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.

ChrisCP wrote:If a model is 'considered to occupy the area of it's base' (page 3), does this mean models don't occpy the space that the model is made of?

No. 'Considered to occupy' is not the same as 'considered to only occupy' ...

Awww come-ooooon

Here's quewstion one shot weapons? Where is the rule that defines they are one shot per game? I can't find it anywhere. Hence all one shot weapons can be fired as often as you want. Unless I'm mistaken for instance, the one shot rule in the DE codex could refer the missiles having one shot per turn rather than one shot per game or it could mean 1 shot ever...

FlingitNow wrote:Here's quewstion one shot weapons? Where is the rule that defines they are one shot per game?

Depends on the weapon you're talking about. Space Marine combi-weapons, for example, quite clearly state once per battle.

Imperial Guard demo charges just state 'One Shot Only'... which to me, says that they get one shot only. Doesn't seem to really need any further clarification.

I would agree with insaniak. "One shot only" seems to need no real clarification as only one shot is only one shot. I understand what FlingitNow means though.

Depends on the weapon you're talking about. Space Marine combi-weapons, for example, quite clearly state once per battle.

Imperial Guard demo charges just state 'One Shot Only'... which to me, says that they get one shot only. Doesn't seem to really need any further clarification.

OK I'll talk specifically about the DE missiles. They just have the words "one shot" in their weapon type with no further explaination. Whilst "one shot only" seems to require no further explaination likewise for the SM combi-weapons and HK missiles, having "one shot" as your weapon type requires that one shot to refer to something. They are all assault 1 so perhaps that means 1 shot per turn. RaW is doesn't define itself enough to have a direct impact on the game. So DE players with their flyers can fire all 4 missiles every turn . Suddenly the implosion missile seems worth the points...

FlingitNow wrote:... having "one shot" as your weapon type requires that one shot to refer to something.

I don't think it really does. We know it's not one shot per turn, as that's already defined by the 'Assault 1' part. So without any specific game-defined definition, we go with the normal meaning of the words. So the weapon gets one shot. Adding 'only' onto the end might make that a little more blatant, but I still think it's clear enough, to be honest.

We know it's not one shot per turn, as that's already defined by the 'Assault 1' part.

I disagree GW are forever repeating rules and double confirming. Like the SM codex saying SM Captains can take a command squad and then listing most of the Captain spec characters but they've already been given permission by the first part (likewise Vulkan can still take a command squad despite not being listed).

Whilst I don't for one second think their intention here was to repeat that the weapon gets one shot a turn. I also don't think for one second that when GW said Shrike can infiltrate with his unit they meant shrike can't infiltrate with his unit. However the RaW still disagrees, likewise here the RaW on one shot is not defined enough to limit you to 1 shot per game.

It is a case of the intention being clear but the wording not defining the in game impact in a rigorously enough to acheive what they wanted.

I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.

You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.

"New GW rules brought to you by the masterminds in the GW marketing department."

I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.

You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.

This is just as valid an interpretation as mine or Insaniak's for eth rule. Hence RaW it does nothing, as it has no definable impact on the game, thus you revert to the rules you do know (I'm given permission to fire it once a turn by the Assault 1 weapon type).

The Drunken Spleen is correct

vitki wrote:I think it is one shot. Period, full stop.

You use it in the first game, then that's it. No more until you buy a new model with the missle on it.

That doesn't work. The 40K rules deal with a single game as a stand-alone entity. There are no rules that require you to carry over what happens in one game into the next, outside of playing in a campaign.

Otherwise, you would have exactly the same problem with any model removed as a casualty.

Space Wolves Codex

Page 81

Leaders of the Pack

"No two characters may blah blah"

There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though

So in theory you can make all your guys the same.

INB4 Flames (You broke SW QQ).

ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though

There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.

insaniak wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though

There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.

Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)

E.g. DH codex it says what Daemons ARE meaning most their rules dont work vs Chaos Daemons.

Anyways your right so no flames just was not being serious at all (as you may of guessed I hardly read that section of the BRB)

ThatMG wrote:Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)

Sorry, but... what?

