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.

Scott-S6 wrote:Irrelevant to the rules, as you say. And if you want 40K info which is irrelevant to the rules you look to Imperial Armour.

There is detailed how many crew, where the seats are, how many cupholders and all manner of other entirely extraneous data.

They have cup holders in the 40k universe, what do they put in the cups than?

Krellnus wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Irrelevant to the rules, as you say. And if you want 40K info which is irrelevant to the rules you look to Imperial Armour.

There is detailed how many crew, where the seats are, how many cupholders and all manner of other entirely extraneous data.

They have cup holders in the 40k universe, what do they put in the cups than?

Permissive ruleset does not give permission for anything to be put in cups. Nothing gets put in cups.

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:If you use the codex that was uploaded to the GW site, the Daemonhunters now cannot feild an army (as it does not conatin a FOC).

Games Workshop wrote:The Daemonhunters army list uses the Standard Force Organisation chart, which you'll find on page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

From here.

That isn't Rules though, that's some random person on some website.

This is the Silly RAW thread after all, and RaW, the PDFs don't work.

Gwar! wrote:That isn't Rules though, that's some random person on some website.

Yeah, just some random website that is totally not connected with the game at all.


Ignoring it isn't silly RAW. It's just silly.

A PDF codex is just as RAW as a book one, the only bits you CAN use of there are the PDF codices and the errata (at a push), because FAQs -and in some eyes errata- are just House Rules. And so not RAW.

But PDFs still stand with the 'proper' rules =p

Now come on, back to the books to find more sillyness =D

Oshova

u guys missed one:
blood angels dex, psychic powers: The Sanguine Sword
and i quote: 'This power is used at the start of either player's Assault phase. The Librarian's close combat attacks are made at Strength 10'
Notice it doesn't say when it ends?
Therefore, logically speaking you only cast it once and it lasts for the rest of your life.

Genius

I'm very happy to see this still going! Any day now, I'll go through the last few pages and make changes to the big list on the front page. Fantastic!

Is the librarian's storm shield on the list?

I find it hilarious that you can use it against perils of the warp.
It might not be game-breaking nor very silly though...

it isn't

Basic Rulebook @ Pg.86 wrote:
FORCE ORGANIZATION - First paragraph - "Once you have agreed to a points limit, the players will pick forces. The best way to do this is to use the full army lists in the relevant Codex book for each army, but players just starting out can use any models that they have in their collection.

Nowhere does the BRB specify that a single army must be from a single Codex, and in fact implies that the opposite is OK. The rule actually uses the plural of the word, "lists". So a force lef by Eldrad, consisting of 2 Grey Hunter squads, and supported by a Hammerhead looks to be a viable RAW force.

"codex BOOK" disagrees with you. In addition the rules within each codex, which actually tell you how how many units are required etc tell you you may only pick from within the army book.

Agreed with nosferatu.

Lists being pluralized is rather awkward, perhaps the author looks at each entry in a codex as a list, rather then the entirety of the codex as one list. Later in that sentance "Codex book for each army" is not pluralized, indicating each player is restricted to a single codex.

just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex

dunno if thats already been said

croggy wrote:just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex

dunno if thats already been said

Yes it has. But he still only counts as one person.

Klawz wrote:

croggy wrote:just as a note nork is stated as being bulky in the guard codex

dunno if thats already been said

Yes it has. But he still only counts as one person.

sorry i am not used to this over the top RAW thing( i do like that all aliens can't draw line of sight though, go guard)

can you explain as to why he only counts as one when it clearly says - nork deddog, ogryn body guard on pg 67 of the codex and on pg 42 it also says each ogryn counts as two models for the purpose of transport capacity

so is he not an ogryn?

i dunno lol i'm confused

Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.

If that's not confusing enough, just look into what other models you think are a certain type, but actually aren't

Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.

That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...

