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.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

If you upgrade a Dire Avenger to an Exarch, he stops using the Dire Avenger stat line and starts using the Exarch stat line. This also changes the name of the model from "Dire Avenger" to "Exarch," the two labels next to the two unique stat lines. So in this way, he does stop being a "Dire Avenger," and becomes an "Exarch." It's quite clearly labelled.
It may be problematic that the Dire Avengers, and many other Eldar squads, all have a model called an "Exarch." It it easy to tell them apart, though, because each of those models have different wargear. So it is not as confusing as it may appear to you.

It's not confusing at all if you apply a bit of actual logic, but strict RAW and your logic would say that you could pick whatever flavor Exarch you want.

To follow your logic further, a Grey Knight Terminator squad could never use a psychic power anyway since they don't have a Justicar. They have a Terminator Justicar and according to you, that isn't a Justicar. Where you would run into problems RAW is when he "dies" and comes back and is no longer part of the squad; but he isn't dead either. The bigger dilemma is the Combat Squads rule since according to that rule, once that unit is split, it is treated as two separate squads leaving one without a Justicar.

These are several good points. I suppose you're right, Terminators can never cast psychic powers because they don't have a "Justicar." But I think that, if the GK unit is combat squadded, and the Justicar is alive, then strictly according to the rule, the half without a Justicar would still use the Justicar's Ld. If he is dead, then they would use their own Ld.

Again, strict RAW, they are separate units once split. The Justicar model no longer belongs to one of the units so they can't use his Ld and RAW they have no way to use BoP.

It's all rather sloppily written, and strict RAW results in some re-tarded stuff.
HIWPI: "Terminator Justicar" functions as a "Justicar" for the BoP. "Justicar Thawn" is the squad's Justicar, and functions as the Justicar until he leaves the squad (through dying) (I don't think he's meant to give the unit an extra HH). Combat squadded GK that do not have a Justicar use the squad's Ld for Psychic.

Agreed on all points. Applying just a modicum of common sense to the rules actually makes for a fun game. Strict RAW is unplayable. If it weren't for TFG none of these silly discussions would ever have to occur. 99% of the time RAI is pretty clear. The other 1% isn't worth ruining a fun game over. I usually found that I knew the rules better than anyone I played against and if my opponent wanted to win so badly that they felt the need to cheat to do it, I usually it slide...once and then wrote them off as a childish douche and would find a convenient excuse to never play them again. If they're going to cheat, they're going to throw a fit when I call them out on it as well and I don't need the drama in my leisure activities.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

helotaxi wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

It does not use the word "character," as the codex was written before 6th ed, and there were no characters!

Except that all the unique characters in the GK Codex are labeled as Infantry (Character). If characters don't exist in the Codex, why are they labeled as such?

"It" in my quote referring to the GK rule "Brotherhood of Psykers." Iranna made a claim that the rule used the word "character," and I pointed out that it did not. I did not, and will not, say that there are no characters in the GK codex. Please do not leave out parts of my post, and then claim I said something I did not say. Please do read my entire post and respond to what I argued, not what I did not argue.

I bolded where the confusion was coming from. Please feel free to quote the part of your post that was left out that clarifies the bolded statement.

I read it and don't see one. You absolutely said there are no characters as the codex was written before 6th.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

helotaxi wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

It does not use the word "character," as the codex was written before 6th ed, and there were no characters!

Except that all the unique characters in the GK Codex are labeled as Infantry (Character). If characters don't exist in the Codex, why are they labeled as such?

"It" in my quote referring to the GK rule "Brotherhood of Psykers." Iranna made a claim that the rule used the word "character," and I pointed out that it did not. I did not, and will not, say that there are no characters in the GK codex. Please do not leave out parts of my post, and then claim I said something I did not say. Please do read my entire post and respond to what I argued, not what I did not argue.

I bolded where the confusion was coming from. Please feel free to quote the part of your post that was left out that clarifies the bolded statement.

I read it and don't see one. You absolutely said there are no characters as the codex was written before 6th.

Note that, in the part of my quote that you bolded, I used past tense: there were (past tense) no characters when the codex was written. I emphasised the statement where you misquoted me. I did not use present tense, and I still refuse to do so, even if you really wish I had. Feel free to admit your reading fail

I guess that also means that Paladins can never actually use the BoP rule, and they can never cast any Psychic powers, as they never have a Justicar.

Or we can realize that this interpretation makes the rule unplayable and go with the thought that GK units using BoP to cast psychic powers do so on the justicar's LD if there is a Justicar in the unit, or on the units LD if there is not a Justicar in the unit.

helotaxi wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

It's all rather sloppily written, and strict RAW results in some re-tarded stuff.
HIWPI: "Terminator Justicar" functions as a "Justicar" for the BoP. "Justicar Thawn" is the squad's Justicar, and functions as the Justicar until he leaves the squad (through dying) (I don't think he's meant to give the unit an extra HH). Combat squadded GK that do not have a Justicar use the squad's Ld for Psychic.

Agreed on all points. Applying just a modicum of common sense to the rules actually makes for a fun game. Strict RAW is unplayable. If it weren't for TFG none of these silly discussions would ever have to occur. 99% of the time RAI is pretty clear. The other 1% isn't worth ruining a fun game over. I usually found that I knew the rules better than anyone I played against and if my opponent wanted to win so badly that they felt the need to cheat to do it, I usually it slide...once and then wrote them off as a childish douche and would find a convenient excuse to never play them again. If they're going to cheat, they're going to throw a fit when I call them out on it as well and I don't need the drama in my leisure activities.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I guess that also means that Paladins can never actually use the BoP rule, and they can never cast any Psychic powers, as they never have a Justicar.

