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.

There are Rules and there are descriptions. The rules are what we play with. The descriptive text (fluff) tells us about the character/model. In any good rule set rules should have no bearing on the descriptive text and descriptive text should have no bearing on the rules.

The problem is GW did not write a perfect rule set. Often we have to flick to the descriptive text to know what something is. Phoenix lords can use Exarch powers because they are the oldest most powerful Exarches; Space Wolves characters don’t loose ATSKNF by taking wolves and/or servitors as they are Space marines.

There is also technically no real distinction between the rules and descriptive text. The only thing is the 40k rarely calls us to perform an action based on the descriptive text.

FlingitNow wrote:


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...

because its obvious that fluff =/= rules.

FlingitNow wrote:It is the same as the CSM Daemon Prince being a daemon thing. By strict RaW he is and that is undeniable.

Heh, sorry, no.

because its obvious that fluff =/= rules.

It's obvious that a Daemon Prince is a Daemon...

The obvious game has no bearing on RaW. Because you choose to beleive the text above an entry is just fluff and that below it is the rules is your choice. That is not RaW, RaW is what is written and what is written says that Nork is an Ogryn.

The RaW is there choosing to ignore parts of the rules is playing RaI not RaW and if you're going down that path then you can use common sense to work out that Nork is an Ogryn and hence why the rule is there.

Saying "we don't know what the writter intended we only have what is written to go by" is fine. But then claiming that you have to ignore certain parts of what is written under the rules section smacks of picking and choosing Raw and RaI to come to the conclusion you want.

RaW however does not change Nork is an Ogryn a CSM Daemon Prince is a Daemon. Regardless of what you claim unless you have:

a) Some rule that states that Nork isn't an Ogryn (or a CSM DP is not a Daemon).

b) Some section that tells us the written text above the stat line is not rules.

Please tell me where either of the above are. If you can't then RaW is clear on these issues.

Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.

Lets not forget that Tri will never win against Orks...

Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.

It is not what I'm saying it is what the codex says. Once again your argument against it being RaW has no actual rules in it.

So please provide an example that states that what I've said is not a rule or a counter rule that overrides what I've stated. I've told you where the rule is that says he is a Daemon please provide rules to back your oppinion.

Again I'm guessing you can't. RaW is clear he is a Daemon no mater how much you may want him not to be.

FlingitNow wrote:

Why? A Daemon Prince doesn't have a daemon's soul, it's just a mortal with extensive gifts and upgrades. Who are you to say whether or not a Daemon Prince should count as a Daemon, let alone claim that by RaW they are, which is so blatantly wrong that I don't really know what's going on with your argument.

It is not what I'm saying it is what the codex says. Once again your argument against it being RaW has no actual rules in it.

So please provide an example that states that what I've said is not a rule or a counter rule that overrides what I've stated. I've told you where the rule is that says he is a Daemon please provide rules to back your oppinion.

Again I'm guessing you can't. RaW is clear he is a Daemon no mater how much you may want him not to be.

Where does it say that a Daemon Prince is a Daemon?

I see that "The ultimate ambition of all Champions of Chaos is to achieve Daemonhood" and that they are "Made of Daemonic energy", but no where in the Chaos Space Marine codex does it state "A Daemon Prince is a Daemon".

To hold your point, you need to find one of the following lines:

a) "A Daemon Prince is a Daemon"
b) "All creatures made of of Daemonic energy are Daemons"

Gwar! wrote:Lets not forget that Tri will never win against Orks...

^_^ well Gwar I'm not stating that the 'fluff' is rules what I'm saying is that it tells us what things are. Your Orks are a race that doesn’t think they can loose.

If I had a model called boat and a special rule ‘float’ (which states that all boats float on water) and then I had a yacht with the rule float, well it couldn't use ‘float’ as it is not a boat. However if the descriptive text on yacht stated it was a type of boat then I'd know that it could use the rule, as it is a sub group of boat.

Sadly the rules of YMDC state that:

a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point

b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules

c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook)

This means that Tri's previous statement is null and void, that we must use RAW, and the RAW states that Nork Deddog is no more an Ogryn than Marneus Calgar, a Trygon, or Lelith Hesperex (unless there's a MASSIVE rules change )

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Sadly the rules of YMDC state that:

a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point

b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules

c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook)

This means that Tri's previous statement is null and void, that we must use RAW, and the RAW states that Nork Deddog is no more an Ogryn than Marneus Calgar, a Trygon, or Lelith Hesperex (unless there's a MASSIVE rules change )

Oshova

Ah but …
A) I'm not using real life I'm using an analogy. There is nothing that say this is rules and this is not. We start with the BGB and then start calling individual rules as they are come up.

B) Its not RAI if the model is an Exarch and has Exarch powers.

C) There is no distinction, from a game point of view, in anything in the codex. We categorise the content into rules and descriptive text but nothing say to do this. We only know that SM can all use ATSKNF since they are all in codex SM, there is no rule Space marine … and don’t say that sound stupid as Necrons have exactly that.

Oshova wrote:Sadly the rules of YMDC state that:

a) You're not to use real life examples to prove an in game point

b) We use RAW not RAI or any other way of making up rules

c) Finally, Rules are in the section known as rules (as stated by the codex/rulesbook) and the descriptive text is known as description, fluff, or story (as stated by the codex/rulebook)

The rules of YMDC only say one of those things.

