. I stated there is a loophole with the RAW some people could try and exploit. Never did I say this is what I would do, but it is written. Nice straw man fallacy you are trying to use against me there.

Please argue the issue, if you have nothing decent to say then don't start attacking people.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes Bill we agree that RaW you can add Crypteks, or Overlords, Ghostarks, Monoliths, Pylons or even Imperator Titans if you want to. The RaW says models and puts no restriction on that. We are trying to figure out what the actual rules are and create a HYWPI that is as close to RaI as we can get.

Also you are advocating cheating because you accept the rule is one thing yet are trying to argue you can do something else because it is RaW. Deliberately breaking RaI is by definition cheating.

No, what you are doing is stating how you would play it, nothing more, nothing less. There will be no consensus here on how it "should" be played. This is a HIWPI post, not RAW.

Are you serious? I think you have that the wrong way round. Breaking RAW is cheating. RAI is only speculation of an authors intent

So deliberately breaking the rules isn't cheating? RaI is the authors intent. Our interpretation of RaI is speculation. But so is our interpretation of RaW. If you know beyond reasonable doubt what the RaI and choose to break those rules that absolutely is cheating. Whilst allowing a helmeted model to shoot is absolutely not cheating though clearly breaking RaW.

You haven't advocated adding any models you've advocated RaW and RaW is any model. This is the point being made to you. RaW doesn't work for this rule as it allows you to add any damn model you choose. Hence we are trying to work out what the actual rule is to get a HYWPI that is as close to the RaI as possible.

RAW is rules as written. Written, with no speculation.
RAI is rules as intended, normally meaning something is wrong with the RAW, and people are trying to work out what was originally meant to happen to improve their game.

Just thought I'd make this clear first.

So deliberately breaking the rules isn't cheating?

Rules are written correct? This would make following the RAW legal, and RAI homebrew alterations to the game technically illegal, and therefore cheating in a more competitive scene.
My points I have made so far based on trying to use the RAW in the correct way.
To say that following RAW to the letter is breaking the rules is just nonsensical, to accuse someone of cheating because he doesn't agree with your own interpretation is downright disgraceful. Manners please.

Now just to clear my stance up here, we have 3 categories:

RAW: Warriors and RC models. If it was serious play at a tourney, then I would have no problem with this, of course no additional wargear could be added.
RAI: Warriors only, if the rules were worded better, I believe this would be the outcome.
HIWPI: With friends, probably only warriors. In seriously play, as RAW, as I don't have strong enough evidence to prove otherwise.

RAW - any model.
HIWPI - Warriors only
How I would let my opponent play it (HIWLMOPI?)- Warriors and attached RC members.

I'd say at least RC models are also allowed to be revived as their rules specifically state that if you choose to let them join a unit, they effectively become a part of it. IC...hmm, that's difficult.

All of us can agree that RAI, ICs aren't allowed to be revived, but RAW-wise...hm. I'd have to look the exact wording for ICs joining a unit up.

Bill I don't think you understood what I said or indeed how the rules are created or the purpose of language.

I never said you were cheating for disagreeing with my interpretation of RaI. I would never say that. I stated that you were advocating deliberately breaks the RaI as you see them. This is cheating.

The Rules are created by the GW design team. The rules are a list of their ideas this is RaI. They communicate these rules to us with the rulebook. The rulebook itself is not capable of thought or creating rules. It I'd only a tool for communicating them. RaW is a method of interpreting that communication in the most literal sense from the written text.

So for instance the correct RaW answer if someone asked you "do you have the time?" Would be yes. However this would not be a helpful answer and it would be easy to understand what they actually meant rather than what they said.

So yes you can be cheating by following RaW. By telling your opponent none of his space marines can shoot or assault because they have helmets on and proceeding to blast him apart with your unhelmeted Marines. Would be cheating even though it would be following raw.

So when some one says "I realise the RaI is x but the RaW is y so I'm going to play y" they are telling you they are cheating. If they say "The RaW is x, the RaI may be y or z or x, so I'll play x" then that is not. If you believe the RaI is unclear and then choose to play by RaW that is fine though obviously you should let your opponent know you want to play by that house rule.

Here the RaW is clear. You can add any model you want to the unit. You say you play by the RaW but I doubt you'd let me add a Transcendent C'tan to my warriors unit from my Ghostark...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes Bill we agree that RaW you can add Crypteks, or Overlords, Ghostarks, Monoliths, Pylons or even Imperator Titans if you want to. The RaW says models and puts no restriction on that. We are trying to figure out what the actual rules are and create a HYWPI that is as close to RaI as we can get.

Are you sure you can add vehicles and stuff like that?
Because a vehicle cannot join a unit, so technically you cannot add it at all.

Bill I don't think you understood what I said or indeed how the rules are created or the purpose of language.

Again no, please if you would stop insulting and actually read the definitions and examples then you might understand.

Using my example of DA terminators, if I want to use SS/TH sergeants with my Deathwing, I would have to ask my opponents permission. This is because the RAW states that he needs a PF to swap with other weapons, and he doesn't have one.

I believe this is not what the RAI should be, and was simply an oversight of the author.

If I went into a game and declared my sergeants WILL have SS/TH, then I would be cheating. Even though you say this is the right thing to do.
In a serious game the RAW are the rules. RAI is just an opinion, unless enforced by a tournament organizer.

I'll clarify my opinion on the RAW of the necron barge, I believe that the unit strength limit (up to starting strength of the unit) on the USR, would disallow you from taking other models that were not included at the start of the game. This depends on the interpretation of unit strength: whether it is simply numbers, or the actual unit composition at the start of the game (This is where RAW becomes difficult). It would certainly prevent vehicles and titans etc anyhow as they are not single infantry models like the starting squad composition.)

So yes you can be cheating by following RaW. By telling your opponent none of his space marines can shoot or assault because they have helmets on and proceeding to blast him apart with your unhelmeted Marines. Would be cheating even though it would be following raw.

What are you even talking about?
what do you have against space marine helmets?

Any helmeted model can't shoot by RaW as you can't draw LoS from the models eyes (as it has none).

As for the DA example are you really sure beyond reasonable doubt that the RaI is that the Sergeant can be upgraded? If you feel the intent is clear. Then it is not cheating but you'd have to defend that intent.

If you want to discuss thus further please PM me as I don't want to side track the thread. With a discussion on whether GW or an inanimate object designed the rules.

Raw here is clear add models up to starting SIZE not strength. Starting size is defined elsewhere in the rules to be number of models. So you could add Ghost arks it would create a massive problem as you'd then have a mixed vehicle and non-vehicle unit. You could add fully upgraded lords, overlords or lycheguard with significantly fewer problems. But RaW all the above is allowed.

Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

And no, you cannot add Ghost Arks.
They are vehicles, they cannot join units.. So you cannot add them to a unit.

Kangodo wrote:
Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

And no, you cannot add Ghost Arks.
They are vehicles, they cannot join units.. So you cannot add them to a unit.

Where doe it say a model that cannot join a unit cannot be added? Page should be sufficient.

Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

Kangodo wrote:
Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

Well it wouldn't be joining a unit. It would already be joined when spawned. Therefore the conundrum.

Another affect of stating that a unit "starts" when purchased is any game that gives any option to split up the unit similar to Kill teams would allow ad nauseam additions as the unit you are targeting is a single model but was purchased as 6 models. The flip side is that is any special rule or artifact that could affect any unit, that provided a similar unit regrowth, being applied to units such as IG ones that can be split up on their own would also allow ad nauseam additions.

The best definition for the start of a game would be at the point you would start to time the game after deployment but before the first players actions have begun. Otherwise timed games end rather quickly if you say the start it when you select your units.

Kangodo wrote:
Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

This interpretation would stop the ghost ark from bringing back anything that isn't an IC...

 insaniak wrote:
This interpretation would stop the ghost ark from bringing back anything that isn't an IC...

Hmm, that is true.
But can we please not make this thread about adding D3 Titans to a group of Warriors? =(

Kangodo wrote:
Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

1) Real life has no bearing on the rules of the game, and as such any model without eyes (This includes models with helmets) can not draw Line of Sight to anything.

2) The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises/Abstract rules to make the game playable.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Any helmeted model can't shoot by RaW as you can't draw LoS from the models eyes (as it has none).allowed.

Could we please not start to troll? :/

I'm really interested in this.

Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit

Vehicle is not joining a unit. Nothing has permission to join units other than ICs so by this logic you can ONLY add ICs to the unit.

Is the ghostark a model? If yes then I have permission to add it to my unit. It is not joining the unit as an IC it is simply being added to the unit. So you need to find a restriction to deny that. Page and paragraph please.

Though this does bring up another possible RaW interpretation that you can't add models to the unit that can't join them. Which would mean only ICs and RC could be added and no warriors.

Is that HYWPI flingitnow? It sure looks like your arguing RAW in a thread titled HWIPI.

If you wish to have a RAW rules arguement to discuss the piss poor wording on the rule, then I encourage you to start a thread on it.

This is a HWIPI thread and no one plays it that way.

A lot of people on this thread have been arguing RaW whilst I've been telling them RaW is broken and we need to sort out HYWPI. Please read all my comments before judging me based on a reply to a RaW argument.

Ok flingit, I will admit that if we read RAW as literally as we can then I was wrong. You may add any model, as you stated, due to the rule being a terrible piece of writting.

Though I suggest you learn some manners and present things in a less trolling way when posting in the future. I will leave it at that.

Back on topic as a HIWPI discussion: I would play the rule as brought back or 'repaired', instead of added. Certainly necron warriors, I would be ok with the Royal Court members too, (wargear remaining the same of course), but never allow IC's to be brought back.

I think suggesting RC models to squad Sergeants is a poor comparison, as RC are bought from a seperate entry (therefore not part of the original squad they're added to just like Wolf Guard and Warlocks), and attached later, during deployment. Sergeants/Sybarites/Aspiring Champions/etc. are bought as a squad upgrade, and therefore part of the original squad.

By that, Necron Warriors don't have an upgradable squad member, so, the Cryptek's/Lord's are not part of the squad, and should not benefit from it. Its absurdly worded, and as someone said, there's no end to the exploitation of it, go ahead and add Terminators, Carnifex and a Farseer.....or....take this as it was meant, only for Warriors, and go back to spamming your croissant shaped flyers and be content.

-CotW

They ARE a member of the squad at deployment. To say otherwise leads to an absurd set of situations, and the comparable Wolf Guard FAW stating otherwise

I didn't say there weren't at deployment, I'm saying they are NOT like sergeants and the like because they are not purchased as a squad upgrade, therefore, not part of the warrior unit, and not applicable to the rule in question. If you upgraded one warrior to a cryptek for Xpts then yeah, that would make sense, but since you purchase them from an entirely seperate unit and ADD them to the Warriors, they don't benefit. Mostly because there's no end to the misinterpretations. "Well, I started with 1 cryptek but now through a misunderstood and incorrectly utilized loophole of my own preference, I'm now eligable to gain D3 more crypteks"

How does that even sound right?

-CotW

People on the whole *are not* advocating that

They are advocating that, if you bought a cryptek, attached it to the squad, it dies it can then be *repaired*, like any *other* member of the unit. As it most assuredly IS part of the warrior unit.

I advocate the ability to add Imhotek and Trazyn via repairing.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I advocate the ability to add Imhotek and Trazyn via repairing.

To any squad or just ones that contained them before? Then why not add Ghost arks to the unit? Or Riptides? Or Reaver Titans?