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.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When something comes up that the rules don't define, we must fall back on the basic rules of the english language.

In fact, you have to have the english language down to even use the rules in the first place.

Not entirely as GW does offer these rules/codexes in other various languages.
Also a funny thing, American English is very different from Britain English.

However when ever you attempt to deduce the original meaning you must look at the original text, which is in english.

They don't write a seperate set of rules for each language, they write an english version and then have it translated into other languages.

American English is different from British English in a few areas, but its still the same language overall. Thus you use a dictionary and the rules of the English language to determine the meaning.

If there is a conflict between British and American English, the British English obivously takes priority in the interpertation.

Hmm perhaps I need to change my name to dangerouslyofftopic

as I said above though. Sure why not grant it, as we've already decided to allow the FW unit in.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When something comes up that the rules don't define, we must fall back on the basic rules of the english language.

In fact, you have to have the english language down to even use the rules in the first place.

To be fair, 40K plays better if you only have a flimsy grasp of the language.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When something comes up that the rules don't define, we must fall back on the basic rules of the english language.

In fact, you have to have the english language down to even use the rules in the first place.

To be fair, 40K plays better if you only have a flimsy grasp of the language.

-Matt

It also helps to spend a few hours, prior to playing, drinking or imbibing your legal drug of choice.

Rigeld - actually the latter is what they suggest you do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - actually the latter is what they suggest you do.

Oh a few hours of Illegal drugs, now I get it.

lol just messin

Happyjew != Rigeld

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - actually the latter is what they suggest you do.

Oh a few hours of Illegal drugs, now I get it.

lol just messin

He was responding to rigeld's post at the bottom of page 1. Though it confused me for a moment as well, and almost asked him who he was responding to, since I did not see anything by rigeld on page 2.

Depends on how many posts per page you view, as well.

Didn't even realize you could change that...

well I can partially blame that on the booze...

Never blame it on booze, celebrate it instead

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld - actually the latter is what they suggest you do.

Right, that's what I meant. Come on, read my mind!!one

Damn, now that's one derailed thread!
Need a Quote? There you go:
Imperial Armur: Aeronautica, p4:
Warhammer 40,000 units:
This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of wh40k, within usual limitations of Codexselection and force organisation charts. As with all our models, these should be considered 'Offical';
but owning to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make shure they are happy to play a game using FW model before you start.

Is that clear enough?
They are official, but you should inform your opponent, just so he doesn't doEric Cartman all the sudden.

General rule of thumb when using Forge World models - ask your opponent.

if they agree say "ok, i am using this Blight Drone of Nurgel and this is how it works....."

Done.

Dont see why people get so up in arms about this.

Because there are some people that say you don't need to inform them, just start deploying your Blight Drones and its okay to be annoyed when your opponent questions you about them.

Well yes, that rule of thumb comes from times _before_ FW units became official part of 40k.
Now you just _probably_should_ do that because he might not have had access to all the suppliments.

Blight Drones of Nurgle are absolutely Nurgle Units as far as the Tally is concerned.

There is really no argument against it; you are grasping at straws. I understand the loyalist
players don't want to deal with it, but sorry, it is a legitimate unit and tactic.

All of the tournaments I have attended lately allow FW rules and units. So it is a completely
tournament ready unit as far as I am concerned.

Firstborn wrote:
Blight Drones of Nurgle are absolutely Nurgle Units as far as the Tally is concerned.

There is really no argument against it; you are grasping at straws. I understand the loyalist
players don't want to deal with it, but sorry, it is a legitimate unit and tactic.

All of the tournaments I have attended lately allow FW rules and units. So it is a completely
tournament ready unit as far as I am concerned.

The 3 stores I go to for Tournaments don't allow FW components. They've had it up for debate, and its been. No codex nor BGB supports them. Only supplemental IA books.

Regardless everything is debatable, noone is grasping at straws like you try to suggest.
Is it a Daemon of Nurgle?
Does it have a MoN?

Last I checked it didn't say it had either of them.
however though it's definitely implied to be Nurgle.

The english trolls are strong in this thread.

Of course it's counting towards the tally. May want to tell your opponent before hand of EVERYTHING that can count on the tally. (And that the tally is in effect, nothing like pissing off your opponent by not telling them about tally before hand.)

 sfshilo wrote:
Of course it's counting towards the tally.

RAW it doesn't. Blight Drone doesn't have Mark of Nurgle and it isn't Daemon of Nurgle. RAI, probably, but it is FW unit, not GW unit so you will not get ruling from GW to any direction.

Blight Drones are Daemons of Nurgle. They are described as Daemons in their background, they have the Daemon special rule, and are "...of Nurgle." (they can be used in CSM armies as long as you have at least 1 unit of Plague Marines AND in a Codex: Daemons army as a straight up Fast Attack.

