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.

I don't have a problem with it but I have seen people get into big arguments about it.

I think the fact that the Chimera had rules stating terminators or models waering tactical dreadnaught armor could ride in them answers this question.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't have a problem with it but I have seen people get into big arguments about it.

I think the fact that the Chimera had rules stating terminators or models waering tactical dreadnaught armor could ride in them answers this question.

G

No, it doesn't. Would you kindly tell me in Codex: Imperial Guard where it says that, please? I cannot seem to find that rule. Same for Valkyrie where it forbids terminators please, in Codex: Imperial Guard. My codex doesn't have that rule either

Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Agreed...playing pure RAW and this game do not mix. A certain 'leeway' is both intended (page 2 RB) and exercised by the rule writers themselves (read any battle report from a WD and you will see 'how much' they actually follow the rules). The creators of this game 'intend' for us to play with a loose rule set (page 2 again), and their rules reflect that attitude. This game was never meant and never designed to be a 'tournament' game, as written by JJ on several occasions.

Wait, are you saying that Termis take up two spaces in a Valk, or that they can't ride in a Valk at all?

Until GW FAQ/Erratas it otherwise, GK Terminators can indeed hop into a Valkyrie and fly around making 'SHWOOOM' noises if the controlling player so wishes.

There's a good argument for taking up two spaces, but 'Ard Boyz rules aside, it is a HUGE leap to assume that GKTs can't enter a Valkyrie/Vendetta at all.

Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

I would never play you Gwar... sorted.



G

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

And no one is saying you can't play the game your way. Have fun at your store/club and I wish you the best. And I am not objecting the RAW, it is pretty clear what RAW says, and I for one disagree with it. I like to play with the spirit of a rule if a rule seems questionable, and I mean 'rule' by an obscure rule that would rarely come up and just doesn't make sense (like this one).

Personally I would 'say' that all terminators take up 2 model spaces in a transport (any transport) as this seems to make the most sense. However, RAW only points to them taking up 2 slots only in a Land Raider....because that was the only vehicle they were allowed to go in at the time of the codex writing...The intent is crystal clear however, RAW is you may stack them in a Valkyrie and have your fun.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

He's making a point, and a good one at that.

If someone pulls the "most important rule" bs at a game when they don't like a rule that hurts their army then you can throw it right back at them with the same reasoning. Any time someone brings up the "most important rule" in a discussion about rules it's generally a red flag that their argument is bunk (or that they don't have one at all).

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

Because I derive enjoyment from playing without having to memorise Ninety Seven Million, Four Hundred and Thirty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Two House rules to do so.

How is objecting to me playing by Strict RaW stopping you having fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

How is objecting to a certain play style 'stoping' you from having fun?

He's making a point, and a good one at that.

If someone pulls the "most important rule" bs at a game when they don't like a rule that hurts their army then you can throw it right back at them with the same reasoning. Any time someone brings up the "most important rule" in a discussion about rules it's generally a red flag that their argument is bunk (or that they don't have one at all).

Which is EXACTLY my point, and is EXACTLY what everyone who uses it in a rules debate is doing WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Also CAPSLOCK IS AWESOME.

And if you move your pinky 7/16" to the left, you can turn it off, too!

sourclams wrote:And if you move your pinky 7/16" to the left, you can turn it off, too!

Really? I never knew that!

So... Umm... What were we talking about again?

Chicks.

sourclams wrote:Chicks.

Baby chickens are adorable.

Seriously though, saying "that's not RAW because that's not the intent" is silly. RAW is whatever is written. I don't play strict no exception RAW, but I want to understand what is actually written before playing it some other way, whether that other way is based on my opinion of intent, or based on some arbitrary whim to my opponent and I feel like doing for no particular reason whatsoever.

But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

See? When people quote page 2 Against me, it is all fine and dandy, but as soon as I make a point to show how those people are just abusing the rule, I get accused of trying to abuse it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

QFT. This is a RaW forum, if you wanna play RaI, go the proposed rules forum and spam away to your hearts content

Gwar I never brought up TMIR in this conversation... you did and I called you on it. Stop waffling.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

You missed the part where he was doing so ironically to make a point.

See? When people quote page 2 Against me, it is all fine and dandy, but as soon as I make a point to show how those people are just abusing the rule, I get accused of trying to abuse it.



Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:But RAW is not always the answer but apparently that is all Gwar seems to be able to grasp. He is taking the position of moral high ground by quoting TMIR.

G

In a forum dedicated to answering questions of what the RAW of something is, RAW is always the answer. Use the answer or not however you like in a game, but I don't think you will get far arguing RAI in a RAW forum.

QFT. This is a RaW forum, if you wanna play RaI, go the proposed rules forum and spam away to your hearts content

Did I say you did? No, I didn't. Also, read the thread again. Paxidon brought it up first, not me.

To bring it back to basics:

RAW 12 Terminators can ride in a Valkyrie.

RAI 0, 6, or 12 Terminators can ride in a Valkyrie.

The most common interpretation will probably be 6 Terminators, as nothing disallows Terminators from riding in a Valkyrie, however bulky models almost always take up 2 spaces in a transport.

Looking at 'Ard Boyz rules (I'm getting this secondhand as I have not seen them personally) it may be that GW intended 0 Termies to ride in a Valkyrie, in the same way that chimeras and rhinos are off-limits.