Or we can realize that this interpretation makes the rule unplayable and go with the thought that GK units using BoP to cast psychic powers do so on the justicar's LD if there is a Justicar in the unit, or on the units LD if there is not a Justicar in the unit.

I'm glad we all agree that RAW (in this particular case) is quite silly.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

helotaxi wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

It does not use the word "character," as the codex was written before 6th ed, and there were no characters!

Except that all the unique characters in the GK Codex are labeled as Infantry (Character). If characters don't exist in the Codex, why are they labeled as such?

"It" in my quote referring to the GK rule "Brotherhood of Psykers." Iranna made a claim that the rule used the word "character," and I pointed out that it did not. I did not, and will not, say that there are no characters in the GK codex. Please do not leave out parts of my post, and then claim I said something I did not say. Please do read my entire post and respond to what I argued, not what I did not argue.

I bolded where the confusion was coming from. Please feel free to quote the part of your post that was left out that clarifies the bolded statement.

I read it and don't see one. You absolutely said there are no characters as the codex was written before 6th.

Note that, in the part of my quote that you bolded, I used past tense: there were (past tense) no characters when the codex was written. I emphasised the statement where you misquoted me. I did not use present tense, and I still refuse to do so, even if you really wish I had. Feel free to admit your reading fail

... Except, as proven, there were characters. In the codex. Page 87 GK Codex has 3 units on it, Crowe is listed as an Infantry (character) as well.
Perhaps it's not me that had the reading fail?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that RAW (in this particular case) is quite silly.

Not at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
this interpretation makes the rule unplayable and go with the thought that GK units using BoP to cast psychic powers do so on the justicar's LD if there is a Justicar in the unit, or on the units LD if there is not a Justicar in the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

helotaxi wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

It does not use the word "character," as the codex was written before 6th ed, and there were no characters!

Except that all the unique characters in the GK Codex are labeled as Infantry (Character). If characters don't exist in the Codex, why are they labeled as such?

"It" in my quote referring to the GK rule "Brotherhood of Psykers." Iranna made a claim that the rule used the word "character," and I pointed out that it did not. I did not, and will not, say that there are no characters in the GK codex. Please do not leave out parts of my post, and then claim I said something I did not say. Please do read my entire post and respond to what I argued, not what I did not argue.

I bolded where the confusion was coming from. Please feel free to quote the part of your post that was left out that clarifies the bolded statement.

I read it and don't see one. You absolutely said there are no characters as the codex was written before 6th.

Note that, in the part of my quote that you bolded, I used past tense: there were (past tense) no characters when the codex was written. I emphasised the statement where you misquoted me. I did not use present tense, and I still refuse to do so, even if you really wish I had. Feel free to admit your reading fail

... Except, as proven, there were characters. In the codex. Page 87 GK Codex has 3 units on it, Crowe is listed as an Infantry (character) as well.
Perhaps it's not me that had the reading fail?

As yes, there were things labelled as "Infantry (character)." But since there were no rules for characters (in the BRB), they might as well have not existed. So sure, I neglected to say that GK units had a meaningless, rule-less label for two years. I failed to read that. It does not change the meaning of my post.

Also, my comment about your "reading fail" was in regards to this...

rigeld2 wrote:
You absolutely said there are no characters as the codex was written before 6th.

which was a misquotation of me, which I explained:

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Note that, in the part of my quote that you bolded, I used past tense: there were (past tense) no characters when the codex was written. I emphasised the statement where you misquoted me. I did not use present tense, and I still refuse to do so, even if you really wish I had.

You failed at reading my post. Hence, reading fail. (Double fail, now, since the original was misinterpreted, and then you completely ignored me calling you on it. It's all documented above.)

Edit: 20 May 2013, 7.20am. Day 2 of my wait for rigeld2 to admit his error. My hopes are not high.
Edit2: 21 May 2013, 8.30am. Day 3 of my wait for rigeld2 to admit his error. It seems that this effort might be futile. Some people refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes.
Edit3: 22 May 2013, 7.45am. Day 4 of my wait for rigeld2 to admit his error. I now strongly suspect that he is not reading this thread.

Elric, if you are curious, the rules for Characters (as pertains to 5th edition) are found on page 47 of the 5th edition rulebook.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I'm glad we all agree that RAW (in this particular case) is quite silly.

Not at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
this interpretation makes the rule unplayable and go with the thought that GK units using BoP to cast psychic powers do so on the justicar's LD if there is a Justicar in the unit, or on the units LD if there is not a Justicar in the unit.

I'm confused. Is your "interpretation" and "thought" RAW, or RAI? That vocabulary sounds like RAI, but your response ("Not at all") to my comment sounded like you believe RAW is, in fact, quite playable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Elric, if you are curious, the rules for Characters (as pertains to 5th edition) are found on page 47 of the 5th edition rulebook.

Thanks for the clarification. So there are multiple rulesets with different rules (although the 5th "rule" isn't much of one; whereas the 6th has Precision Hits, Challenges, and LOS!) called the same thing; and there are multiple USRs with the same name and different effects. Yes, this is quite confusing.

RAW is, in fact, quite playable.

If the rules do not function under one interpretation, and function just fine under a slightly different interpretation then we should chose the interpretation that does not render the rules useless.