There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"

Nitpick ftw!

Well I'm sure you both know what I mean though . . . and I meant rules in the loosest term possible

Now come on, lets get back to pointing out silly RAW =D

Anyone noticed anything in the Dark Eldar yet?

Oshova

Flickerfield does nothing. It gives a Vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, but no permission of doing so against Penetrating/glancing hits and no description of what that does. So like Bjorn's it is entirely useless.

Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"

Nitpick ftw!

tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith

source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.

Nitpick that.

FlingitNow wrote:Flickerfield does nothing. It gives a Vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, but no permission of doing so against Penetrating/glancing hits and no description of what that does. So like Bjorn's it is entirely useless.

Awwww. I had this included in my local draft here, but I was really hoping they had fixed it (not seen the codex yet).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"

Nitpick ftw!

tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith

source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.

Nitpick that.

Sure.

You could start by using a real dictionary, not some made up rubbish.

Come back when you have the OED definition please.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:There are no "rules" of YMDC, only Tenets, which, as Captain Barbossa would say, "are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!"
Nitpick ftw!

tenet:
noun = principle, rule, doctrine, creed, view, teaching, opinion, belief, conviction, canon, thesis, maxim, dogma, precept, article of faith

source: The Free Dictionary by Farlex.
Nitpick that.

Sure.

You could start by using a real dictionary, not some made up rubbish.

Come back when you have the OED definition please.

From the Oxford:
Tenet:
noun
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy: example: the tenets of classical liberalism

ergo, again from the Oxford:

Principle:
noun
1 a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning:the basic principles of justice
- a rule or belief governing one's behaviour:struggling to be true to their own principles [mass noun] :she resigned over a matter of principle

Seriously? We're bringing this crap up again? Weren't these topics all done a long time ago?

Daemon Princes are not Daemons. They do not have the "Daemon" special rule, nor do they have any special rule identifying them as their codex's definition of a "Daemon." In fact, if they were a Daemon in Codex: CSM, they'd have to arrive via Deep Strike. Do you want your Daemon Prince to be forced to arrive via Deep Strike?

On the other hand, the Daemon Prince of Chaos in Codex: Chaos Daemons is a Daemon, because he has the "Daemon" special rule.

Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, because he does not have a special rule identifying him as such.

Furthermore, the Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, Old One Eye is not a Carnifex, and the Parasite of Mortrex is not a Gargoyle.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:From the Oxford:

What's the 6th Tenet?

Seriously? We're bringing this crap up again? Weren't these topics all done a long time ago?

Daemon Princes are not Daemons. They do not have the "Daemon" special rule, nor do they have any special rule identifying them as their codex's definition of a "Daemon." In fact, if they were a Daemon in Codex: CSM, they'd have to arrive via Deep Strike. Do you want your Daemon Prince to be forced to arrive via Deep Strike?

On the other hand, the Daemon Prince of Chaos in Codex: Chaos Daemons is a Daemon, because he has the "Daemon" special rule.

Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, because he does not have a special rule identifying him as such.

Furthermore, the Doom of Malan'tai is not a Zoanthrope, Old One Eye is not a Carnifex, and the Parasite of Mortrex is not a Gargoyle.

Selective RaW, Daemon does not mean has daemon special rule. That is your definition not the English definition, nor a definition offered by the rule book. Daemons don't HAVE to enter play from DS. Just because you choose to ignore parts of the RaW labelling it as fluff doesn;t stop the RaW being the RaW.

Rites of Battle says "all other Space Marine units". Oh no, none of my units have the Space Marine special rule.

Scott-S6 wrote:Rites of Battle says "all other Space Marine units". Oh no, none of my units have the Space Marine special rule.

In Codex: Space Marines, this is not true, since everything in that codex are Space Marines. In Codex: Blood Angels, you're out of luck, though, since there's no rules as far as I'm aware of which says the units are Space Marines (only fluff, and that doesn't count - *haha*)

I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.

This entire thread would be empty if many of you read things in 40k the way every Warmachine player does: if it is written anywhere in their description that they are a certain type of model, then they are. A different culture, I suppose, but a small group of extremely vocal posters have taken over this subforum to set up forum martial law.

It seems YMDC has constructed an elaborate ruleset for itself, involving the ability to immediately dismiss things by calling forth random phrases like, 'Permissive ruleset!!!1' and 'Oh, but that's in the fluff section'. It is a rulebook, read it and stop twisting language around to make yourself seem clever. You are not.

Except permissive ruleset isnt a random phrase, it has meaning and describes how the ruleset is constructed.

Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.

Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.

It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel is a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.

Try just using, 'rules'.

And knowing how to interpret them is helpful, no? Or is understandng context not important?

Tri wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:I know that but according to Hazard they have to have a special rule.

Yep and the biggest problem is GW is they don't have a standard approach to writing rules ... after all Necrons have the Necron rule and daemons have the daemon rule.

It just cause problems to take the narrow view that descriptive text has no place in telling you what a model is. A space wolf or a Blood Angel are a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.

Exarchs are half-way there. RAW they are affected by Exarch powers due to the wording of Disciples since they are of the corresponding Aspect.