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.

Im talking about the 'flying base' there is nothing that says you cant change that. The 'flying base' isnt the same thing as the base. If it is then 'Hotshot Lasguns' are all lasguns that get FRSRF.

Just because one word of each is the same doesnt make it the samething. Im sure you will continue to dodge the question, but RAW I am right.

No, you are not. But hey, don't let that stop you

Can you please show me where I am wrong please?

I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

willydstyle wrote:I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

Like any good rules debate

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:I think I showed you a couple of pages ago, but you ignored my response.

Like any good rules debate

Everyone knows that the only answers that matter are Gwar!s answers

Actually you never showed me rules, you only said no conversions are legal. Well, as discussed that means no one has a legal army. Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere (not saying it doesnt exist)

I am simply saying use the rules and show me where it says you cant modify a 'flying base'. If you cant and still want to argue that a flying base = a base, then i will argue that a hotshot lasgun = a lasgun. Its simple!

broxus wrote: Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere

We covered that several pages ago as well.

Once again, what you're looking for is not a rule saying you can't... you need a rule that says you can.

The rulebook can't list every single thing that you can not do in a game of 40K. That would be impossible. What the rulebook does instead is provide you with a framework of rules that tells you what you can do.

There is no rule that says you can modify the flight base without your opponent's permission.

In fact, if you're going to argue that a 'flight base' isn't a 'base' then the rule saying that you can use a different base with your opponent's permission applies only to regular bases, and not flight bases... in which case there is no rule allowing you to modify your flight base at all, opponent's permission or no.

broxus wrote:Actually you never showed me rules, you only said no conversions are legal. Well, as discussed that means no one has a legal army. Though, I cant find a page where it says you cant convert your army anywhere (not saying it doesnt exist)

I am simply saying use the rules and show me where it says you cant modify a 'flying base'. If you cant and still want to argue that a flying base = a base, then i will argue that a hotshot lasgun = a lasgun. Its simple!

Actually I showed you have verbiage for models is non-specific (tracks vs. treads for example) whereas the verbiage for wargear is specific.

Actually, it just seems to me that many people are trying to have it both ways. Its for the best we never would play each other because we wouldnt get the pieces down. I never see any page numbers to refrence from you just this is how we belive it should be.

My entire point for this post is if you have an issue with me embarking and disembarking my troops from a valkyire, then I will be able to show you a million loopholes that we can argue until the next version comes out.

I dont think you should have to modify the size of the flying base to be able to load and unload troops, RAI are very clear on this one. In regards to the Hotshot lasguns getting FRSRF, who knows how this will end up. I can see it going either way with the FAQ and RAI are vague. Personally I could care less because Storm Troopers are still way overpriced even if they can compared to vets.

broxus wrote: I never see any page numbers to refrence from you just this is how we belive it should be.

You won't get a page reference for a rule that doesn't exist.

Once again, the lack of a rule allowing something means that it isn't allowed. There's no need for a page reference, nor is one possible.


If you want to claim that something is allowed, you need a rule to back that up. So far, you have failed to provide one, and just claimed that a flight base is not a base with nothing to back that up.

I dont think you should have to modify the size of the flying base to be able to load and unload troops,

You have to apply some sort of house rule to be able to load and unload troops. Again, modifying the base is only one of several different options there.

I guess I have to re-iterate, again, that I think that it is RAI that you should be able to disembark from a valkyrie, and if playing against an opponent fielding one, I would allow it.

I just think all the rules lawyering that is happening to try to provide RAW justifications for being able to do so (when there are none) is a bit silly.

Making house rules is 100% appropriate.

Expecting your opponent to agree to them without discussion first is 100% inappropriate.

willydstyle wrote:I guess I have to re-iterate, again, that I think that it is RAI that you should be able to disembark from a valkyrie, and if playing against an opponent fielding one, I would allow it.

I just think all the rules lawyering that is happening to try to provide RAW justifications for being able to do so (when there are none) is a bit silly.

Making house rules is 100% appropriate.

Expecting your opponent to agree to them without discussion first is 100% inappropriate.

QFT...cheater.

Its been pointed out over and over again how this model fails to interact properly (as is obviously RAI) with the existing ruleset.

Because it does not interact properly, individual players are justified in thinking that it can not do some things that are intuitive - according to the rules.

Most people compromise on this and figure out which rules to break to make it work best for them. That's fine... but other people might think you should break a couple different rules and play it differently.

Thats why until this is FAQ'd IG players need to contact TO's and work out with their friends/opponents how to play it. If you play IG and do not bring up any issues with your model before the game and "spring" your way of playing it on you opponent, you'd be TFG.

Same goes for IG players' opponents though. The couple times when I've seen an opponent pulling out a Valk, I asked immediately how they wanted to play it. If you don't, you are setting yourself up for a disagreement mid-game.

The point is that the model obviously doesn't work strictly as intended, and ignoring the rules you are breaking to enforce your interpretation of how its played is being TFG. The first step is admitting there is a problem with the model.

RustyKnight wrote:QFT...cheater.

Hey that's my line!

Dracos wrote:The first step is admitting there is a problem with the model.

The thing is, there is no problem with the model, it just doesn't work how people assumed it would.

Fine tell your opponents their valks can't disembark, good luck finding opponents. I have no intention of either being TFG or endorsing someone who is advocating it.

Dracos wrote:Fine tell your opponents their valks can't disembark, good luck finding opponents. I have no intention of either being TFG or endorsing someone who is advocating it.

Odd, I was under the Impression TFG is the guy who says he can break the rules and it's not cheating.

You do realise that the Valkyrie has some pretty serious advantages when played by the RaW too? Or do you want to claim RaI and get the Advantages but deny the disadvantages? You know, like TFG.

Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Yeah, ya know, except the people who made the model and wrote the rules. Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand? Perhaps they Intended it to be 2" and, well gosh darn, the boys in production made an error Several Thousand times?

RaI is ALWAYS RaW. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it is the truth. If they want to change the RaI, write the rule correctly the first time or Issue an Errata.

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Now, now. If you bait him, he'll just call you a cheater again.

Gwar! wrote:Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand?

They certainly intended to write what they wrote. Whether they intended that to actually function the way it does is anyone's guess. It wouldn't be the first time (again, see my Assassins/Inquisitor example) that they've written a rule without fully thinking through the consequenses of it.

And as someone mentioned a while back, the guy writing the rules most likely had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to package the Valkyrie with the new flight base. I wouldn't be at all surprised if whatever playtesting was done in-house was done with either Forgeworld models or the new Valk sans base.

RAI and RAW are sometimes different things. The reason we tend to stick to RAW is that GW rarely tell us what they intended... not because we assume that what they wrote is how they actually intended it to work.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, ya know, except the people who made the model and wrote the rules. Or are you suggesting they didn't intend to type out those specific words when they wrote the rulebooks or the didn't intend for us to get a 5" Flying Stand? Perhaps they Intended it to be 2" and, well gosh darn, the boys in production made an error Several Thousand times?

RaI is ALWAYS RaW. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it is the truth. If they want to change the RaI, write the rule correctly the first time or Issue an Errata.

Actually I think that when it was in design they envisioned using the standard base and then switched later, or maybe did not even consider the base.

Breaking the rules is RAW too, its even stated as being the most important rule. Its all but an admission that they can not write rules properly so basically if something doesn't jive then figure out with your opponent which rules to break.

Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

mikhaila wrote:

broxus wrote:Gwar, I think you may be the only person that thinks the RAI are designed not to allow normal embarking and disembarking.

Now, now. If you bait him, he'll just call you a cheater again.

Well, he is abusing "TMIR" to deliberately change a rule that is very clear because he doesn't want the disadvantages that rule entails. Yeah that is cheating.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:Breaking the rules is RAW too, its even stated as being the most important rule.

God Damnit, STOP USING TMIR TO JUSTIFY CHEATING!

TMIR is used to allow for situations where the RaW is unclear or where it conflicts. It does not give wholesale licence to cheat, which is what you are doing.

Its only cheating if you don't agree to compromise. Sure, you can say no, but again you are being TFG if you refuse to play by the most important rule. Don't like how your opponent proposes it should be played, then COMPROMISE or roll off. Thats the rules.

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Sure buddy. I say you should compromise about a model that does not interact intuitively or RAI, and you just want to roll to win on a 1+. But I'm being TFG, not you. Right.

You know what, go ahead. Do it at home right now, we'll have a game over the internets. YOU WIN. Gratz.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

Oh, I'm glad I wont play you then.
I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

Sure buddy. I say you should compromise about a model that does not interact intuitively or RAI, and you just want to roll to win on a 1+. But I'm being TFG, not you. Right.

You know what, go ahead. Do it at home right now, we'll have a game over the internets. YOU WIN. Gratz.

You are being TFG by your own Definition:

Dracos wrote:Yes it is being TFG to refuse to compromise or play by the most important rule.

I want to play by TMIR by winning on a 1+. If you refuse, you are TFG. This is exactly why people should play by the actual rules, rather than use TMIR as a Justification to cheat.

P.S. Thanks for the Soundbite

Actually I would definately agree that for the game we were about to play, you would win on a 1+,

Of course not so much if it was a tourney game, but in that case your opinion of how the model works is irrelevant since I would clear it up first with the TO.

It would be the shortest game ever, with you winning on a single dice roll. As I said, we can do it now if you want and get it out of the way. Gratz on the win buddy, now good luck finding other players to play against, cause that was our first and last game. I'm sure that such an event is not unusual for you if you play like this IRL.

Dracos wrote:Actually I would definately agree that for the game we were about to play, you would win on a 1+,

Of course not so much if it was a tourney game, but in that case your opinion of how the model works is irrelevant since I would clear it up first with the TO.

It would be the shortest game ever, with you winning on a single dice roll. As I said, we can do it now if you want and get it out of the way. Gratz on the win buddy, now good luck finding other players to play against, cause that was our first and last game. I'm sure that such an event is not unusual for you if you play like this IRL.

No, I like playing the game by the rules. If you are going to use TMIR to cheat, I'll do it back. If you want to play the game properly, I'd have no problem with it.

Gwar! wrote:I want to autowin on a Roll of a 1+, Citing TMIR. You say no, you are being TFG.

I'll agree to that. But in the spirit of compromise, you have to use my dice: