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.

mobirds4all wrote:
In the rule book I believe assault a glance equals 1 wound and a penatration equals 2 for working out combat

Which has nothing to do with saving against them. Or do you have to save twice to negate a penetrating hit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Also, it is not unheard of for someone comes up with an entirely legitimate response that changes everything and makes these sorts of response stop.

Getting people to critically read the words the rules are written in, instead of what they think is written, is a great way to instigate this.

That is correct.

i wonder if anyone plays the game RAW, i cant imagine i would last long at my local games club if i insisted on nonsensical rules because it doesn't explicitly tell you that you can do it.

i'm sure if i really studied the rulebook i could find an omission that renders the game unplayable

there are plenty of badly worded rules in the codexes and rulebooks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also there seems to be some confusion about the daemonic possession and the daemon rule

daemonic possession is an upgrade for a vehicle in the CSM codex

the daemon rule is a special rule that applies to some vehicles and some models, it gives the recipient both fear and a 5+ invulnerable

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

I wasn't creating a big debate - I stated that RAW they didn't and people kept coming back with "nuh uh!"

if you want to truly practice RAW you need to first read "The Most Important Rule"

Not in this forum because its irrelevant when discussing rules.

It is the most important rule. If you ignore that rule, then what stops you from ignoring any other rule. It certainly does hold relevancy here.

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

rigeld2 wrote:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

100% this. That link should be a sticky, too many people do not read the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

Actually the RAW folks were pointing out RAW and the HIWPI's were saying nuh-uh.

/poke

:edit... btw, will you be there at the Tournament Sat?

Fragile wrote:
/poke

:edit... btw, will you be there Sat?

Who/What/Where/When/

The How is irrelevant

I think it is a good thing we can have some fun here.

: )

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

100% this. That link should be a sticky, too many people do not read the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Fair Enough. My Apologies

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

I'm terribly sorry.
Firstly I was arguing RAW. Even stated so

Secondly the Tenets of YMDC state you're not supposed to argue HIWPI vs RAW.

I honestly thought he was trying to prove something RAW, there was never a statement of HIWPI for quite some time.

Could you quote the tenet that states we are not supposed to argue RAW versus HYWPI?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Could you quote the tenet that states we are not supposed to argue RAW versus HYWPI?

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

Read the OP. He asked for where it was written. That's not a HYWPI discussion.

Also:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Since the only thing you can demonstrably back up is RAW, that's the default. HYWPI discussions are absolutely fine - but you need to clarify that's what you're saying.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

Read the OP. He asked for where it was written. That's not a HYWPI discussion.

Also:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Since the only thing you can demonstrably back up is RAW, that's the default. HYWPI discussions are absolutely fine - but you need to clarify that's what you're saying.

That was very rude.

How is that rude. That is the first Tenet of the forum he quoted.

Dozer - if you think it was rude - report it.

Given it is the tenets of the forum you are posting in I dont imagine it will go anywhere, but thatis the method - just complaining in a thread doesnt do much

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

The part where invuln saves are taken to wounds. Not to pens/glances.
Bjorn is specifically allowed with his Special Codex rule to use his invul save to pens/glances.
It's a RAW argument, as there are no rules in the BGB to say you can.
Noxious Touch can only be used if it's a Daemon. It specifies the "Daemon's CC Attacks"

Again, not a RAI argument but a RAW one. It's not HIWPI, but that's for another time.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

"Invulnerable Saves - page 17
...they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound..."

The rule says Wound, makes no mention of Pen / Glances

"Ward of the Primarch" - Codex: Space Wolves page 49
...Bjorn has a 5+ invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hit..."

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

It has been stated many many (many) times, that this is not how people here play the rule. Obviously vehicles are meant to take the saves. No one here would dispute that. We are simply debating that technically, the rules don't allow the save.
Please try and keep that in mind when posting.

I think the upshot of this discussion is that it's quite frankly amazing that this STILL hasn't been FAQ'd by GW after all this time.

Maybe no one has explicitly told them they can, and therefore within the confines of a permissive ruleset they simply cannot.