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.
gigasnail wrote: I'm glad this came up; I'd never heard of this being an issue before now.
I appreciate everyone's input on this, whether we agree on the interpretation or not.
That's because in 6th it was covered by the FAQs that GW has pulled and replaced with their craptacular 7th ed 'FAQs' (ie minor errata to cover rules changes for 7th, but none of the previous errata or FAQs that still apply or need answers). Should they ever actually do FAQs, I'm pretty sure we know how this will be answered, but in the meantime people will argue about it.
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD
In my opinion the cryptek definitely counts as a troops choice. They're characters, but they're not independent, and they're attached out like advisers.
Is a commissar attached to a guard unit not a troops choice?
Is a mekboy attached to a boyz mob not a troops choice?
These guys are PERMANENTLY attached to the squad and become members for all intents and purposes. They cant detach willingly, and if everyone else dies, they are still that unit. They do not become independent, they are the last man standing in whatever squad they were assigned to.
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Nay, not impossible. Highly improbable, but it does happen from time to time.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Hasn't really beens settled, just tied of told I am being wrong or not knowing anything. I know I don't know anything, that is why I am asking for understanding. If this was in court the Pro sayers wouldn't win because nothing has been proven. Just guesses and what shoulds.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
So yes you guys are correct on assumptions, but not on proof.
Just because people are quiet doesn't mean they concede. If we are going to have an actual debate BOTH PARTIES have to acknowledge what the other party has said. What this basically turned into is, A says X, B says Y but A says he is correct because he also adds in Z without acknowledging what X.
So don't forget to address what someone else says and ignore it just to prove your point. So no, I will say nothing has been proven because everyone is just going on why they think they are right, and now why the other person has made a mistake in judgment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/06 16:55:44
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Davor wrote: I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
With all due respect, but if you seriously claim that there have not been given any direct quotes or page numbers, then you are not looking for any constructive discussion, but instead are clearly trying to provoke other users into making inflammantory responses. There have been multiple quotes, pages etc. given on anything that was asked for. Willingly ignoring those to make a point (which is not possible to begin with) is extremely poor behavior.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/06 17:01:21
Davor wrote: Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
You're either lying, trolling, or unable to read. They exist - your willful ignorance notwithstanding.
I'm truly not trying to be offensive, but I don't see any other alternatives. Unless you have a significant amount of people in this thread on ignore the page numbers are there.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Davor wrote: I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
With all due respect, but if you seriously claim that there have not been given any direct quotes or page numbers, then you are not looking for any constructive discussion, but instead are clearly trying to provoke other users into making inflammantory responses. There have been multiple quotes, pages etc. given on anything that was asked for. Willingly ignoring those to make a point (which is not possible to begin with) is extremely poor behavior.
Again, I am not trying to provoke. Page numbers have been proven now that I see.(again we are all human I could have missed them but now they are shown to me) and I will concede, the correct call was made.
You know it would be nice though if people actually debated instead of trying to just prove their point. What ever happened to actually acknowledging what other people say instead of just saying they are wrong? That is what happened in this thread and could be a reason why some of these pages go on and on debating. People have to prove they are right instead of having an open mind for a real discussion.
That being said, I believe the correct call was made now.
Thankyou Wtnind.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Davor wrote: What ever happened to actually acknowledging what other people say instead of just saying they are wrong? That is what happened in this thread and could be a reason why some of these pages go on and on debating. People have to prove they are right instead of having an open mind for a real discussion.
It did happen. Pages were cited. Do I need to go quote every post with a page number to prove it?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Again, I am not trying to provoke. Page numbers have been proven now that I see.(again we are all human I could have missed them but now they are shown to me)
I quoted one quote thrice and you still refused to see it.
There's not anymore real discussion to be had; I don't agree with the points that have been raised. The FAQ's that cleared this up are no longer in use. If GW meant for it to continue to work the same, the FAQ's would have remained the same. I do not feel the lines from the character section of the BRB are applicable to characters that aren't bought as part of the unit; others disagree but there's not more we can do other than go around and around about it. There's no resolution on the issue, just agreeing to disagree.
I can't comment on the or mek/commisar issue, I don't own those codexes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/06 19:40:59
Omission of things from old FAQs in the current FAQs is not a reversal of the ruling. A reversal would be if they had the same FAQ question and changed the answer to be the opposite.
absolutely the right call was made on this issue from the OP.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/06 20:28:55
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Really? Really? 'Declaring victory because people don't care enough to actually post.'
Do you want to know why I am no longer posting?
Because my interpretation of RAI is the same as your interpretation of RAW, I just believe that the wording is unclear because GW-rules are informally written.
We both played it the same way and we both continue to play it the same way and we both agree with the decision of the TO.
Instead of discussing for the sake of discussing I'd rather put my effort in genuine questions where people need help with a real issue.
This has nothing to do with "declaring victory". In this very case, I am genuinely interested in why people get this wrong and even asked one person who disagrees a simple question to understand why he got it wrong. Since noone answered, I just assumed that it's clear now.
RAW in this case is clear, and RAI should be clear as well as it goes along just fine with how the rules are written.
Up to this point, I have neither seen an actual argument in favor of a RAW nor RAI disagreeing with the obvious way how it's played. The only ones that have, so far, referred to rules is the "Troops" crowd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/06 22:30:51
Oh really? Please reread what you typed: "Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible."
I am genuinely interested in why people get this wrong
Me too, can you explain to me why you are wrong? I really would like to know!
/sarcasm.
That's not a decent way to discuss stuff.
No, RAW is not clear!
RAI is clear, but not RAW as long as GW insists on using a dozen different words to describe stuff.
That's like saying that "he likes to chill out with his bro's" is the same as describing that a model joins a unit and leaves his old one.
Stuff like that will continue to happen until WotC buys out GW and writes their rules.
Obvious? Yes. But written so there can be no confusion or discussion.
Unlike GW that doesn't even tell you how to take Invulnerable Saves :')
They describe every single word and possible action.
They wouldn't even dream of using a word like "split off" or "assigned to lead a different unit" without fully explaining what impact that has on every possible question.
Before people state that the above would be too complicated for people to enjoy, I wonder how many have played Magic and ever glanced at their Rulebook with more then a passing interest? As a casual player at best, I was more then able to sit down at the table and quickly learn what made up one Turn, what each Phase within was used for and how to go about completing basic actions required during those Phases. The rest was all up to reading what was printed on the cards as that would inform us of modifications to occur after those point. That and loosing a few times till I learned that the secret was to take my friends broken decks along, as trying to build anything short around his players would be suicide at best. Warhammer already has a great deal of similarities, basic system of Rules with modifications found on Models and their kin instead of cards, they Publishers sadly devoted much of the book to being a marketing campaign instead of a dedicated Rule Lawyer glossary to go with it.
I know I would be thankful for one, I've applied a lot of the logical arguments people put forth here and found some very broken outcomes... so confusion definitely occurs. More bothersome is the Rule as Written interactions which lead to 'Black Holes' which can only be closed by ignoring them entirely and going about the rest of the game....
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/07 00:17:51
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote: Before people state that the above would be too complicated for people to enjoy, I wonder how many have played Magic and ever glanced at their Rulebook with more then a passing interest?
As a casual player at best, I was more then able to sit down at the table and quickly learn what made up one Turn, what each Phase within was used for and how to go about completing basic actions required during those Phases. The rest was all up to reading what was printed on the cards as that would inform us of modifications to occur after those point. That and loosing a few times till I learned that the secret was to take my friends broken decks along, as trying to build anything short around his players would be suicide at best. Warhammer already has a great deal of similarities, basic system of Rules with modifications found on Models and their kin instead of cards, they Publishers sadly devoted much of the book to being a marketing campaign instead of a dedicated Rule Lawyer glossary to go with it.
I know I would be thankful for one, I've applied a lot of the logical arguments people put forth here and found some very broken outcomes... so confusion definitely occurs.
More bothersome is the Rule as Written interactions which lead to 'Black Holes' which can only be closed by ignoring them entirely and going about the rest of the game....
I agree with this.
It is very much possible to create a set of sound rules, but the time is usually not taken to do so. There are often little signs of the lack of care, like the space marines codex which lists the Word Bearers chapter founding as the world bearers, and just a lack of explanation in some areas where things are supposed to be assumed they work how the blokes at GWHQ would play it.
And here in lies the problems... the more complex the game the more lengthy and verbose a comprehensive rules discussion would have to be for it to lay out everything.