FlingitNow wrote:

That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...

fluff is fluff,rules are rules.

just because its mentioned in the fluff doesnt make it a rule.

read space marine books/codex/short stories....a lot of fluff proofs that they are almost invincible,which they clearly are not in the game

FlingitNow wrote:

Going by strict RAW, he is not an Ogryn. He is a "Nork Deddog", but his statline doesn't say "Ogryn" and he doesn't have a rule saying he is an Ogryn.

That is not strict RaW that is "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Strict RaW his entry describes him as an Ogryn therefore he is one. Disregarding this as not rules but fluff is not strict RaW because you are making that choice to disregard and nowhere does it tell you that the "fluff" at the top on an entry is anything other than rules...

Only Fluff states that Nork is an Ogryn; he has no rules stating he is an Ogryn, in fact not even does his name call him an Ogryn in any way, shape or form(His name is simply "Nork Deddog" in all instances).

yes, he has the "bulky" Special Rule; and the bulky Special rule tells you that ogryns take up 2 spaces. That is all well and good; he is bulky but not an ogryn, therefore he takes up 1 space in a transport.

fluff is fluff,rules are rules.

just because its mentioned in the fluff doesnt make it a rule.

read space marine books/codex/short stories....a lot of fluff proofs that they are almost invincible,which they clearly are not in the game

Only Fluff states that Nork is an Ogryn; he has no rules stating he is an Ogryn, in fact not even does his name call him an Ogryn in any way, shape or form(His name is simply "Nork Deddog" in all instances).

yes, he has the "bulky" Special Rule; and the bulky Special rule tells you that ogryns take up 2 spaces. That is all well and good; he is bulky but not an ogryn, therefore he takes up 1 space in a transport.

2 perfect examples of "I choose which bits count and which bits don't" RaW. Sorry where exactly does it say that the top of his unit entry is not rules? Please point me to the section of the codex that tells you this is not rules. Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".

I'm guessing you can't...

If anyone has the Chaos Codex handy, could you check Lucius the Eternal?

I remember him to have special ability which works when he passes a "power armour" save. Yet, he doesn't have any regular power armour, but a special "Armour of ...", rendering his special ability useless.

Not a 100%, but could anyone check?

No Enginseer, it is just when he passes a save. That could be his 3+ armor or his 5+ invulnerable.

Ah, too bad. Thanks for checking though!

FlingitNow wrote:Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".

Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!

kirsanth wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Or in fact the page number of any codex that tells you which parts of unit entries are rules and which parts are "fluff".

Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!

Yeah, he "kills" them. But, that isn't a "wound" and it doesn't say to remove them from the board. So, my Eldar are all "dead", but that won't stop them from shooting you to pieces and claiming the objectives to win!

It's the Orks that you really need to worry about auto-winning.

Aww man, and here I was not auto-winning versus Eldar when I fielded the Doom of Malan'tai. I need to point these guys to this version of the. . .rules. DoM kills entire craftworlds and all the Eldar on them!

He did once but there is no in-game effect to that passage of rules so why would you be auto-winning? Where does it say that if you take Doom you auto-win?

It doesn't. It does say that Nork is an Ogryn and whilst that doesn't have huge effects on the game for his bulky rule it does have an effect.

It is the same as the CSM Daemon Prince being a daemon thing. By strict RaW he is and that is undeniable. Just like the rules for Necrons say they can't die it however does not prevent them from being removed as casualties...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Kirsanth that is in no way an argument against the RaW it just is an argument that RaW is Silly...

Huh? No, ther daemon prince is NOT a daemon. You have been told why repeatedly, and your belief otherwise is unfounded.

FlingitNow wrote:Also Kirsanth that is in no way an argument against the RaW.

Correct, and neither was yours.

Although I recognize that mine is a silly statement.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote: So, my Eldar are all "dead", but that won't stop them from shooting you

So you think Daemon Hunter force weapons do not cause casualties when the cause a model to be "slain outright"? There is no addendum to remove the model as a casualty.