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.

Mahtamori wrote:

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.

If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^

You aren't allowed to move your models because they don't describe what grip to use or if you can even use your hands.

You can't roll dice because 'roll' is not described in the rulebook.

etc.

Permissive Ruleset, amirite?

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

Never did I say that.

For starters, the Chaos Space Marine codex does not have a rule that says "all Daemon Princes are Daemons."

The Tyranid codex never says "all Deathleapers are Lictors, all Dooms of Malan'tai are Zoanthropes, and all Old One Eyes are Carnifices."

The IG codex never says "all Nork Deddogs are Ogryn."

Therefore, there must be a special rule present for that unit to be considered a unit of the desired type.

On the other hand, the IG codex DOES specifically tell you what Ogryn are (spoiler alert: they're Ogryn). The Chaos Space Marine codex DOES specifically tell you what Daemons are. And so on.

A single broad sweeping statement regarding every model in the codex (or every model with a special rule, such as Necrons) does not mean that you can arbitrarily decide that other units in unrelated codices are a unit type they vaguely resemble. If you can, then can I call all of my Scarab Swarms "Necrons," even though they don't have the "Necron" special rule? So they count towards Phase Out? Hell, for that matter, by your logic, I can call all of my Boyz Painboys without paying for an upgrade or an IC that actually IS a Painboy. All my Boyz have FNP!

I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.

If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)

Pika_power wrote:I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.

If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)

To be more accurate, it has a list of what it defines a Daemon as for the purposes of weapons and wargear that affect Daemons. This essentially means that if you're playing a DH player, he can tell you what is and is not a Daemon as it interacts with HIS codex.

Since you can't just take rules from one codex and apply them to another, the DH codex's definitions of what constitutes a "Daemon" have no bearing whatsoever on Codex: Chaos Daemons or Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Or Codex: Eldar, for that matter.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Fearspect wrote: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.

The opinions of individual posters, however vocal they may be, are the opinions of those posters, and are not necessarily representative of the opinions of the overall community, nor do they comprise any sort of 'YMDC group identity'...

Fearspect wrote:You aren't allowed to move your models because they don't describe what grip to use or if you can even use your hands.

You can't roll dice because 'roll' is not described in the rulebook.

etc.

Permissive Ruleset, amirite?

No, as you have missed out that it is not self contained ruleset, as it does not start with defining "a" and working upwards. Thus you can use the english language to tell you what "roll" means.

troll much?

Tri wrote: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.

If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^

You have no idea what you are talking about.

When it says under the unit profile: "Special Rules: Daemon"
it means that it has the special rule, "Daemon".

I don't think you read what I actually said. I never said having the special rule daemon did not mean you had the special rule daemon. I said that having the special rule daemon was a subset of what are defined as daemons in the rules. There are things without the Daemon special rule that are still defined as daemons in the ruleset was my point.

SaintHazard wrote:

Pika_power wrote:I can accept most of the arguments for "X is X" on common sense, but one that does grate on me is the definition of Daemon in terms of the Daemonhunter codex.

If I recall, it actually has a list of what it defines a Daemon as, so I'd claim that anything now on that list doesn't qualify to be hit by their anti-daemon equipment (because Sanctuary is overpowered if it applies to Daemons.)

To be more accurate, it has a list of what it defines a Daemon as for the purposes of weapons and wargear that affect Daemons. This essentially means that if you're playing a DH player, he can tell you what is and is not a Daemon as it interacts with HIS codex.

Since you can't just take rules from one codex and apply them to another, the DH codex's definitions of what constitutes a "Daemon" have no bearing whatsoever on Codex: Chaos Daemons or Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Or Codex: Eldar, for that matter.

Wait, why else does it matter what we define as Daemon? I thought the only thing that required definitions of Daemon was Daemonhunters. Is there another reason what a Daemon is matters?

Pika_power wrote:Wait, why else does it matter what we define as Daemon? I thought the only thing that required definitions of Daemon was Daemonhunters. Is there another reason what a Daemon is matters?

Runic Weapons, and until November 6th, there is a DE wargear that doesn't affect Daemons.

So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?

Total BS...

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 is a type of space marine … Phoenix lords are the most powerful Exarch … Old one eye is a carnifex.

Exactly. We know what units are Space Marines without a special rule to tell us so. Surely we can use the same method in defining Daemons for purposes of runic weapons?

Phototoxin wrote:So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?

Total BS...

Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.

sad isn't it...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:So a 'Space Marine Squad' are spaze marinez since they're 'name' says they are but a 'Daemon Prince' isn't a daemon as he hasn't got the 'daemon' special rule?

Total BS...

Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.

sad isn't it...

Its a lot less sad than "Orks always win because the fluff says so!" which is what a lot of people seem to consider acceptable.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.

sad isn't it...

It is what you make of it. Again, the opinions of a couple of posters are not representative of the opinion of the community at large.

I would also remind you that this thread that is specifically intended to point out obscure and odd holes people see in the rules rather than to be taken as a serious statement of how the game should be played. That was made clear from the outset.

insaniak wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Welcome to the current incarnation of YMDC.

sad isn't it...

I would also remind you that this thread that is specifically intended to point out obscure and odd holes people see in the rules rather than to be taken as a serious statement of how the game should be played. That was made clear from the outset.

Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.

A daemon prince is a daemon. It is affected by weapons that affect daemons and isn't affected by weapons that don't affect daemons, because it is a daemon. Perhaps You Make Da Call should be replaced with or sat alongside another forum board called How would you play this?

Instead of what we currently have which is people claiming that the lack of a confirmation is equal to a denial, even if such a denial leads to a highly irregular and nonsensical outcome.

Firstly I feel likening this thread to the entirity of YMDC is highly unfair;
How people choose to play the game is their issue as I'm sure you know, perhaps directing your worry to the player instead of the thread would have a more effective result.

On another note, it is a fallacy when one assues a positive in the absence of confirmation. To do so borders on the presumptious. The only course to take is to say 'No it isn't.' to do otherwise would allow for a black cat to be white ('I have a black pussy in the other room') and other such sillinesses, because one has assumed in the absence of evidence - even thou our intuition may have led us right

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.

You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?

Heaven forbid.

insaniak wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.

You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?

Heaven forbid.

Don't forget insaniak, Following the rules is Heresy!

Tri wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:

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.

If you are willing to read the descriptive text guess what ..."The Phoenix Lords are demigods of battle whose legends span the stars, the most ancient of the Eldar Exarch." ... ^_^

No, that's what GW expects you to take and swallow so that they are exarchs.

Disciples, page 54 Eldar codex. "If the Phoenix Lord is leading their Aspect" "Phoenix Lords cannot join a squad of Aspect Warriors not of their Aspect"

If you are going strictly RAW on the Eldar Codex, Exarch powers may only affect Aspect Warriors and Autarchs in the same squad if it is an Exarch using them (not if they come from a different source). Additionally, Exarch powers is legal for other models to have, but illegal for them to select if you get the option to select one, unless they are an Exarch. Essentially, it seems Phoenix Lords are just fine with Exarch powers since it's not an option, but it can't affect a squad unless that squad has an Exarch in it.

Don't the rules ask you to use the unit entry? Not the page of the codex? That would help with the fluff/rules thing.

Wow, this is getting rather heated. Here's how I see it:

1) YMDC can only sufficiently answer questions that the rules directly address.

2) Grey areas or rules that may be intended but aren't laid out (deployment?) simply don't have a "correct" answer. There's different equally valid interpretations and it's up to the players/judges to decide what to do. As such, there can be no group consensus.

3) This thread specifically is about finding those silly loopholes in the rules that don't make logical sense.

4) NO ONE ACTUALLY PLAYS THIS WAY! Everyone I've ever played a game of 40k with has "house ruled" that Phoenix Lords can use their Exarch powers, Nork is an Ogryn, armies are restricted to deploying in their deployment zones, models without eyes can still fire, etc. Usually, you don't even have to bring these up because everyone already assumes the house rule.

FlingitNow wrote:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

When it says under the unit profile: "Special Rules: Daemon"
it means that it has the special rule, "Daemon".

I don't think you read what I actually said. I never said having the special rule daemon did not mean you had the special rule daemon. I said that having the special rule daemon was a subset of what are defined as daemons in the rules. There are things without the Daemon special rule that are still defined as daemons in the ruleset was my point.

And for all you know, it could be intentional. Intentional example: Chaos Spawn (see Codex Chaos Daemons).

Would you say Chaos Spawn is a creation of the Warp? Would some argue that it is a Daemon ("It comes from the Chaos Daemon Codex!!!")?
Yet, in the rules, it is not listed as a Daemon. In fact, it specifically says that it is NOT a Daemon.

So that's all that matters. If the DP doesn't have it....bummer.

insaniak wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yeah, I know that... however take a look back over the last few pages at people taking it very very seriously.

You mean, in a fun thread specifically dedicated to nit-picking at the rules, people are nit-picking at the rules?

Heaven forbid.

Yes insaniak, that's right... and as I just stated, taking it seriously.

Heaven forbid indeed...

I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!

Oh dear. You bugger off working for a few weeks and look what happens.

1. This thread is not representative of the rest of YMDC because 'You Make Da Call' asks you to 'MAKE DA CALL' on how you would do it. This thread is about what the strictest reading of RAW would make you do.

2. As pointed out in great big bold letters at the start of the thread twenty three pages ago, if you want to argue for pages about something, start a new thread!

And finally, in answer

3. A strict RAW reading of many of these codex entries relies on being able to tell which part of the codex is 'rules'. Usually, people who use a strict RAW reading would argue that descriptive text is not 'rules. Hence, Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, as he is not defined in the rules as an Ogryn, and he's not in an army list called 'Army List of Ogryns'.

Unlike, say, a Cannoness, who is clearly defined as Sororitas, as she has the rule 'Sororitas'. I'd argue that Space Marines and Daemons could be defined much more easily since they are in books named 'Space Marines' and 'Daemons'. A CSM Daemon Prince is not.

And finally, descriptive text is easy to disense with when it's in clearly defined places (like above the stat line) but even MORE fun when it's mixed in with the rules themselves. The 'descriptive text' about people firing lasguns from inside a Chimera is in the 'rules' section, therefore Guardsmen have to fire port lasguns and not their own weapons, right?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

micahaphone wrote:I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!

GENIUS

ArbitorIan wrote:3. A strict RAW reading of many of these codex entries relies on being able to tell which part of the codex is 'rules'. Usually, people who use a strict RAW reading would argue that descriptive text is not 'rules. Hence, Nork Deddog is not an Ogryn, as he is not defined in the rules as an Ogryn, and he's not in an army list called 'Army List of Ogryns'.

Just wish to point this out then I'm going to drop the issue but there is no distinction. SM do not have a SM rule but Chao Daemons do have a daemon rule. So one has a rule reference the other doesn't; I can't tell you why they did it two different ways but they do. Ignoring the descriptive text, when it tells you that the model is a type of X, is the same thing as ignoring that models in codex SM are SM.

micahaphone wrote:I just want to point out that even on GW's website they are called "Blast Templates", so technically, all template, blast, and large blast guns don't work!

No, Template weapons don't have a problem. You are required to use a tear-drop shaped template, that pack includes an appropriately shaped template. It's only Blast and large Blast weapons that have an issue... and they're inconsistently named throughout GW's rules. The rulebook calls them Blast Markers, while various codexes call them Blast Templates.


The more fun bit is that nowhere that I can find in the rules does it actually define the size of the template or Blast markers, or even do anything as basic as tell you to use the set that GW makes.