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.

Hey guys, just need a quick yes/no since it's not in the FAQ.

If I were to bring a Librarian in Terminator armour would I be able to bring both a Command Squad and Deathwing Command Squad. RAW I think I can but not completely sure.
The Command Squad says "For each HQ choice in your army ..." and the Deathwing Command says "For each HQ choice in your army equipped with Terminator armour..."

Personally I'm in the No camp, but there is no actual rule to back up my position. Somethings just don't 'feel' right to me (such as a Tau Commander taking 4 Burst Cannons) so I say No, but that is not what the rules says.

I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm with Happy jew here. RaW you can but the rules seem pretty clear to be a no. Just appears to be an oversight. Que bunch of DA players that think cheating is OK if they can convince someone with a semantic argument...

However it is not cheating. Now they way it should have been done is grouped all 3 command squads under 1 generic Command Squad and then be able to unlock the various one within that "super-group" based on wargear, so a Librarian with Termie armour unlocks 1 Command Squad which could either be a PACS or TACS. Alas, until it gets FAQ'd a Termie-wearing HQ or Bike-riding HQ technically unlocks 2 CS.

Also technically so does a bike riding tech marine... Deliberately breaking RaI is the definition of cheating. Unless you have a different definition?

I'm at work right now, so I could be wrong. thought Techmarines did not unlock DACS.

Ravenwing and Deathwing command squad doesn't mention techmarine, although the Tech can take a bike.
Command Squad "For each HQ Choice in your army (not including Techmarines or other Command Squads of any kind)..."
Deathwing "for each HQ Choice in your army equipped with Terminator armour (including Belial, but not other Deathwing Command Squads)..."
Ravenwing "for each HQ Choice in your army that is mounted on a bike (or Sammael, but not other Ravenwing Command Squads)..."

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also technically so does a bike riding tech marine... Deliberately breaking RaI is the definition of cheating. Unless you have a different definition?

You don't know the RAI, nobody but the writer does, you can infer what you believe to be RAI, and many people might even agree with you, but it's still not a universal truth.

playing by the RAW is never cheating, no matter what aspersions you like to cast on people.

playing by the RAW is never cheating, no matter what aspersions you like to cast on people.

Firstly it is possible to know RaI as much as it is RaW. Secondly deliberately breaking the rules is cheating. By definition unless you can provide another one? For instance:

RaW: FMC don't have relentless or smash, they have the as yet undefined "relentless smash" special rule.

The Rules: They have relentless and smash.

Example of cheating:

Taking armour saves against a FMCs CC attacks or tell your opponent his FMC can't fire his heavy weapon if he's moved...

 Blaggard wrote:
Ravenwing and Deathwing command squad doesn't mention techmarine, although the Tech can take a bike.
Command Squad "For each HQ Choice in your army (not including Techmarines or other Command Squads of any kind)..."
Deathwing "for each HQ Choice in your army equipped with Terminator armour (including Belial, but not other Deathwing Command Squads)..."
Ravenwing "for each HQ Choice in your army that is mounted on a bike (or Sammael, but not other Ravenwing Command Squads)..."

True, but Techmarine does "not use up a Force Organization slot". So I would not count it anyway as a HQ choice (Chap + Tech = 1 HQ slot used. So, only one CS allowed)

As for CSs themselves, I think RAI was something to be worded like:
- Terminator HQ -> Deathwing CS
- Biker HQ -> Ravenwing CS
- Artificer/PA HQ -> "normal" CS

Letter of the rule do not prevent you to use "two" command squads, for the moment (but cost-wise I am not so sure it is a real advantage, you know ^^)

Granted I can see much of an advantage to taking 2 command squads to a HQ. But there is certainly builds that benefit from using the techmarine to get extra RW command squads...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Secondly deliberately breaking the rules is cheating. By definition

Yep, and playing RAW is by definition, not breaking the rules, it's following them.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Secondly deliberately breaking the rules is cheating. By definition

Yep, and playing RAW is by definition, not breaking the rules, it's following them.

Are you saying that RaW=RaI? I'm not so convinced that RaW always follows the intention of a rule and FaQs would support that.

Reason why I ask is that I was thinking of running a Librarian in Terminator Armour, 2 LR Crusaders, Techmarine with PFG, Deathwing Command and PA Command due to potential "dual unlock".
I'd group the Librarian and Deathwing Command Squad with FNP in a LR, with the PA Command with Dakka banner with the Techmarine. Costs about 1200 points after upgrades so probably not the best usage of points.

RAI it looks like it should be 1 HQ choice unlocking 1 Command Squad total. Although RAW it looks 1 HQ could unlocked 2 dependent on load out.

So blaggard what is important to you? Following the rules (RaI) or getting that 2nd command squad because you think you can pull one over on your opponent?

Well that's a false dichotomy.
The rules are what is RAW. I was hoping for someone to point out something somewhere which could, RAW, lay that matter to rest without waiting for a FAQ. The debate has been about whether RAI are Rules at all, which, unless you house rule them, aren't the case. A banana is a banana, apples aren't banana's unless we call them banana's, but that's us agreeing to call them banana's rather than what they are, apples.

: The rules are what is RAW.

No the rules are by definition what GW designed, which means the rules are RaI. So unless you are stating that you think RaW=RaI then RaW is not the rules. Just like in law the letter of the law is not important (RaW) it is the spirit and intention (RaI) that matters. To think RaW is the rules is to fundamentally misunderstand the function of language (to communicate ideas) or you think an inanimate object creates the rules?

Law is decided by Courts and Judges in real life where the word of law is debated with consideration of the intention of the law. It's a restrictive based environment and our game is a permissive based environment. We've no idea of the intention because there's no records of what they are debating when they wrote the rules. Arguing that intention is part of the set of rules is ludicrous when we have to be given explicit permission.

No arguing intention is all that matters in the rules. What is written is an attempt to communicate those intentions to us. So we can choose to ignore those intentions when they are clear to follow RaW this is by definition cheating just as in my example above. RaW is a method for interpreting the rules that is all. It is not and can not be the rules unless you believe that either all the rules are written perfectly or that the rule book itself designed the rules.

The impossible to know argument goes for RaW as much as RaI (we could all be hallucinating as to what is written). If you believe RaI is unclear then you agree a house rule with your opponent which you may choose to follow the RaW (which is often the best option). In this case I believe we know the RaI beyond reasonable doubt therefore breaking that is cheating.

 Kerrathyr wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:
Ravenwing and Deathwing command squad doesn't mention techmarine, although the Tech can take a bike.
Command Squad "For each HQ Choice in your army (not including Techmarines or other Command Squads of any kind)..."
Deathwing "for each HQ Choice in your army equipped with Terminator armour (including Belial, but not other Deathwing Command Squads)..."
Ravenwing "for each HQ Choice in your army that is mounted on a bike (or Sammael, but not other Ravenwing Command Squads)..."

True, but Techmarine does "not use up a Force Organization slot". So I would not count it anyway as a HQ choice (Chap + Tech = 1 HQ slot used. So, only one CS allowed)

As for CSs themselves, I think RAI was something to be worded like:
- Terminator HQ -> Deathwing CS
- Biker HQ -> Ravenwing CS
- Artificer/PA HQ -> "normal" CS

Letter of the rule do not prevent you to use "two" command squads, for the moment (but cost-wise I am not so sure it is a real advantage, you know ^^)

Except it does not say for each HQ slot you can have a Command Squad. It says for each HQ choice. The Techmarine (and his servitors) and Command Squads are HQ choices, they just don't fill a slot.

Of course now that I posted it you could have an unlimited number of Techmarines in your army - each Techmarine unlocks a unit of Servitors (which are an HQ choice). Each unit of Servitors then unlocks a Techmarine.

I can guarantee this is not the intent.

Techmarine biker force with PC servitors and token troops gogogo!

 Blaggard wrote:
Techmarine biker force with PC servitors and token troops gogogo!

And 1 cheap as heck regular HQ to unlock the initial Techmarine.

Fling - are you making the same "following RAW is cheating" argument you've been asked to desist from in the past?

Surely not.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:
Techmarine biker force with PC servitors and token troops gogogo!

And 1 cheap as heck regular HQ to unlock the initial Techmarine.

Azreal. 2+/4++ T5 bikers? Might as well chuck in a FNP banner as well, they can all join together in the Biker Command squad.

Correct me if I am wrong (book is at home) but isnt the command squads under the HQ section? And it doesn't state they are not an HQ choice? So using certain logic, each CS unlocks more CSs.....ad infinitum...

Also, OPer - exalted for using dichotomy....

As for the rules in the OP - as written, you could easily infer that the original intent was that the RAI was you get 1 CS per HQ slot, so you could only run 2 CSs - the Termie Lib just has more options to choose from. As for the actual usefulness, I don't think it would be a good use of points.

As for RAW - yes - in theory, you could get infinite CSs, You could get 2 CSs for the Termie Lib....but do you want to have the debate every time you set your army on the table?

 Amaraxis wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong (book is at home) but isnt the command squads under the HQ section? And it doesn't state they are not an HQ choice? So using certain logic, each CS unlocks more CSs.....ad infinitum...

Also, OPer - exalted for using dichotomy....

As for the rules in the OP - as written, you could easily infer that the original intent was that the RAI was you get 1 CS per HQ slot, so you could only run 2 CSs - the Termie Lib just has more options to choose from. As for the actual usefulness, I don't think it would be a good use of points.

As for RAW - yes - in theory, you could get infinite CSs, You could get 2 CSs for the Termie Lib....but do you want to have the debate every time you set your army on the table?

Generic Command Squad - unlocked by any HQ except Techmarines and other Comand Squads
DW Command Squads - unlocked by any HQ in TA except other Command Squads
RW Command Squads - unlocked by any HQ on a bike except other Command Squads
Techmarines - unlocked by any HQ except Techmarines and Command Squads
Servitors - unlocked by a Terminator.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - are you making the same "following RAW is cheating" argument you've been asked to desist from in the past?

Surely not.

Not been asked that. I've never said "following RaW is cheating" just that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating. It always surprises me when people think that deliberately breaking RaI isn't cheating hence I point it out to them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - are you making the same "following RAW is cheating" argument you've been asked to desist from in the past?

Surely not.

Not been asked that. I've never said "following RaW is cheating" just that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating. It always surprises me when people think that deliberately breaking RaI isn't cheating hence I point it out to them.

So its cheating to not allow Wraithguard to fire or charge since without eyes they cannot draw LOS? It's unsportsmanlike but I wouldn't call it cheating per se.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - are you making the same "following RAW is cheating" argument you've been asked to desist from in the past?

Surely not.

Not been asked that. I've never said "following RaW is cheating" just that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating. It always surprises me when people think that deliberately breaking RaI isn't cheating hence I point it out to them.

So its cheating to not allow Wraithguard to fire or charge since without eyes they cannot draw LOS? It's unsportsmanlike but I wouldn't call it cheating per se.

Yes thats definitely cheating. Just as much as moving wargear around models or lying about dice rolls or measuring wrong intentionally.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes thats definitely cheating. Just as much as moving wargear around models or lying about dice rolls or measuring wrong intentionally.

I disagree - it's clearly not intended for them to be able to fire or charge as they have no eyes.

Who is the final arbiter of intent? You? You can't accuse people of cheating when the only person who knows for a fact what intent is in GWHQ.