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.

Audustum wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

I think this has some game-crashing implications when for example you come to shoot him and are forced to use the rules say Shooting at Vehicles, and find he doesn't have an Armour Value etc.

RAW doesn't necessarily properly work or make sense, though, which leads us to...

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think GW expects us to apply a little bit of common sense here

...absolutely this.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

If Roboute Guilliman can be used in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions, what does that mean for the Oathsworn Detachment?

Oh, look, under its Restrictions:

"All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction."

It is the very definition of a Faction restriction. The rule would be meaningless if it did not allow Roboute Guilliman to be taken in the Oathsworn Detachment, silly as it may be.

Basically almost every Detachment has either a specific Faction restriction, or requires all models to be of the same or no Faction. By your logic Roboute Guilliman could not be taken in almost any Detachment, which is plainly wrong.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

I'm not sure of any way to read his rule except as overriding that. Care to elaborate?

Because if you're right, then we can't take him in CAD or Allied Detachments either unless they're Ultramarines:

Restrictions
All units chosen must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).

Using Celestine, Cawl or Greyfax in them would also make the CAD/Allied be illegally formed if that's the reading unless it's of their own faction(s). Their rule gives them permission to join one of any faction similar to the Primarch's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:
So if I'm reading this right, there's nothing stopping you from taking Rowboat in the Household Detachment and then making him your Warlord.

He then gains the Super-Heavy Walker type (allowing 12" move and Stomp). He also goes up to WS 10 and BS 7. Not sure if that'd be enough to let him buy Heirlooms though.

EDIT: Unless, is he just a vanilla Monstrous Creature or a Monstrous Creature (Character)?

I think this has some game-crashing implications when for example you come to shoot him and are forced to use the rules say Shooting at Vehicles, and find he doesn't have an Armour Value etc.

RAW doesn't necessarily properly work or make sense, though, which leads us to...

BrianDavion wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think GW expects us to apply a little bit of common sense here

...absolutely this.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Looking at Oathsworn and the rule for Guilliman, I see nothing that lets him actually override the Restriction requiring all models in the Detachment to have the Imperial Knights Faction. Yes, he can be taken regardless of Faction, but the Detachment is then illegally formed at the end as he lacks the Faction.

If Roboute Guilliman can be used in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions, what does that mean for the Oathsworn Detachment?

Oh, look, under its Restrictions:

"All units in this Detachment must have the Imperial Knights Faction."

It is the very definition of a Faction restriction. The rule would be meaningless if it did not allow Roboute Guilliman to be taken in the Oathsworn Detachment, silly as it may be.

Hmm, he'd technically still also be a Monstrous Creature though, right? I wonder if it'd break that hard since he'd have two unit types (reminds me of when people used to debate if WK's were Jump Creatures or Jump Gargantuan Creatures).

So it looks like you can take RG in that oathsworn and make him the warlord thus qualifying for the benefits of being the warlord. He TECHNICALLY does gain the benefits of being the warlord from that knight formation. This makes him stupidly strong and fixes all of his problems. He can now move 12, roll 3d6 doubled for move through cover and stomps. Do super heavies also ignore moving through cover for initative as well? That would fix his grenade problems. Oh yeah and WS10

So, RAW guilliman can be taken in an oathsworn detachment. However, the rules for the oathsworn say that it can never be your primary detachment. Wouldn't this rule bar guilliman from being the warlord??

 son_of_osiris wrote:
So, RAW guilliman can be taken in an oathsworn detachment. However, the rules for the oathsworn say that it can never be your primary detachment. Wouldn't this rule bar guilliman from being the warlord??

The Warlord/Super-Walker issue comes from the Household detachment. You're right that Oathsworn can't do the whole trick, though it does give you a way to add the Primarch to any IoM with no tax.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
So it looks like you can take RG in that oathsworn and make him the warlord thus qualifying for the benefits of being the warlord. He TECHNICALLY does gain the benefits of being the warlord from that knight formation. This makes him stupidly strong and fixes all of his problems. He can now move 12, roll 3d6 doubled for move through cover and stomps. Do super heavies also ignore moving through cover for initative as well? That would fix his grenade problems. Oh yeah and WS10

Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

The Household Detachment's 'Lord Baron' Command Benefit:

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Am I missing something? Does it state that Rowboat rules to becomes a Super-Heavy Walker by being part of an IK Detachment? Is that part of his rules that he changes type depending on which Imperial Force he is with? There isn't a Warlord Trait I am aware of that makes those changes.