'Ard Boyz rules are not the baseline for the regular rulset, however. Last 'Ard Boyz had very, very favorable kill point interpretations for Imperial Guard. It was possible to make an IG army with 40 separate squads/vehicles/transports that only gave up 7 Kill Points under last year's system. That rule set didn't carry over to the new IG codex, so it wouldn't stand to reason that this rule set will either [yet].

Should we always just blindly follow a RAW interpretation? There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Should we always just blindly follow a RAW interpretation? There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

RaI I belive I should autowin on a 1+. Wait? You don't agree? Omg you're breaking TMIR YOU TFG! - Typical RaI Game

With RaW that can't happen.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

You said nothing actually, you have not a single post in that entire seven page thread. I just pulled it up and looked. And, interestingly enough, when GW FAQ'ed it they said no "for simplicity’s sake". They did not in any way say that by RAW you couldn't do it. You are completely making it up to say that GW FAQ'ed that by RAW you could not do it.

For those with no clue what GBF brought up here, there was an intellectual exercise on my local gaming store forums that he occasionally trolls on whether, by RAW, certain powers could target units in a transport. The consensus was that by RAW they could, but by RAI they couldn't. GW shortly thereafter, in a bout of nicely convenient timing, added to the rulebook FAQ that "For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’."

What exactly was the point of inserting this into post to Gwar! that you didn't bring up TMIR to him?

And whether or not you believe you should blindly follow RAW is a personal choice. The point of this forum is to explore and answer what the outcome of a given situation by pure RAW is. Do with it what you want in game, the point here is to discuss just what it is. Nobody is then forcing you to play your games with it. Change it as you see fit.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Gwar your abrasive attitude does not impress me nor does it make you automatically correct. You are basically a RAW Nazi who cannot see shades of grey. To you the world is all black and white. You will eventually discover this is not the case all the time.

G

Unfortunately, Warhammer 40,000 is not the real world, and yes, it is quite Black and White. Either something is allowed by the rules or it isn't.

In this case, you can put 12 Grey Knight Terminators in a Valkyrie until they tell you that you can't. It doesn't make sense with the fluff, but that's too bad.

As much as Gwar may piss you off, his insights are generally helpful. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:With RaW that can't happen.

Yes it can. There's often cases where it's not clear what the 'right' RAW answer is. Quick, how many points do Grey Hunters pay for a Rhino, and what does it come with? 50? 35? Smoke Launchers and Searchlight or No? And I'm using the english language FAQ, not the German one! Here's another on a similar thread. Can Space Wolves take a Land Raider Redeemer? In the FAQ, it says they can take any Land Raider variants. Nowhere is the LRR defined as a variant.

This issue of GKT in a Valkyrie is different. By RAW, they can. They probably shouldn't be able to, and if they could, they should probably take up 2 transport spaces. That doesn't mean you'll make any friends by playing with 12 terminators in a valkyrie, and at least one major tournament has disallowed it.

There's playing RAW and then there's playing a game. A game. Supposed to be fun.

Arguing RAW on an internet forum has nothing to do with enjoying a game. Most of the time, these debates quickly spiral downwards, and it's just an issue of chest thumping and trying to prove who is the manlier man. Next time, just get out the rulers and settle it that way.

Why is the INAT FAQ there? To let people know what to expect at the tourney. Are you bound to it? No. Heck, if I was playing a Grey Knight army, I'd let them use the Heavy 4 Rending assault cannon. Yes, it's not RAW, but it just seems like that is the way the game should be played to me.

Can models disembark from the Valkyrie even though it sits 5 inches off the deck? Maybe. I don't know what the intent was, and no one besides the games dev team does. Would I let some disembark onto the deck? Yes, because it seems like the way it should be played to me.

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is a lot of RAI evidence and the GW ard Boyz ruling to show that GKT can indeed not ride in the gunships.

G

As I've already mentioned, 'Ard Boyz is not the best source for rulings because there's no evidence that GW consistently adopts them.

The IG Kill Points issue was a massive change in the favor of IG players, and nothing similar to that change was implemented in the current codex.

If GW does FAQ it, then that would be good "evidence". Until then, we have no idea whether or not they will.

I spoke about this very subject ad naseum on the SciFi City forums.

G

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Kaaihn remember when your local group was trying to say you could use a pyschic power to target units embarked in transports? I said it was BS then one week later GW released a FAQ that said exactly what I had said.

You said nothing actually, you have not a single post in that entire seven page thread. I just pulled it up and looked. And, interestingly enough, when GW FAQ'ed it they said no "for simplicity’s sake". They did not in any way say that by RAW you couldn't do it. You are completely making it up to say that GW FAQ'ed that by RAW you could not do it.

For those with no clue what GBF brought up here, there was an intellectual exercise on my local gaming store forums that he occasionally trolls on whether, by RAW, certain powers could target units in a transport. The consensus was that by RAW they could, but by RAI they couldn't. GW shortly thereafter, in a bout of nicely convenient timing, added to the rulebook FAQ that "For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’."

What exactly was the point of inserting this into post to Gwar! that you didn't bring up TMIR to him?

And whether or not you believe you should blindly follow RAW is a personal choice. The point of this forum is to explore and answer what the outcome of a given situation by pure RAW is. Do with it what you want in game, the point here is to discuss just what it is. Nobody is then forcing you to play your games with it. Change it as you see fit.

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

Debate aside, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that.

Ragewind wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Page 2 also says both players must have fun. I have fun by playing the game by strict RaW. If you object to that, you are stopping me from enjoying the game and therefore you are breaking TMIR, and breaking rules is known as Cheating.

Debate aside, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that.

I am glad to see others as concerned as I!