There's nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you any of the basic rules of the game. That's not what the codex is for.

ThatMG wrote:

insaniak wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though

There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.

Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)

Codex does not overrule the rulebook. A more specific rule, however, overrules a more general one.

ThatMG wrote:

insaniak wrote:

ThatMG wrote:There is no such thing as characters, there are Independant Characters though

There's a section in the rulebook that starts on page 47. entitled 'Characters' in gigantic capital letters. This section explains that there are two types of characters (Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters) in the game.

Codex>Rulebook (There is nothing in Codex Space Wolves that tells you what Characters are)

E.g. DH codex it says what Daemons ARE meaning most their rules dont work vs Chaos Daemons.

Anyways your right so no flames just was not being serious at all (as you may of guessed I hardly read that section of the BRB)

.... Specific > General … And in this case the codex tells you that no two characters can have it, BGB tells you the two types of characters. Both are working in harmony

Yes, I'm commiting the cardinal sin of threadnecromancy, but I think I've found a suitable entry:

Ork Codex, under the entry for Zogwort's Curse:

If the target model is within 18", both players roll a dice. If the Ork player rolls higher, the target model is replaced with an angry Squig

It doesn't specify that the Ork player has to be the one controlling Zogwort. If both players are using Orks, then "an Ork player" will always win the roll-off, therefore the transformation is inevitable.

Discuss?

Valkyrie wrote:Yes, I'm commiting the cardinal sin of threadnecromancy, but I think I've found a suitable entry:

Ork Codex, under the entry for Zogwort's Curse:

If the target model is within 18", both players roll a dice. If the Ork player rolls higher, the target model is replaced with an angry Squig

It doesn't specify that the Ork player has to be the one controlling Zogwort. If both players are using Orks, then "an Ork player" will always win the roll-off, therefore the transformation is inevitable.

Discuss?

They could still roll equal...

Ok, maybe an equal will prevent a metamorphoses.

Oh, great, this was not the thread to read for someone trying to learn the 40k rules (clarification: learn the rules as they were meant to be interpreted). Now I'm utterly confused >.<

FlingitNow wrote:Like the SM codex saying SM Captains can take a command squad and then listing most of the Captain spec characters but they've already been given permission by the first part (likewise Vulkan can still take a command squad despite not being listed).

That's not true at all is it? Vulkan isn't listed so he doesn't get a command squad.

Captain Pain wrote:Oh, great, this was not the thread to read for someone trying to learn the 40k rules (clarification: learn the rules as they were meant to be interpreted). Now I'm utterly confused >.<

It's not too bad. This thread makes you realize that the rules aren't written with the intention of being 100% complete. They are guidelines for how 40k should be played, but can't be considered to stand alone without player interpretation.

On YMDC, there's two types of rules issues:
1) The simple one that has a straightforward answer that is clearly covered by the rules and the board members agree on.
2) The complex one that can be interpreted in many ways and creates countless arguments. In these situations, it's best to think back on this thread and realize that trying to interpret a rule by the strict wording presented doesn't always work. Sometimes, interpretation and "house rules" are the only way to play 40k.

I admit I haven't read the full 27 pages (yet), so apologies if these have already been addressed.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Main Rulebook
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.
It states "closest visible enemy" - the rule doesn't mention anything about line of sight.

- There are no rules for deployment. You can therefore deploy wherever you like, including on the bookshelf in the next room.
No - e.g. Pitched Battle deployment says "on his half of the table, more than 12" from the table's middle line."

- Deep Strike mishaps never occur when hitting enemy models. DS occurs in the Movement phase, which requires you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.
It states, "...would land ... on top of or within 1" of an enemy model..."; it doesn't state that the model has to physically end up there.

- Independent Characters cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. This makes it very hard for them to embark/disembark - they must be EXACTLY 2" away.
- ICs who can repair vehicles cannot move within 2" of a vehicle during the movement phase. The vehicle must move to them or they must run to it.
The IC rules say "must remain more than 2" away at the end of the Movement phase..." so embarking/disembarking is fine, as long as the IC or the vehicle can still move before the end of the current movement phase. RAW they cannot be exactly 2" away either.
Repairing vehicles, the vehicle would not be allowed to move to the IC in the movement phase; the IC would have to run to it, as stated. If they wanted to continue repairing the vehicle next turn, they'd have to move more than 2" away and then run back to it, of course.

