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.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/spacemarines/gaming/tactica_librarian/conclusion.htm

Someone should tell GW that they wrote their article on SM Librarians incorrectly.

Or maybe this whole thing would just get laughed out of a GT by the GW judges the moment it was brought up as a point of contention against a Ultramarines player.

Posted By mauleed on 02/27/2006 9:10 PM

And this is relevant how?

Range is a defined game term.

A game term defined by the english language. Unless of course you want "Flight" to mean "Stationary", in which case by all means, use whatever "words" to "mean" whatever you'd like.

However, i would postulate that when a distance has been assigned to an offensive ability, a range is implied.

I really don't think that GW intended for us to debate the english language and redefine definitions everytime we consulted thier rule book.

 

But that's just my take on things.

Thunderkiss, as was noted on a previous page, "range" has a number of different meanings in the English language. GW was "kind" enough to tell us which one we use when we play 40k.

Heh, musta been page 4, i skipped that one as the topic was dragging i just figured it was a forgone conclusion there but i suppose everything is up for debate at dakka sometimes. I wonder what "is" is .....

And after a loud huff and a re-read of the stickies i retract my postulations for being exactly that, postulations.

Debate on .....

Out of curiosity and just for clarifications sake (with regards to Voodoo) are we dismissing the GW written articles as no rules backup (as is custom with YMTC) ?

I say present any and all information you have. . .let each person worry about how the "officiality" of such material applies to their decision.


I'd certainly like to know what you're talking about.

Morticon may be referring to the above link to the GW website, which has info about the psychic powers and mentions Tigurious specifically:

"As mentioned before, a Librarian can ruin the lines of a low-Leadership army with Fear of the Darkness. This impact can be even more dramatic with Chief Librarian Tigurius's doubled range."  etc.

This would seem to imply that the Range of the effect is doubled.  This, while debateable in the RAW, seems to be pretty clear.

It also brings up another oft-debated issue, which is OT:

"Fury of the Ancients. This power is particularly useful at long range, as it can go all the way across the board (within line-of-sight, of course). Fury of the Ancients is even more useful if you can draw its path over several enemy units."  Link below...

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/spacemarines/gaming/tactica_librarian/powers.htm

Sigh, oh for an editor...

Mistakes in a GW tactica article are no more official rules than mistakes in battle reports, mistakes on their forums, mistakes by their mail order hotline, or mistakes down at the local game store.

Not debating that at all.  Just posted it in response to Yakface's request to present any and all info from any source so that people can make up their own mind on its veracity or applicability.

I appreciate that they do these articles on the website, and post their "officially not official" FAQ's on their boards, but it really wouldn't kill 'em to actually make a few rulings, and make them official.  That being said, any information that I can find is grist for the debate in my eyes.

 

I appreciate it.

I always like to see exactly how GW manages to make things ever more confusing.

The issue is, if you're basing how you like to play on things other than actual rules, invariably you'll run across people that will say "sorry, I only like to follow the rules." and your arguments of "well the white dwarf battle report said..." all go to waste.

Agreed.  But then we're talking about 40k and GW.  Not that its an excuse, but 40k has always been about using everything available to play, and has never been strictly about the rules, especially considering the sheer number of gray areas they have.

With 2 or 3 people from these boards, we could edit the rulebook, close up 99.7% of the holes, and we'd have a decent ruleset, and I'd do it for free...

The problem with that online Librarian Tactica is that it was written by a player who has probably never met the rules designers and was likely in the same situation we are in now and went off of his own interpretation.  Using pieces of text like that to support rules is impossible.  How can you argue someone that has the GW publication of the wargear book in their hands that terminators don't have a 3+ save?

In addition, I am confident that most players that would use that tactica as evidence that Tigurius doubles the effect radius of Fear would conveniently forget about that little part mentioning needing line of sight to a table edge for Fury.  This is only based on my experience that people tend to interpret grey areas to their best interest.  I'm guilty of the same thing, myself.

- Oaka

"In addition, I am confident that most players that would use that tactica as evidence that Tigurius doubles the effect radius of Fear would conveniently forget about that little part mentioning needing line of sight to a table edge for Fury.  This is only based on my experience that people tend to interpret grey areas to their best interest.  I'm guilty of the same thing, myself."

Well, pardon me, but that's f'n ridiculous. If you "tend to interpret grey areas in your best interest", you're a lowly dog. Cut it out. It's unethical, immoral, and possibly evil. I implore you, for the sake of your immortal soul, stop it.

I refuse to play that fury needs LOS. But I also refuse to play that Tiggy's fear works out to 24" (and lately I've been fielding tiggy). And I lose no sleep doing it.

Posted By mauleed on 03/01/2006 6:48 PM

Well, pardon me, but that's f'n ridiculous. If you "tend to interpret grey areas in your best interest", you're a lowly dog. Cut it out. It's unethical, immoral, and possibly evil. I implore you, for the sake of your immortal soul, stop it.

I refuse to play that fury needs LOS. But I also refuse to play that Tiggy's fear works out to 24" (and lately I've been fielding tiggy). And I lose no sleep doing it.

 

If I were a doctor I would agree with you, but since it is a game where we push around toy soldiers I don't lose sleep over it either.  An example that comes to my mind right now where I interpret grey areas in the rules in my favor is that I will put the first wound on my Kroot units on the 3-wound shaper and then put remaining wounds on the 1-wound Kroot.  This has hurt me, on occassion, however, with fire superiority or mind war, so it has its drawbacks.  I don't think that is being evil.  Evil would be not allowing your opponent's terminators to deepstrike in because they don't have terminator armor and then casually adding up your victory points for them on turn 1. 

Also, I don't see how playing Fury without needing LOS isn't in your favor, either.  Last I checked it was still under interpretation as part of that whole messed up when-do-psychic-powers-follow-normal-shooting-rules debate (Or the WDPPFNSR Phenomenon for short).

... Not too worried about my immortal soul, either.  I traded it in sixth grade for a kudos bar.

- Oaka

Not too worried about my immortal soul, either. I traded it in sixth grade for a kudos bar.

Which kind, the good kind with the chocolate coating and peanut butter, or possibly chocolate chips inside, or the bad kind, the kind with mini M&Ms or snickers pieces which masquerades as poor excuse for a Kudos bar?

God, I haven't had one of those in years. Damn, they were good. Especially the peanut butter ones. You know what else was really good? Twix bars. You could buy them in boxes in the cookie section, and they came in one per wrapper, not two, and the wrapper wasn't the shiny crap we have now, but that simple brownish/beige color. The peanut butter ones were great, and IIRC, they had some interesting fudge ones too. Those were the days.

I'm a bit new to all of this forum stuff.........

but does any body out there own a wait for it dictionary............ yep weird and wonderful though they seem I believe they help clear up slightly strange arguments......

here goes an interesting little point on the word range that I believe kind of points out a somewhat startling conclusion that the arae of effect of fear the darkness is 24"

 

a. Extent of perception, knowledge, experience, or ability.

b. The area or sphere in which an activity takes place.

Sorry kind of said I was new to this bumph............

If out of date should thread not have been closed???

Any how onwards and upwards will look to keep up to date in future thanks for the tip............