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.

@SolarCross... this is a rules forum. None of us is actually going to play a game with a Super-heavy Walker Rowboat and then become irate when our opponent doesn't agree with how we're handling the lack of AV and HP values. What we are going to do is bicker back and forth in a friendly, non-insulting manner about how badly the rules are written and the crazy scenarios they sometimes create. This is a crazy scenario. It's worth discussing. If you can't handle that without name calling, maybe don't participate.

^Very succinctly put. I feel this should be added to the forum rules.

U02dah4 wrote:
When I use undefined I am simplifying

He has no hull point characteristic

So in full it would read no hull point characteristic-1 hull point does not =0 hull points
No hull point characteristic -d3 hull points does still not = a hull point characteristic of 0 etc etc

The check only cares about value =0 and it will only ever get na

My contention is that he should have a HP value, but that we don't know what it is because GW didn't include it in the rules. We should really be more worried about the lack of AV. Hit? Yes. Roll for amour pen. Great. I got a 10. Compare to AV. HARD STOP. CAN'T. OMGWTFBBQ THE RULES ARE BROKEN. GAME OVER, MAN.

You seem to be saying "I can't check my armour pen roll versus your AV, so clearly I did not glance/pen." I'm saying "I can't check my armour pen roll versus your AV, so I don't know if I glanced/penned." Two very different thoughts. You're making an unsupported assumption that the attack fails. I'm saying we don't have enough data to proceed and have to put the game on hold until we get the missing data (AV/HP).

I mean... obviously this is an unintentional rules interaction. GW couldn't possibly have expected this situation to arise. They clearly don't do a comprehensive rules interaction check when designing rules like this and we'll never get AV/HP values. Realistically, I doubt we'll even see an Errata/FAQ to address this. They really just need to Errata the Lord Baron rule from...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

...to...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment and your Warlord has the Imperial Knights Faction, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

That's the kind of broken RAW that would tempt me to go play at a GW store with that for no other reason than to rub it in GWs face that they make a miniature GAME with rules that at the very least need a minimum of testing... I wouldn't begrudge somebody to try this at a game just out spite for GW ruleswriting.

Then again they just seem to be releasing kits/rules willy nilly this last while with no thought to balance or how the game is played at all. What with all the one off mini faction releases and 2k+ formations. So go flaunt your super heavy guilliman and forge dat narrative.

This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

I'm saying you can shoot it but if hp is undefined every outcome is the same( hp is not a number therefore not=0 therefore he is not wrecked) so it doesn't matter which outcome the shot results in pen glance miss it doesn't matter the outcome is the same. I would therefore be happy to concede that every shot is a pen because not a number
-100hp is still not a number and so so not 0


Now if he had a hp value then the rules break down because outcome suddenly matters and their isn't a resolution to shooting and he might even be wrecked at deployment if hp=0

now should he have a hp/av value maybe but there is no raw to give him these and no raw to say what they should be this is therefore a rai argument and we could debate all day what it should ewe can say raw they are undefined

So if we follow raw using undefined it all works although he's superpowered we deviate the rules become entirely house ruled or break


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

This argument has already been explained as entirely rai and not raw based and therefore does not belong in this discussion

Kriswall wrote:I mean... obviously this is an unintentional rules interaction. GW couldn't possibly have expected this situation to arise. They clearly don't do a comprehensive rules interaction check when designing rules like this and we'll never get AV/HP values. Realistically, I doubt we'll even see an Errata/FAQ to address this. They really just need to Errata the Lord Baron rule from...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

...to...

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment and your Warlord has the Imperial Knights Faction, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

or,
"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord gains the (Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

Pretty simple adjustment that does not have to worry about variables like the Triumvirates.

SolarCross wrote:This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

Tenet #4. So long as you are recognizing it for what it is, RAI, HWPI is fine.

 SolarCross wrote:
the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is.

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

You would be wrong. Vehicles can be warlords, they just don't gain any traits. Only characters do.

 SolarCross wrote:
This forum is for finding solutions to rules glitches otherwise it is useless and misleadingly titled. The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature. the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord. If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is. Now you can have Rowboat in the detachment and it won't cause that particular problem.

Ok...

#1 - "This forum is for finding solution to rules glitches..." Nope. It's actually for discussing the rules, not necessarily for finding solutions. "Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place." Finding solutions is nice, but not mandatory when having a discussion. Some people just like talking about rules.

#2 - "The solution is obvious, Rowboat stays a monstrous creature." I don't see how your house rule is more obvious than someone else's house rule. I'd say the real obvious solution is that GW needs to opine and issue an FAQ or Errata.

#3 - "the reason that the Household detachement gives a shv the character subtype is so that it can be made a warlord." Um... you don't need the Character type to be made a Warlord. So, no... that's likely not the reason.

#4 - "If rowboat's rules allow him to insert himself in that detachment then he already has the character subtype and stays as he is." Nope. The Lord Baron rule very explicitly states that the Warlord now has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. Not giving him this type is violating the rules.

It sounds like you don't understand all the rules surrounding choosing Warlords and have just arbitrarily decided to ignore portions of the Lord Baron rule to make the situation fit how you think it should work. That's fine for you and your games. It's interesting in that it gives us insight into how a player would actually play the situation. Arbitrarily ignoring rules does not, however, have much use in a rules discussion where we're trying to nail down the RaW interactions.

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

Vehicles absolutely can be Warlords. Go re-read the rules surrounding choosing your Warlord. You have to pick a model with the Character type (including Character Vehicles). If you don't have one, you can pick any model (including non-Character Vehicles). Non-Character Warlords don't get a Warlord Trait.

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

"If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord." (page 124 main rulebook).

As long as he has no characters in his army, he can choose any model, which would include vehicles. If he has characters in the army, if he wanted to select a vehicle it would also have to be a character or otherwise have a special rule allowing it to be picked.

I was going to say the same thing but it looks like everyone hit reply at the same time....

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

Perhaps you should "get" that reading rules would help before participating in a rules discussion. Please see above comments regarding vehicle warlords.

 Ghaz wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

Just checked the book and yes in absence of any characters any model can be a warlord. So alright the household detachment is giving a super heavy the character trait so that a knight can be a warlord even if there are characters in the army somewhere (presumably another detachment). Or just so that he can issue and receive challenges. You all know however that the household detachment is adding a character sub-type to a super-heavy vehicle and not adding a super-heavy vehicle type to a character. You know that.

Yep. We know that however this is RAW. The tricky word is "IS".
X IS y. Not y gains X or X gains y, IS.

I think you'll find that those of us with the ik book will know that if it is the primary detachment your "warlord has the vehicle (super heavy, walker character type)"

Because that is what is written.

There is no equivocation on that point It is crystal clear

 MattKing wrote:
Yep. We know that however this is RAW. The tricky word is "IS".
X IS y. Not y gains X or X gains y, IS.

If you are a computer program yes, that would cause a fatal exception, CTD perhaps even a blue screen of death. In contrast 40k the tabletop game is not executed by a pentium CPU but by a pair (or more) of human brains. Human brains have capabilities that pentium cpus do not, one of them is RAI.

RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

 SolarCross wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Except your first RAI falls apart when we consider that noncharacters can be made warlords, so it isn't that the shv is made a character to become warlord, it's chosen as warlord and becomes a character, RAW.

For your second RAI, gonna need a rules quote to support that.

The point is vehicles can't be warlords unless they are also characters. Surely you get that?

That is false. If your army doesn't have any character models, then any model in your army may be your Warlord ("The Warlord", first paragraph, pg. 124).

Just checked the book and yes in absence of any characters any model can be a warlord. So alright the household detachment is giving a super heavy the character trait so that a knight can be a warlord even if there are characters in the army somewhere (presumably another detachment). Or just so that he can issue and receive challenges. You all know however that the household detachment is adding a character sub-type to a super-heavy vehicle and not adding a super-heavy vehicle type to a character. You know that.

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character NOR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

Plenty of point to it. Mostly that it's fun to discuss and laugh about GW's sloppy writing style.

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

But yes... some people will think there isn't much point in discussing this. Most of those people simply aren't here discussing it. I am, however, utterly perplexed by the small population of people who think there isn't much point in discussing this... AND keeps trying to make sure nobody else discusses it. It you think the conversation is silly, don't participate! Not directed at you, JNA... just responding yo your comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MattKing wrote:

there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

Plenty of point to it. Mostly that it's fun to discuss and laugh about GW's sloppy writing style.

Pretty much. Also, I'm at work and I'm bored. This keeps me entertained.

Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

Fair enough. I do think that it should be made clear that none of this is how you would play it, but it is amusing to talk about.

 Kriswall wrote:

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character OR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

U02dah4 wrote:
Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

I don't think power level is in question. This creates an unsolvable, game-breaking issue. If Lord Baron Rob takes a hit, the players are unable to resolve the armor pen roll. The rules require that roll and comparison to AV to happen. Arbitrarily saying that the hit can't do any damage because we don't have an AV to compare against is a house rule, unsupported by the game's rules. The game 'hangs' until we're able to determine the AV value.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here. No we are not computer programs, however, since the writers of the books are not here to defend their intentions we must treat their statments in an "if-then" capacity to determine logical outcome.

Pretty much. Also, I'm at work and I'm bored. This keeps me entertained.

Aaaay! Me too. Waiting for a material test to run. There's not much to do except wait for the buzzing to stop and the machine to go *ding*.

 Kriswall wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Is it silly yes and i expect it will be errated or itc/etc ruled but in the mean time overpowered I'm not so sure. it is very powerful but it's good counter for the soul burst overpowered stuff which has crushed my tournament area it pretty much guarantees you won't be tabled but that's not the only way to lose and it doesn't give you much list flexibility as your looking at 1k+pts

I don't think power level is in question. This creates an unsolvable, game-breaking issue. If Lord Baron Rob takes a hit, the players are unable to resolve the armor pen roll. The rules require that roll and comparison to AV to happen. Arbitrarily saying that the hit can't do any damage because we don't have an AV to compare against is a house rule, unsupported by the game's rules. The game 'hangs' until we're able to determine the AV value.

Except girlyman is a monstrous creature with toughness and wounds so that is how to resolve it. It is unsolvable for a pentium it is not unsolvable for a human.

So short term solution's so far

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

Well personally I rule out 4 as I want my game to resolve and I would assume 1 for casual games but then i would say that about two knights in casual.I would go with 3 as default for competitive but would have no problem with 1 or 2 being house ruled as long as it was clear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Except girlyman is a monstrous creature with toughness and wounds so that is how to resolve it. It is unsolvable for a pentium it is not unsolvable for a human.