Imperial Guard
- Nork Deggog (sic) only counts as one model for the purpose of transports...
Not in my Codex: the 'Bulky' rule applies to Nork Deddog; it refers you the Ogryns' page which details the rule.

Additionally, on the subject of running to vehicles to repair them: the player would have to roll the exact distance for the IC to get to the vehicle, no more, no less: "...it is always simply D6"..."

Ulver:

Rage does state closest visible enemy. But, how do you know what's visible without checking LOS?

Deep strike does state would land, but you wouldn't land there since approaching an enemy model would force you to stop 1" away, meaning that you wouldn't land on top of it.

Nork does have the rule "Bulky". But, Bulky refers specifically to Ogryns. Nork isn't technically an Ogryn (he's a Nork), so he has the rule, but it doesn't impact him in any way.

Grakmar wrote:Ulver:

Rage does state closest visible enemy. But, how do you know what's visible without checking LOS?

It doesn't say to whom the enemy should be visible, so I would say whichever model(s) that the player can see

Grakmar wrote:
Deep strike does state would land, but you wouldn't land there since approaching an enemy model would force you to stop 1" away, meaning that you wouldn't land on top of it.

But the Deep Strike Mishap rule also states 'if the model cannot be deployed because {of what we've said above}' - it's not that you (or rather, the model) wouldn't land there, the rule covers the eventuality that the model cannot be placed within 1" of an enemy, even if the 2D6" scatter wants to place them there

Grakmar wrote:
Nork does have the rule "Bulky". But, Bulky refers specifically to Ogryns. Nork isn't technically an Ogryn (he's a Nork), so he has the rule, but it doesn't impact him in any way.

Good point, I didn't read 'Bulky' so missed that technicality

ulver; most of your retorts were correct excepting a few.

The only way to determine whether an enemy is visable to a model is to check LOS. Of course just because the LOS rules are found in the Shooting section does not limit those rules and checking them to be only in the Shooting phase, you can check LOS anytime. (in other words you are correct that this RAW-Fail is wrong, just not for the right reasons)

The IC rules do state that you cannot end the movement phase within 2" of a unit you do not intend to join(unless you are within 2" of multiple units and DO join one of them); however as you cannot join vehicles and always 1 model units you are free to move and end your movement phase as close or as far as you want to those units; this is because there can be no confusion as to whether or not you are joined to those units since you cannot join them anyways. Also you are always free to move near those units if you are already joined to another unit. For embarkation/disembarkation; those rules specifically allow the end of movement phase distance(for disembarkation) and of course ending the movement phase inside a vehicle is not ending the movement phase within 2" anyways(embarkation is part of a unit's move, so moving a lone IC within 2" and then embarking would never violate the 2" rule to begin with).

For Nork Dedogg; yes he has the "Bulky" Special rule, although technically it does nothing from a rules-as-written standpoint. Bulky states Ogryns count as 2 models, Nork is not an Ogryn(rules-wise); therefore it is a useless special rule(Similar to Fangir on Canis Wolfborn, which is a peice of wargear that tells you it grants characteristic bonuses to the model but never specifies what those bonuses are nor does the profile show any altered characteristics).

Captain Pain: Grankmar is correct; the easiest way to tell which Post on YMDC is of which type is to look at how many pages the discussion has gone on for; if it is 2 or more pages the question is ambiguous(or the posters are having fun posting garbage); this thread is a good example of both a thread full of ambiguities and posters posting garbage.

Edit: Damned lengthy explanations got ninja'd 3 times over.

How about:

An IG company commander cannot issue the Bring it Down! and Fire on my Target! orders.

Wording inconsistency - the Orders rules say, pick an order, pick a unit, then test for Ld. The rules for the orders above state, "If the order is issued successfully, pick a unit..."

DakkaDakka wrote: