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.

Can Statured Princes infiltrate? I know this may sound like a dumb question, but the Chaos Codex is pretty damn complicated and then there's the issues of the FAQs and whatnot. I believe that the answer is "yes," but there's no better place to come make sure of a rules call than this forum. So, the question is - can they? And if so, what's the reference?

Depends on what you consider rules to be. Pure rules as written, yes, they can.

Regardless, it's is 100% unsporting to actually try it.

Why on earth not? I do it all of the time.

Hi Spyrer,

Regardless what has been said about the RAW, doo prepare for a rules argument. The FAQ states that the Infiltrate entry in the Chaos Codex is replaced with the USR-version. The text is:

Veteran Skills that are printed  in the USR section of the Rulesbook always take precedence over the printed in the Codex.

Now the trick is that the Infiltrate section in the codex specifies which models can not use the Skill. Some argue, that seing that you replace the whole Infiltrate section, you will now no longer have any resriction as to whom you are giving Infiltrate.

You can however also argue that only the rules section of Infiltrate is replaced, since the part about who gets it and who doesn't, isn't a part of the Infiltrate rule per sé. That would mean that the restriction part isn't replaced since it has no bearing to how the Infiltrate USR works.

RAW? Sure, some Infiltrate Khorne Berzekers and Stature Princes, but don't be disappointed when the judge at the tourny laughs at you or your friend refuses to play the rules as is being suggested here.

I for one, would never Infiltrate my Stature Prince.

Cilithan out...

What skyth said, pretty much.

The restriction on statured princes infiltrating is in the version of Infiltrate in the Chaos codex, which is replaced by the USR Infiltrate which has no such restriction. By RAW, yes you can. You shouldn't, though.

I read it as only the skill being replaced not whom could take it. Again I can see the RAW v "come on lets not be stupid" argument happening - who remembers the infiltrating SW terminators attached to scout squads. If that was assassine what the heck is this?

How I define argumement between RAW and "come on lets not be stupid" - too many cheap bastards looking for any advantage they can find coz either their tactics suck or they are so desperate to protect their manhood from a loss they are unwilling to consider an alternate reading.

I read it as only the skill being replaced not whom could take it

Then you don't read very well.

Look, it's legal, and shady. Nothing further needs be said about it. Insinuating it might not be legal is ridiculous and counter productive. Plus it makes you look less than brilliant.

So just play the guy and zero his comp and sports, and sleep well at night.

Mauleed, I lost ya on the shady part. It's legal, I get it, but how is it shady to do...? Would it be the same as someone claiming their grey knight terminators had true grit now? Would I be ethical in giving them a zero also, or someone that lets Khorne Berzerkers infiltrate?

I'm genuinely curious, and as I understand it, zeroing the person's comp in any of the above cases flys against what your article in WD was about.

Posted by whitedragon on 06/22/2006 12:15 PM
Mauleed, I lost ya on the shady part. It's legal, I get it, but how is it shady to do...?

Because we know the designer's intent in this instance. In this case there is a conflict between the two. However we play the game according to the rules, not the designer's intent.

Posted By mauleed on 06/22/2006 10:29 AM

I read it as only the skill being replaced not whom could take it

Then you don't read very well.

Look, it's legal, and shady. Nothing further needs be said about it. Insinuating it might not be legal is ridiculous and counter productive. Plus it makes you look less than brilliant.

So just play the guy and zero his comp and sports, and sleep well at night.

I am now convinced of your argument now you put "look" infront of it. Just because people read this different to your interpretation doesn't make it wrong or "ridiculous" - or is disagreeing with the "dakka toughguy" just not allowed any more?

The reason I feel that whilst we can argue the legality of this until we are blue in the face and probably agree to disagree, I just find it hard to believe that people think it is necessary to do so.

The trouble with the English language - some many words yet so many differences and so many inflections made so much worse when other countries try to interpret it. Despite the fact you Americans think you speak English you don't quite speak it properly {:-D which leads to differences in thoughts. I see it a lot being English living in American. Different words have different weight and a different emphasis - what maybe bad writing to you is actually not a problem in England where the rules were written and raises no issues. However, having said that, sometimes what maybe appear to be bad writing is infact just plain bad writing.

P.s I also disagree with your lascannon thinking for similar reasons above, and I will post my reasons for that in a separate and await your usual style of commentary.

Also {insert some wise witty acid dripping comment that disparages anyone who disagrees with me that I cannot be bothered to think up due partly to lack of caffeine, partly because I am lazy and partly because people get confused by irony/ sarcasm and outright insults}

 

Just remember, when two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong.

Anyway, the reason I'd zero it is because while it's obviously legal, it's one of those rare situations where absolutely no one doubts that it's a screw up. Or at least I have no doubt and that's good enough when I'm doing the scoring.

I guess I still don't see the distinction between the infiltrating demon prince and the Lascannon marines extra bolter shot. I thought we weren't using intent at all, or maybe I'm being to literal myself here! OH IDOL of our unofficial fan club, could it be that you too are not 100% objective!!!?!?!!?!?

SAY IT ISN'T SO!

Yes, I understand your point and would tend to agree, but I don't see how you can state a difference between the two in the YMDC context.

"Just remember, when two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong."

Heh, sigged!

@WhiteDragon, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it does feel like chaos is getting the short end of the stick here. I can think of 3 tactics that chaos players can use that non-chaos players will all flip out about, all of them are legal as per RAW, but somehow all "bad sportsmanship and somehow wrong."

The doom-fist, legal but cheesey (amazing to read that here at Dakka). The siren prince, completely 100% legal but don't you dare use it or you are going to get laughed out of a tourney (for using an ability exactly as written in all 3 printings of the chaos codex and not modified in the FAQ). Now infiltration, the game is VERY clear that you use the BGB for this rule interpretation (but again somehow this is wrong, it just can't be right).

I wonder what SM players would say if non SM players held drop pods to the same level of scrutiny or the wonderful Tigerius character? Would SM players shy away from drop pods in tourneys because the rules are incomplete for them and most opponents find their use cheesey?

Darrian

Dunno Darrian, I'm not so sure Siren is all that worthwhile anymore due to the number of Psychic Hoods you'd see in a tournament environment.

My personal guideline on what I consider too over the top to use is anything I expect to be FAQed out of existence when (if?) we get a 4th ed FAQ and/or updated Codex FAQs.

Based on the 4.3 preview FAQ, I expect the Doom Fist to be FAQed, so I wouldn't use it. I expect the 4th ed FAQ to state that only the mechanics of USRs in the BTB (it's teal, damnit) and not the restrictions on what models can take them supplant the Codex entries, so I won't infiltrate statured princes/termis/bikes/berserkers/etc.

And Daemon summoning is the broken mechanic Chaos has that compares to Drop Pods, not mass infiltration

Well I know the lascannon\bolter thing wasn't even considered when they wrote the codex. (how? I asked one of the guys that wrote the codex)

But in reality, I still might not zero the guy, if he was pleasant enough in the game.

It's an easy fix ( I personally think it's a huge oversight allowing Bikes, units w/ MK Khorne, steeds, followers, Terminator armor and Statured Princes to have infiltrate by eliminating the infiltrate description in the codex)
-Don't play the person in pick up games who insists on using it if you truly object to it. This may well be the precursor to the headache of a game you are about to play, at least in my experience.
-Check beforehand w/ a tourney organizer as to what their interpretation is to the rule. While people may say what RAW indicates, not everyone plays strict RAW. It's just a matter of being out in the open about the issues so everyone is on the same page. I also believe this years (U.S.) Games Days RTT/GT does not have comp. The simple check the box if it was a fun game or not a fun game.

Are these 'disadvantages' a problem though?  Chaos is still a competitive codex; I'm pretty sure Ork players would like to have a word with you.

Sarigar wrote:
( I personally think it's a huge oversight allowing Bikes, units w/ MK Khorne, steeds, followers, Terminator armor and Statured Princes to have infiltrate by eliminating the infiltrate description in the codex)

I do not see that these types are allowed to infiltrate. Granted, like many an argument this opinion is partly based on linguistic interpretation, so feel free to disagree - I am not playing outside my gaming group anyways.

The section on infiltrate is not 'replaced', as some have put it. The USR 'take precedence' instead. That does not mean that the section is cut out and the USR copied & pasted into the blank space. Instead, the USR is a clarification, establishing an order of precedence and dealing with how infiltrate works ('infiltrators are set-up so and so'). The Codex-specific limitations (or description of who can infiltrate) still apply.

Apart from and in support of this, the CSM FAQ explicitly states that Terminators cannot infiltrate. If the whole USR would simply replace the Codex section, thereby eliminating all limitations on infiltrating and allowing Terminators to infiltrate, this statement would be illogical. I believe that we can safely incur from the fact that Terminators may not infiltrate that all other limitations are still in place.

Lastly, and while I am fully aware that common sense is not as common, it makes little sense to have noisy bikes, MCs thrashing through difficult terrain and their likes infiltrating. All of these obviously do not have the qualities expected of a stealthy and quiet infiltrator.

Terribly gauche of me to double-post but there seems to be an end quote tag that I cannot get rid off - I don't see any text to edit when clicking on the relevant button. Sorry for that.

Don't beat yourself up about it (I fixed it for ya). The text editor is a mess.

But if you want to fix it yourself next time, click on over to the "html" tab at the bottom of the reply window and you can see the html quote tags that are causing the problem.

Much appreciated, cheers mate!

Posted by Lord Solar Plexus on 06/28/2006 6:50 AM
The section on infiltrate is not 'replaced', as some have put it. The USR 'take precedence' instead

From page 74 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

The following unit special rules are the definitive versions, and REPLACE special rules of the same name printed in full in Codexes.

GW uses the term 'replaced', not 'takes precedence'.

I was waiting for somebody to post that. Thanks Ghaz. You should have bolded the IN FULL IN CODEXES also.

True. I admit that this had eluded me. However, the teaser talks about 'rules not being specific to just one army' which can hardly be said for the CSM infiltrate rule. The fact that some units may infiltrate is what they have in common. All exceptions or special gadgets are still army specific.

However, I was referring to the CSM FAQ: The USR take precedence over the veteran abilities listed in the Codex. Same in the English, French, and German versions.

It also does not change the fact that the USR only compliment the Dex. How do I figure? Well, Terminators may not infiltrate, as we are all quite aware of - you are aware of this, right? 'Replacing' the Dex version with the so-called 'definitive' USR has obviously not changed the fact that Terminators cannot infiltrate - only stealtlthy units can do so. Since Termis are only used as an example, there can be no question whether they and their ilk may or may not do funny things.

Erm, no one is saying that it's reasonable that statured princes/zerkers/termis/etc can infiltrate, just that by the rules as written, they can.

Per the rulebook, the USR text replaces the text in the codices. In the Chaos codex, the bulk of the restrictions on who can infiltrate is a part of the text which got replaced. Hence, by the letter of the rules, those restrictions no longer exist.

This is not to say that anyone who abuses this loophole is anything but unsportsmanlike.

I really believe you need to read THIS before we continue this discussion.

<br">

Posted" by="" lowinor="" on="" 06/28/2006="" 11:57="" am="">
Erm, no one is saying that it's reasonable that statured princes/zerkers/termis/etc can infiltrate, just that by the rules as written, they can.

I beg to differ. The FAQ, being the most recent rules clarification, states that Terminators may not infiltrate.

By the rules as written, they cannot. It could be argued that since the FAQ only mentions Termis, princes and Khornies can infiltrate, and I had no written proof to the contrary. I could only incur or deduce that because termis in the FAQ are only an example. I strongly oppose the view that logic or consistency should play no part. If that were so, the rulebook would be a billion pages long because no logical dictate (like 'the rules of English language apply') would be valid anymore.

Per the rulebook, the USR text replaces the text in the codices. In the Chaos codex, the bulk of the restrictions on who can infiltrate is a part of the text which got replaced. Hence, by the letter of the rules, those restrictions no longer exist.

That is indeed so, and utterly transparent. Did I say anything to the contrary? Or did I mention that I was referring to the CSM FAQ?
No? I am referring to the CSM FAQ. They are part of the rules. Hence, by letter of the rules, terminators may not infiltrate.

Also, if said rule replacement is so utterly clear and transparent, and you all ignore the FAQ, blissfully quoting the rulebook, I wonder why this is an issue at all.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/28/2006 12:19 PM
I really believe you need to read THIS before we continue this discussion.

And why would that be I wonder?

Are you insinuating that I have not read that, or that I am not discussing RAW? I am discussing and advocating RAW. According to RAW, terminators may not infiltrate. Have I not yet mentioned my source? 'scuse me, I was referring to the CSM FAQ. This is a direct logical contradiction to p. 74, intro, lines 3-4 if you interpret 'replace' as the description of how to use infiltrators replacing the description of who is an infiltrator.

One word on 'definitive rules': Do you insist that these rules in the BGB are definitive, regardless of FAQs, errata, F&As or CA? Surely not, and therefore I cannot fathom why you ignore part of the rules, concentrating on one part alone.

I think you are a bit confused LSP.

From the C:CSM FAQ:

"Veteran Skills
*Veteran Skills that are printed in the Universal Special Rules section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook always take precedence over those printed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines."

The FAQ tells you to look to the BGB, as it "always takes precedence". The BGB tells you to completely replace the existing rule in the Codex. Cut and dry.

Yes its a bit screwy, but thats what GW did.


Don't worry a new FAQ is on the way, GW promised...