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.

In the June 2018 issue of White Dwarf, Chris Peach played his incredible IG army in the "Last Stand At Glazer's Creek II". In the army list section, the IG unit number 18 was:

Farmer Glazer (son of Glazer) Platoon Commander with sniper rifle, power sword and laspistol (2)

But I thought Platoon Commanders can only replace their laspistols with a Ranged Weapon (sniper rifles belong in the Special Weapons category).

I would love to model a Platoon Commander of my own wielding a sniper rifle. Wonder where one can find the rule / backing to field such a loadout.

The joys of open and narrative play. As long as there’s a good story anything goes.

 Jono40kStories wrote:
In the June 2018 issue of White Dwarf, Chris Peach played his incredible IG army in the "Last Stand At Glazer's Creek II". In the army list section, the IG unit number 18 was:

Farmer Glazer (son of Glazer) Platoon Commander with sniper rifle, power sword and laspistol (2)

But I thought Platoon Commanders can only replace their laspistols with a Ranged Weapon (sniper rifles belong in the Special Weapons category).

I would love to model a Platoon Commander of my own wielding a sniper rifle. Wonder where one can find the rule / backing to field such a loadout.

You can't? As far as my Codex, which is in german, states, sniperrifles are special weapons, like you said, not ranged weapons.
Maybee CA states something or the FAQ i'll have a look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nope, technically you could allways just run it as a bolter, that be kinda cool

Strictly in the current rules you cannot.

However, if your opponent is cool with it, then you can do whatever you want really. The army building rules are there to make it work when in tournaments or matched play against someone you may not know well. so everyone is on a (more or less) equal footing. Against a friend and/or by prior agreement, so long as everyone is ok with what you're putting on your models, then its all good. and if it has a good back story, even better.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Strictly in the current rules you cannot.

However, if your opponent is cool with it, then you can do whatever you want really. The army building rules are there to make it work when in tournaments or matched play against someone you may not know well. so everyone is on a (more or less) equal footing. Against a friend and/or by prior agreement, so long as everyone is ok with what you're putting on your models, then its all good. and if it has a good back story, even better.

in a fun match and aslong as you pay for it, in accordance to the better body you get (i'd say 4pts instead of the normal 2) and your buddy is fine with it, why the hell not.

It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

It's not so much as they didn't know the rules, it's just that they didn't let the rules get in the way of a good Narrative game (which is what Narrative is for).

 Ghaz wrote:
It's not so much as they didn't know the rules, it's just that they didn't let the rules get in the way of a good Narrative game (which is what Narrative is for).

Exactly, the rules are a framework for story telling. Great to see it in official print, you are aloud to have fun with the game!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

...for Matched Play, maybe. Which, although you maintain is for the majority of games, means it’s not all games. You’d better not read the articles about any of John Blache’s pilgrimage games, you’d spit out your tea.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

...for Matched Play, maybe. Which, although you maintain is for the majority of games, means it’s not all games. You’d better not read the articles about any of John Blache’s pilgrimage games, you’d spit out your tea.

That battle it's just a recall to a battle homaging the Zulu film.

Back in the day that battle had to be re-run several times in order to balance the armies (there was wounded and recovering units in a hospital the orks came in waves and they had to be nerfed with +1 Ws -1 BS in order to make it work)

So complaining about how a narrative battle not being 100% RAW it's quite useless.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

There is no such thing as an illegal model.

illegal
ADJECTIVE

Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
‘illegal drugs’

The adjectives "legal" and "illegal" are meaningless in games, unless you have a govt. monopoly of legitimate use of force enforcing certain models through (global / intl. ?) law.

Any and all 40K rules, even matched play ones, are, RAW, subject to the golden rule / most important rule and consentual agreement (possibly outsourced/delegated to a TO for larger events). Any rules-reading ignoring the most important/golden rule and going by a strictly textual / pseudo-legal interpretation is itself a gross violation of RAW.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

There is no such thing as an illegal model.

illegal
ADJECTIVE

Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
‘illegal drugs’

The adjectives "legal" and "illegal" are meaningless in games, unless you have a govt. monopoly of legitimate use of force enforcing certain models through (global / intl. ?) law.

Any and all 40K rules, even matched play ones, are, RAW, subject to the golden rule / most important rule and consentual agreement (possibly outsourced/delegated to a TO for larger events). Any rules-reading ignoring the most important/golden rule and going by a strictly textual / pseudo-legal interpretation is itself a gross violation of RAW.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Your argument is illegal.

 Jidmah wrote:

Your argument is illegal.

It's not, because it doesn't depend on a dictionary definition (though it helps illustrate the point).

Legal/illegal requires a "top down" relationship, where a rule or law is enforced independent of the subject of said rule or law.

That does not apply to 40K, were any and all rules are agreed upon in a horizontal relationship of mutual agreement, using any, all or none of those recommended and proposed by Games Workshop for games of various types of games and gameplay purposes as the players see fit. No independent, hierarchically superior arbitration, obligation or enforcement exists and is indeed explicitly not wanted as per the text in the 40K rulebook (unless, again, both players would mutually agree to treat the 40K rules "as if they were immutable law").

You cannot "opt out" or choose to "not subject yourself" or "change to your liking" a law against stealing or whatever.

You can do all of those with any and all 40K rules (or any other game), and doing so is, RAW, actively and explicitly encouraged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#Illegal_move

 Lord Perversor wrote:

That battle it's just a recall to a battle homaging the Zulu film.

This one?
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Battle_of_Glazer%27s_River

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like GW staffers don't know the rules or something.

In short, he took an illegal model.

It was a narrative game not matched Play IIRC - they allowed the Imperial player to rearrange the scenery several times between sub scenarios to make the game more of a narrative.

They had extra rules about wounded etc etc.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:

That battle it's just a recall to a battle homaging the Zulu film.

This one?
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Battle_of_Glazer%27s_River

Yes i still own the WD with the whole match plus the one where they show a huge ork diorama with gargants wich led to the idea of the match.

I think the idea of just having fun with toys is just too much for certain people to comprehend

ValentineGames wrote:
I think the idea of just having fun with toys is just too much for certain people to comprehend

ILLEGAL FUN

 Jidmah wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Any and all 40K rules, even matched play ones, are, RAW, subject to the golden rule / most important rule and consentual agreement (possibly outsourced/delegated to a TO for larger events). Any rules-reading ignoring the most important/golden rule and going by a strictly textual / pseudo-legal interpretation is itself a gross violation of RAW.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Your argument is illegal.

For more than just one reason...
(Emphasis mine)

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Any and all 40K rules, even matched play ones, are, RAW, subject to the golden rule / most important rule and consentual agreement (possibly outsourced/delegated to a TO for larger events). Any rules-reading ignoring the most important/golden rule and going by a strictly textual / pseudo-legal interpretation is itself a gross violation of RAW.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Your argument is illegal.

For more than just one reason...
(Emphasis mine)

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

But in this case it’s the only rule that applies so impossible not to bring it up.

The WD batreps are always a bit silly. They have no qualms about under Pts, Over Pts battles. Its been noted one of Duncans Imperial Knights showcased was a build not Codex Compliant, in which the FB page stated he just builds for Rule of Cool.

The game Developers are clearly playing a different game than us the players, thats why theres so much FAQ and errata clarification needed. Open War is a real option for them.

The few times Ive played with Open War cards for a fun post match time killer, I restrict myself from going too crazy. Like free Summoning? Yikes.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The WD batreps are always a bit silly. They have no qualms about under Pts, Over Pts battles. Its been noted one of Duncans Imperial Knights showcased was a build not Codex Compliant, in which the FB page stated he just builds for Rule of Cool.

The game Developers are clearly playing a different game than us the players, thats why theres so much FAQ and errata clarification needed. Open War is a real option for them.

Then why bother making rules at all if they aren't going to bother to follow them? If I wanted to just muck about with no rules, I'd go get a stick from a tree and start playing pretend.

It's probably best you get a new stick, since the one you already have has poo on it.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The WD batreps are always a bit silly. They have no qualms about under Pts, Over Pts battles. Its been noted one of Duncans Imperial Knights showcased was a build not Codex Compliant, in which the FB page stated he just builds for Rule of Cool.

The game Developers are clearly playing a different game than us the players, thats why theres so much FAQ and errata clarification needed. Open War is a real option for them.

The few times Ive played with Open War cards for a fun post match time killer, I restrict myself from going too crazy. Like free Summoning? Yikes.

Umm how silly of them playing way the 40k is designed to allow being played.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The WD batreps are always a bit silly. They have no qualms about under Pts, Over Pts battles. Its been noted one of Duncans Imperial Knights showcased was a build not Codex Compliant, in which the FB page stated he just builds for Rule of Cool.

The game Developers are clearly playing a different game than us the players, thats why theres so much FAQ and errata clarification needed. Open War is a real option for them.

Then why bother making rules at all if they aren't going to bother to follow them? If I wanted to just muck about with no rules, I'd go get a stick from a tree and start playing pretend.

I see it as being like a mod for a computer game. Designers intentionally leave 'softcode' open for people to modify and do what they want with it, whether it's allowing people to make cool new weapons or races in Skyrim, or changing one of the Shouts to rain Thomas the Tank Engine from the sky in the place of meteors.

40k is explicitly designed so that people can play it how they want, provided both players agree. Whether it's strictly, word-for-word by the rules like you seem to enjoy, or by 'breaking' the rules like they did in this battle report, GW wants people to play the game how they feel like it.

That said, I would prefer if GW pointed out when they do this sort of thing that it's not strictly 'by the book' to avoid confusing newer players.

I swear people must only read the matched play section of the book. These armies are by the book, whole sections of it set out for open and narrative play, whole sections of chapter approved. If the people who make the game play this way, maybe they are doing it right. (I’m sure many of them play organised play too).

And bacon, 40k is just pretend but with very expensive sticks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The WD batreps are always a bit silly. They have no qualms about under Pts, Over Pts battles. Its been noted one of Duncans Imperial Knights showcased was a build not Codex Compliant, in which the FB page stated he just builds for Rule of Cool.

The game Developers are clearly playing a different game than us the players, thats why theres so much FAQ and errata clarification needed. Open War is a real option for them.

Then why bother making rules at all if they aren't going to bother to follow them? If I wanted to just muck about with no rules, I'd go get a stick from a tree and start playing pretend.

Except they aren’t playing with no rules, what a silly statement.

To paraphrase one of your favourite ripostes: “it’s almost like there are three ways to play. Did you even read your BRB before posting?”

They even make more of them just for the battle, and have clearly amended others to suit he scenario. They’re just able to agree things they think will be fun for that game instead of crying ILLEGAL! and/or playing netlist vs netlist across a nondescript battlefield AGAIN.

The story they’re telling was the point. That you’re missing it and throwing fallacies around to try and belittle people enjoying a game is on you.

Granted there are combinations which should not even be made in narrative play, but frankly a sniper rifle on a IG platton commander should nobody get this upset.
In matched play just count it as a boltgun.
In a narrative/ casual game talk to your opponent before.
Frankly since in a narrative game you will anyway need to do it for special rules etc. there should be no problem.