Note that there''s nothing (aside from background fluff) in the Codexaemons that says specifically a Plaguebearer or a Nurgling are "Daemons of Nurgle"... but it would be incredibly silly to say that they aren't. By the same token, a Blight Drone is 1. a daemon, 2. a daemon of Nurgle.

Therefore: they count for the Tally.

Luide wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Of course it's counting towards the tally.

RAW it doesn't. Blight Drone doesn't have Mark of Nurgle and it isn't Daemon of Nurgle. RAI, probably, but it is FW unit, not GW unit so you will not get ruling from GW to any direction.

No. RAW it ABSOLUTELY DOES. 100%.

It is a blight drone of Nurgle, is a nurgle unit, a nurgle daemon, and can be taken by either Codex: CSM or Codex: Chaos Daemons.

There is no more argument here fellas. Move on.

Firstborn wrote:

Luide wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Of course it's counting towards the tally.

RAW it doesn't. Blight Drone doesn't have Mark of Nurgle and it isn't Daemon of Nurgle. RAI, probably, but it is FW unit, not GW unit so you will not get ruling from GW to any direction.

No. RAW it ABSOLUTELY DOES. 100%.

It is a blight drone of Nurgle, is a nurgle unit, a nurgle daemon, and can be taken by either Codex: CSM or Codex: Chaos Daemons.

There is no more argument here fellas. Move on.

Does it absolutely?

Is it a Daemon of Nurgle? or a ___ of Nurgle, does it have a MoN?

Although I can argue RAW that while following the rules in the BGB you can't use IA/FW in a 40k game unless you're allowing houserules.

Does it absolutely?

Yes.

Is it a Daemon of Nurgle?

Yes.

 Bladed Crescent wrote:

Does it absolutely?

Yes.

Is it a Daemon of Nurgle?

Yes.

Than you can show me where in it's rules it has MoN or Daemon of Nurgle?

From what I'm reading it sounds like it tells us the same way that Plaguebearers and Nurglings do. By being a Daemon, and by being an "xxxxx of Nurgle."

Than you can show me where in it's rules it has MoN or Daemon of Nurgle?

Certainly! Right when you show where Plaguebearers say, explicitly "Daemon of Nurgle". And Nurglings. And Beasts of Nurgle. And Great Unclean Ones.

Hint: they don't. None of them have any special rule or delineation that make them "Daemons of Nurgle" Except that they are Daemons, and obviously belong to Nurgle.

Let's look at Plaguebearers of Nurgle, just for example.

Stats stats stats.

Special Rules: Daemon, Slow and Purposeful and Feel No Pain.

There is nothing whatsoever in their army list entry that marks them specifically as a 'Daemon of Nurgle'. But it would be ludicrous to argue that, right?

By the same token:

Blight Drone of Nurgle:

stats stats stats

Special Rules: Daemon, Explosion of Pus.

So, as I said above: Blight Drones are Daemons of Nurgle. They are described as Daemons in their background, they have the Daemon special rule, and are "...of Nurgle." Which is exactly how Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Beasts of Nurgle and Great Unclean Ones are presented as well in Codex: Daemons.

If you argue that Blight Drones are missing some mysterious aspect to their rules to make them full-fledged daemons of Nurgle, you must also argue that every single Nurgle-allied daemon in Codex: Daemons is missing it too.

 Mannahnin wrote:
From what I'm reading it sounds like it tells us the same way that Plaguebearers and Nurglings do. By being a Daemon, and by being an "xxxxx of Nurgle."

It can most likely be interpreted that way, however that is not quite absolute.

Granted yes I agree they counts as XXX of Nurgle. I don't believe it's absolute.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Firstborn wrote:

Luide wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Of course it's counting towards the tally.

RAW it doesn't. Blight Drone doesn't have Mark of Nurgle and it isn't Daemon of Nurgle. RAI, probably, but it is FW unit, not GW unit so you will not get ruling from GW to any direction.

No. RAW it ABSOLUTELY DOES. 100%.

It is a blight drone of Nurgle, is a nurgle unit, a nurgle daemon, and can be taken by either Codex: CSM or Codex: Chaos Daemons.

There is no more argument here fellas. Move on.

Does it absolutely?

Is it a Daemon of Nurgle? or a ___ of Nurgle, does it have a MoN?

Although I can argue RAW that while following the rules in the BGB you can't use IA/FW in a 40k game unless you're allowing houserules.

"you can't use IA/FW in a 40k game unless you're allowing houserules. "

Really? I do it all the time, and have been for the last 6 years or so. In both pickup games and tournaments.

It has never been an issue, and I expect never will be.