The Household Detachment's 'Lord Baron' Command Benefit:

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

But everyone was talking about the Oathsworn which carries zero Command Benefits, not the Household Detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:
But everyone was talking about the Oathsworn which carries zero Command Benefits, not the Household Detachment.

*shrug*

By my count nine of the 11 posts immediately before your first reply were discussing, at least partially, the Household Detachment, after Audustum raised it as a more game-breaking option than sticking Guilliman in an Oathsworn Detachment

NVM

This is hilarious. RAW clearly allows this to happen, but also clearly breaks down as soon as Robby G. becomes the target of a successful attack.

GW Rules Guy #1: We should play test this.
GW Rules Guy #2: Nope.
GW Rules Guy #1: At least let me run through all the Detachments/Formations to make sure there are no glaring issues.
GW Rules Guy #2: Nope.

I now want to see someone convert Rowboat into a giant, Knight sized suit of Terminator Armor to represent his Super-heavy Walker form.

Consensus is that the gathering storm rules overwrite the faction restriction rules on detachment's otherwise you wouldn't be able to take them outside of their faction in a cad

Having discussed guilliman the shw with my local players this is what we have come up with

A vehicle is wrecked if it's hp =0 guilliman is undefined undefined does not =0 he cannot therefore be wrecked.

If he is shot you use vehicle rules and compare the strength plus d6 to his av value his av is undefined therefore he cannot be shot and even if he did lose a hull point it would still be undefined-1 hull points (and he can't be wrecked) and the other outcomes wouldn't effect superheavy's except to increase the lost hull points

Since he has t and w characteristics he can be removed if they =0 but this is niche because they are so high and shooting/attacks won't effect his w

This means shw guilliman is almost indestructible.

An interesting point that was brought up on another thread. If you are now going to class Bobby G as a SHV how many HPs does he have?

They closed the other thread even though how to manage this is a separate discussion topic

You all know that in the household detachment the purpose of changing the warlord to a "super heavy walker, character" is to add "character" not "super heavy" right? I think the obvious call to make that is that if Rowboat takes the LoW slot there he remains a monstrous creature (he already has the sub type character I guess).

Some "fun" implications of Rowboat changing to a super heavy walker:

- Becomes susceptible to the rules: armourbane, melta and lance.
- Has no AV so will have to use T instead. What is he T6 or something? So he becomes an AV6 all round super heavy, be glad of his invulnerable save then when someone points a melta at him and has to roll 2d6 + 8 to beat AV6, good job now roll on the vehicle table and watch him explode.

 SolarCross wrote:
You all know that in the household detachment the purpose of changing the warlord to a "super heavy walker, character" is to add "character" not "super heavy" right? I think the obvious call to make that is that if Rowboat takes the LoW slot there he remains a monstrous creature (he already has the sub type character I guess).

We're not really discussing 'obvious calls' or common sense rulings. We're discussing what the actual rules say.

The actual rules allow you to take Robby G. in a household detachment. The actual rules allow you to choose Robby G. as your Warlord. The actual rules allow you to make Robby G. the "Lord Baron"... making him a Super-heavy Walker. The actual rules then completely breaks down when successfully hits him as he's missing armor values (and hull points).

This requires an Errata. The Rules as Written are broken.

Regardless of intention when the detachment was written (it was not meant for this situation)

raw is clear his type becomes superheavy character this is an overwrite and so replaces his previous type

Why would a shw use toughness as av they are different characteristics and not even close to the same scale

I go back to RAW this as close as the rules get without errata

A vehicle is wrecked if it's hp =0 guilliman is undefined undefined does not =0 he cannot therefore be wrecked.

If he is shot you use vehicle rules and compare the strength plus d6 to his av value his av is undefined therefore he cannot be shot and even if he did lose a hull point it would still be undefined-1 hull points (and he can't be wrecked) and the other outcomes wouldn't effect superheavy's except to increase the lost hull points

RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

 SolarCross wrote:
RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Woah man don't throw that stuff around, especially not as insults. Not cool.

Additionally - This entire forum is to break rules or answer weird questions. RAI doesn't matter here.

It was a criticism not an insult, my intention was not make anyone cry but to induce some self-reflection.
As far as the forum is concerned YMDC is clearly all about how to navigate from an ambiguous or broken RAW to a sensible RAI. Otherwise what is the point? If all you want to do is get stuck in an infinite loop of broken RAW then what fun is that?

Maybe 40k should be IQ restricted, the way some movies are age restricted?

 SolarCross wrote:
RAW to the militant exclusion of any common sense is for autistic people, I am not autistic or not very autistic, so i don't follow at all why I should be so determined to break already flimsy and sketchy rules.

The purpose of the household detachment ruling is to adapt a vehicle to become a warlord and so adds character to shv. It is obvious that it does not add shv given that when that codex was written there was no possiblity of anything but a shv taking that spot in the detachment.

Ok. Several points.

#1 - I'm not autistic. I don't think discussing the rules in a forum devoted specifically to discussing rules makes one autistic. I also don't think calling people autistic when you disagree with how they approach a debate is acceptable. You should apologize and never do it again.

#2 - Regardless of how obvious you think the author's intent is, the actual rules as written are pretty clear. So, given that apparent intent and what was actually written don't match, what do we do? Call people autistic and then say the path forward is obvious? No. Discuss how the actual rules as written work, ultimately deciding that they don't work and that an errata is needed? Yes.

#3 - The excuse of "this shouldn't work" because "it's never worked like that before" is a bad debate tactic. If your argument involves something like "because we've always done things this way", your argument is usually wrong.

Edited by Moderator

@ Solar Cross: I can't decide if you're trolling or just a c*** with an inferiority complex.

If going purely RAW I'd play it as he's both. He doesn't loose MC nor does he loose his character profile. So when declaring attacks roll your eyes and declare you're shooting at the MC.

 MattKing wrote:
@ Solar Cross: I can't decide if you're trolling or just a c*** with an inferiority complex.

If going purely RAW I'd play it as he's both. He doesn't loose MC nor does he loose his character profile. So when declaring attacks roll your eyes and declare you're shooting at the MC.

It doesn't say he GAINS the new type, which would imply he keeps the old one. It just tells us he now HAS the new new type. My read is that he's no longer a Monstrous Creature. Being told he has the XXX unit type is essentially overwriting whatever value was there before.

"If this Detachment is your Primary Detachment, Your Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type, and can choose to select one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list at the points cost shown. Furthermore, add 1 to the Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics of your Warlord."

It came across very hostile and saying it should be iq restricted is also offensive.

Even if there is no raw you are usually best following raw till there is an unsolvable problem

Raw it can be taken in the formation

Raw it's type is overwritten

Raw when deployed hp =x (x is undefined) x does not =0 therefore he is not wrecked

Problem how to resolve shooting against a non defined av
Potential outcomes of shot
Outcome of shot no lost hull point he survives
Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 6- hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 7+ x-d3 since x-d3 does not =0 he survives

All outcomes are the same therefore best solution he survives no loop no raw rules broken best available fix

RULE #1 - It is mandatory.

Thanks!

Edited by Moderator

Rule One is Be Polite

Thanks!

U02dah4 wrote:
It came across very hostile and saying it should be iq restricted is also offensive.

Even if there is no raw you are usually best following raw till there is an unsolvable problem

Raw it can be taken in the formation

Raw it's type is overwritten

Raw when deployed hp =x (x is undefined) x does not =0 therefore he is not wrecked

Problem how to resolve shooting against a non defined av
Potential outcomes of shot
Outcome of shot no lost hull point he survives
Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 6- hp becomes x-1 since x-1 does not =0 he survives
Outcome pen 7+ x-d3 since x-d3 does not =0 he survives

All outcomes are the same therefore best solution he survives no loop no raw rules broken best available fix

Your potential outcomes are somewhat wrong. We don't know what X is. X-1 might equal zero if X is 1. You need to add...

Outcome glance hp becomes x-1 since x-1 = 0 he is wrecked
etc.

If me wanting to play against it was the criteria for something being valid you could put all flyers back in their boxes especially magnus and ynnari while your at it. Their Soulburst on wraith knights was not thought through.

GW write the rules and sometimes badly and yes there are some loopholes you can't blame players for wishing to use

In a casual game no one would advocate it but when it comes to competitive shared interpretation is important and that is based on the rules even if personally we don't like them and think they are overpowered and remember even if this works multiple ik is quite a tax for robo-guilliman

And what no one wants is different interpretation in different areas

@SolarCross... this is a rules forum. None of us is actually going to play a game with a Super-heavy Walker Rowboat and then become irate when our opponent doesn't agree with how we're handling the lack of AV and HP values. What we are going to do is bicker back and forth in a friendly, non-insulting manner about how badly the rules are written and the crazy scenarios they sometimes create. This is a crazy scenario. It's worth discussing.

Edited by Moderator

When I use undefined I am simplifying we know it is undefined undefined cannot ever be 0 it is undefined

He has no hull point characteristic

So in full it would read no hull point characteristic-1 hull point does not =0 hull points
No hull point characteristic -d3 hull points does still not = a hull point characteristic of 0 etc etc

The check only cares about value =0 and it will only ever get na

Simply put x cannot be 0 because x is not a number to begin with