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.

I originally started this thread asking about the fact that the rules say that RG may be included in ANY armies of mankind detachment regardless of faction restrictions. RAW, doesn't that mean he could be included in literally ANY detachment regardless of LoW slots, etc.??

Schrödingers primarch. He may or may not be dead until GW opens the box.

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

 son_of_osiris wrote:
I originally started this thread asking about the fact that the rules say that RG may be included in ANY armies of mankind detachment regardless of faction restrictions. RAW, doesn't that mean he could be included in literally ANY detachment regardless of LoW slots, etc.??

No.

Grand Master Voldus and Roboute Guilliman are new Army List Entries that can be included in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment, regardless of their Faction.

'... regardless of their Faction..." means that you only disregard their Faction when adding them to an Armies of the Imperium Detachment, nothing else (i.e., available slots, available points, etc.).

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

@Solarcrass: Don't be silly we...er um...computers do not exaggerate.

 SolarCross wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Confirmation bias, dude. I think you REALLY want your interpretation to be supported by the rules, but it's not. The rules unambiguously state that the Lord Baron has the Super-heavy Walker, Character type. The rule is neither adding Super-heavy Walker type to a Character OR adding Character type to a Super-heavy Walker. It's actually adding 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type to whichever model is selected as Warlord. The fact that all pre-Rouboute Guilliman release eligible models were already Super-heavy Walkers is a coincidence.

lol. You're the one with confirmation bias you really want to make girly man a superheavy, for the fun of mocking GW or to be TFG, take your pick.

RAW yes the knights codex is making a super heavy into super heavy character, and if you are a computer program you then have an unhandled exception when trying to execute making a monstrous creature take that type. CTD.

You are not a computer program don't act like one.

Mocking GW? Nope. Being TFG? Nope. Because the rule explicitly tells the 'Lord Baron' Warlord model has the 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type? Yup.

I have no idea what CTD means, but I believe that your unhandled exception comparison is accurate. This interaction creates a situation we can't resolve. What to do? Notify the developers of the bug and try to avoid the same situation until the code is fixed. We don't go into the code ourselves and change things so that they work how we think they were probably supposed to.

So... in game terms, we know that RG as a SHV is a no-go. It breaks the game. In practice, we avoid the situation by NOT making RG a Lord Baron Warlord, notify GW (I already did) and wait patiently for a patch (FAQ/Errata). Arbitrarily saying that he stays a Monstrous Creature while gaining all of the other benefits of the rule is certainly an option, but it's completely unsupported by the rules as written and should be classified as a house rule... and should probably be discussed here as a "How I Would Play It (HIWPI)" item or in the Proposed Rules subforum as a proposed fix to this rules problem.

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

I'm on my phone so I can't dig for examples, but I don't think he loses his MC status. I think he's got both at once (which might break things worse). It just says the Warlord "has", not replaces or in addition to, which makes it ambiguous.

I know there are situations where the rules sometimes say "in addition to its other types". I think there are also ones where it says "changes" or "replaces" too. Anyone know off-hand or can look it up?

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

He doesn't have 0 hull points. He has unknown hull points. Not the same. Not knowing the answer doesn't make the answer 0.

Does Guilliman have Hull Points?

I think the answer to that is no. If you do not have something, you can also be considered to have 0 of something.

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

5) characteristics with no defined value =0 therefore guilliman is wrecked at deployment as he has no hp

I like 3 best but 5 is probably 2nd and I get we can fix 4 by doing an ostridge impression but it doesn't change that someone could do it thus drawing every game in a tournament that doesn't work for me

 SolarCross wrote:

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

My life is now complete. I just witnessed someone insult a stranger by comparing him to a pentium processor. I literally can't think of a more depressing, internet troll sort of thing to witness.

 Kriswall wrote:


Mocking GW? Nope. Being TFG? Nope. Because the rule explicitly tells the 'Lord Baron' Warlord model has the 'Super-heavy Walker, Character' type? Yup.

I have no idea what CTD means, but I believe that your unhandled exception comparison is accurate. This interaction creates a situation we can't resolve. What to do? Notify the developers of the bug and try to avoid the same situation until the code is fixed. We don't go into the code ourselves and change things so that they work how we think they were probably supposed to.

So... in game terms, we know that RG as a SHV is a no-go. It breaks the game. In practice, we avoid the situation by NOT making RG a Lord Baron Warlord, notify GW (I already did) and wait patiently for a patch (FAQ/Errata). Arbitrarily saying that he stays a Monstrous Creature while gaining all of the other benefits of the rule is certainly an option, but it's completely unsupported by the rules as written and should be classified as a house rule... and should probably be discussed here as a "How I Would Play It (HIWPI)" item or in the Proposed Rules subforum as a proposed fix to this rules problem.

CTD = Crash to Desktop.

Indeed it is a RAW bug and indeed should be FAQ'd / patched by developers. My point is only that in the meantime the obvious way to HIWPI or house rule it is to deny the change of type. The reason I gave is clear, the knights codex is clearly giving a SHVW a character trait so it is clear that the proper way to handle it is to leave girlyman's type as is since he already has the character trait and it is obviously not appropriate to use the knight's rule to make him into a vehicle. I would say he shouldn't be able to take knight heirlooms either because he already has heirlooms (leaving aside for the moment that many knight heirlooms do not work at all for non knights). The +1 WS and BS is dubious also given it was intended only as an upgrade for a knight.

The best way to treat it until GW confirms is just to say girly man is a straight replacement of the Lord Baron and not a merger of girlyman and a lord baron.

How in the world do you like three the best?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does Guilliman have Hull Points?

I think the answer to that is no. If you do not have something, you can also be considered to have 0 of something.

Actually it's literally undefined. Wounds along with all other stats bar armour saves range from 0-10 (p.8)
Except of course vehicle stats because reasons. Those appear on page 72 and are not given a range.
The closest we could get is zero-level characteristics (which technically don't include hullpoints). They say that 0 and - or equivalent and in this case I think it's fair to assume that a shw guilliman has - hullpoints, aka zero aka he is wrecked aka you can walk all over his corpse as he becomes difficult terrain Even fits the lore, his armour glitches out and he's back to being in stasis lol

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

It's not undefined, actually. When he's a normal character how many hull points does he have? None, because normally he isn't a vehicle. Do the rules making him a vehicle specify him adding any hull points, or converting his wounds to hull points? No, therefore he still has 0 hull points. 0 hull points = wreck.

Because 1,2 are ostridge solutions 4 breaks the game

leaving 2 solutions that permit the game to continue
5 requires a small leap/house rule at deployment but if you stick to a literal interpretation of the rules one isn't needed here as others have said no characteristic doesn't mean 0 in all systems.

Now 3 does require you to accept that all outcomes of shooting are the same so you can effectively ignore the result which is a small leap as you could also interpret it as not resolving but this is the first point you absolutely have to make a non raw decision and it's done so based on the unamity of outcome which makes sense to me

Also fluff wise I love the idea of the primark being rebuilt as an indestructible robot its a better solution for how he came back

Kriswall wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

Except as about 20 people (slight exaggeration) have explained to you he is not a monstrous creature in this formation yes he still has a toughness and wounds stay but that is irrelevant as you are shooting at a vehicle

Spoken like a true pentium.

My life is now complete. I just witnessed someone insult a stranger by comparing him to a pentium processor. I literally can't think of a more depressing, internet troll sort of thing to witness.

The Pentium was not so bad. I had many good experiences with the two that I had. The Pentium 2 with its oversi-zed cartridge or Pentium 4 which required the RDRAM would be a little more appropriate.

Of course, we could compare it to Win ME, but is any person really that bad? I know GW rules are worse, but the rules aren't people.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW might be clear on this matter, but I do think a grain of common sense is required here. To me, it seems like there's not much point discussing Superheavy Girlyman, since no sane opponent or TO would ever allow it.

It is RAW. It's just that the RAW is so damn silly and broken that people will not allow it. (The +1 WS and BS, they might, though.)

It's not really an issue of allowing it or not. The rules simply don't work as written. RG can be selected as a Lord Baron Warlord, but then the game breaks as soon as someone successfully hits him and you're unable to complete the armor pen roll.

It doesn't even get to when someone hits him. You put him in the detachment, he is a vehicle, he has 0 hull points. Vehicles with 0 hull points are wrecks. When it comes time to deploy Bobby G, you deploy a wreck.

I suppose you could count undefined characteristics as 0 giving a 5th option for us to computate

It's not undefined, actually. When he's a normal character how many hull points does he have? None, because normally he isn't a vehicle. Do the rules making him a vehicle specify him adding any hull points, or converting his wounds to hull points? No, therefore he still has 0 hull points. 0 hull points = wreck.

Hmm, actually, as a normal character he doesn't even have a listing so maybe that's one step too far.

They way I understand it, you're asking how much HP does RG have?

You expect the figurative computer to say 0 since he has none on his datasheet.

More accurately, however, he has no entry on his datasheet, not 0. So I think it would go:
1. How much HP does RG have?
2. HP is not a recognized variable. Error 404.

Thus, we can't even get to the point of seeing if he has -, x or 0 HP cause the entire variable is missing.

U02dah4 wrote:
Because 1,2 are ostridge solutions

What is an "ostridge solution"?

Which comes back to check does hp=0 no = error 404 solution 3

Audustum wrote:
Hmm, actually, as a normal character he doesn't even have a listing so maybe that's one step too far.

They way I understand it, you're asking how much HP does RG have?

You expect the figurative computer to say 0 since he has none on his datasheet.

More accurately, however, he has no entry on his datasheet, not 0. So I think it would go:
1. How much HP does RG have?
2. HP is not a recognized variable. Error 404.

Thus, we can't even get to the point of seeing if he has -, x or 0 HP cause the entire variable is missing.

Pretty much. Humans can extrapolate, computers (currently) cannot without subroutines written to handle such exceptions.

But I think we are too far off topic by continuing this train of thought...

Ostriches bury there heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away because they can't see it. They work through house rules that prevent the problem from occurring by denyING the opportunity for it to occur

 SolarCross wrote:

 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?

Me, and a lot of other people, don't consider autism a bad thing. I personally think it is horrible to use as an insult or a criticism, considering they both have negative connotations. Sorry for the off topic debate mods.

Also, OT: His Hull point value is zero so when he deploys does he deploy as a wreck or does he go titanic and explode like all other super heavy walkers during your first turn?

U02dah4 wrote:
Ostriches bury there heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away because they can't see it. They work through house rules that prevent the problem from occurring by denyING the opportunity for it to occur

Oh I see you misspelled ostrich.

To recap the options presented were:

1)House rule don't permit it

2)House rule permit some of the bonuses but don't allow him to change type

3)Hp is undefined therefore not a number everything works fine but he's almost unkillable

4)Hp is undefined but a number guilliman breaks the game at deployment as he may or may not be wrecked and if he is shot the shot can't resolve and sends the game into a freeze

5) characteristics with no defined value =0 therefore guilliman is wrecked at deployment as he has no hp

Both 1 and 2 provide an active solution to the RAW problem. 1 is brutally simple, 2 is more forgiving.

3, 4 and 5 options are to persist with a broken RAW interpretation to the point of absurdity so that would be more like burying the head in the sand like an ostrich.

+ Please disregard this post +

By solution number 5 he would nova at the point he deployed funzies

Does Rowboat have to be a warlord? If he doesn't then I don't see why he couldn't be taken in an oathsworn providing some other model from another detachment was warlord.

No infact you could take him in the household and not make him shw in that detachment