Magic is a relatively simple game to pick up the basics and be able to play, as such it has a 36 page basic rule book. But if you want a comprehensive break down of exactly how everything works and be confident in your ruling on the interactions of any two cards, you need to read and understand the 206 page comprehensive rules.
40K on the other hand is a much more complex game and requires a lot more information just to have a basic grasp. As evidenced by the approx 200 page basic rule book, not to mention the around 50 pages of rules for each codex.
Multiply that by the same ratio, and it would likely require more than 1000 pages of text just to break down and remove any confusion from the BRB, and another 250+ just to fully and precisely break down any codex. ANd if fact those numbers could very well be MUCH higher given that the function between number of basic and comprehensive pages needed is more likley to be exponential instead of simple linear function.
Most people do not have the time to try to unravel a document of such labyrinthine proportions... and I know no one at GW would have the time to create such a document.
Its not that magic is any more complicated that 40k. Its that Magic has a competitive base. 40k is designed to be a casual game between friendly players as the design team has declared many times. Once you take it to a competitive level rules need to be made much tighter. Our 200 page rulebook is as much fluff and color as it is rules. It is clearly written with the group think mentality. All the designers "know" what the rules mean so when they read the rule, it is clear to them what it meant. Unfortunately the writing doesnt translate outside that group very well.
The core problem here is you have a 5th edition codex, clarified by 6th edition FAQs that are now gone, being played in 7th edition. There is no direct rule that addresses the problem so interpretation has to be made. And that is where debate comes from.
MtG has a competitive ruleset. It is designed primarily for balance and gets a lot of playtesting.
GW has stated multiple times that they do NOT release a balanced ruleset. They do NOT playtest their rules. Their ruleset is an insult to any game designer out there.
Its -slightly- incorrect to say magic has a 36 page rulebook, and that 40k has a 200 page rulebook and then 50 p codexes.
As magic cards all contain rules the rulebook + any minirulebook for the current block of cards + cards rule text = a lot of rules.
Even looking past magic there is the now sadly defunct VTES which was originally jyhad put out out by WoTC as an advanced competitive card game. It had a ~150 page rulebook in addition to all the rules for the cards and there was no arguements about how what affects what, because order of operations was clearly laid out as well as the text of how it was affected/modified by the cards.
GW has a bad habit of having some things that are very loosely defined as to how they interact or when they happen during a turn, especially when it comes down to writing codex rules and they tend to put in something that modifies or goes against a core rule in the rulebook but do a poor job explaining how it works.
chanceafs wrote: Multiply that by the same ratio, and it would likely require more than 1000 pages of text just to break down and remove any confusion from the BRB, and another 250+ just to fully and precisely break down any codex. ANd if fact those numbers could very well be MUCH higher given that the function between number of basic and comprehensive pages needed is more likley to be exponential instead of simple linear function.
Most people do not have the time to try to unravel a document of such labyrinthine proportions... and I know no one at GW would have the time to create such a document.
Except you're calculating that based on poor assumptions - that rules cannot be made clearer by shortening them. There's a lot of fluff in the BRB, even in the rules portion. It's not that 40k rules are complex (they aren't). It's that GW sucks at writing rules.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
How are Cryptecs not an HQ choice?
They are bought on page 90 of the necro codex, under the giant heading "HQ".
That would be like saying that Space Marine Veterans are not an HQ choice, because the unit is called "Command Squad".
While neither uses a force org slot, both are still clearly placed in the HQ role.
I don't have the new AM codex handy, but I'm going to bet you can say the same for tank commanders and command squads. Just because the guys inside have a different name than the unit, doesn't mean that aren't part of the HQ slot the unit is in.
As for the cryptek:
If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors?
To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.
When they join a unit they count as that unit for all purposes. If the unit is a Troops selection, they would count as troops as that falls under all purposes. They can never leave the unit so they may never count as something else. In fact the rules never give you permission if the cryptek is the sole remaining member of a unit after casualties to revert to another status or join another unit, or join up with a royal court if there is one.
so how could it count as anything other than the unit it is part of?
sidenote- crypteks have pretty weak stats, its not like they are going to survive past their unit for a long time. they are what, T4, 1 Wound, sv 4+? no inv save? Not sure why some people are acting like this RAW is game breaking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/07 15:43:59
2016 Score: 7W; 0D; 2L 
I will officially agree.
