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.

Lammia wrote:
It gets very broken when you start applying the Crusaders rule to other units with the same rule though.

May I ask what Acts of Faith Crusaders may peform(by the list they have in the codex)?

Move, like movement
Shoot, like shooting phase
Fight, only if within 1" and you can get a pile in, then you fight

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
It gets very broken when you start applying the Crusaders rule to other units with the same rule though.

May I ask what Acts of Faith Crusaders may peform(by the list they have in the codex)?

Move, like movement
Shoot, like shooting phase
Fight, only if within 1" and you can get a pile in, then you fight

Exactly. So that one Dominion squad that charged across the table can now lay waste to stuff by shooting 10 times a turn. It's funny, but it's clearly not meant to do that.

Dominions dont have Astra Militarum and must be taken in a Ministorum detachment, its working b.c the Crusaders are also Militarum.

How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

They can still take transports and they are also 3++ but yes your right they are very fragile and easy to kill.

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

Yeah, I'd use 12 2 man squads. They have storm shields and two wounds (in that squad) and can be hidden behind stuff. You won't kill all of them in one turn.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

They can still take transports and they are also 3++ but yes your right they are very fragile and easy to kill.

You cant use transports at full strength squads unless your playing a 3k game because you don't have the points left over to buy one transport. I suppose you could put the 2 man squads in transports but then that would be your whole army. Stormshields do offer some protection but at t3 1w model they are going to drop faster than tactical marines against lasgun/bolt gun fire

U02dah4 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

They can still take transports and they are also 3++ but yes your right they are very fragile and easy to kill.

You cant use transports at full strength squads unless your playing a 3k game because you don't have the points left over to buy one transport. I suppose you could put the 2 man squads in transports but then that would be your whole army. Stormshields do offer some protection but at t3 1w model they are going to drop faster than tactical marines against lasgun/bolt gun fire

Sure, if you set them up in the open, closest to your enemies units. But why would you do that?

nekooni wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

They can still take transports and they are also 3++ but yes your right they are very fragile and easy to kill.

You cant use transports at full strength squads unless your playing a 3k game because you don't have the points left over to buy one transport. I suppose you could put the 2 man squads in transports but then that would be your whole army. Stormshields do offer some protection but at t3 1w model they are going to drop faster than tactical marines against lasgun/bolt gun fire

Sure, if you set them up in the open, closest to your enemies units. But why would you do that?

Actually, even if you set them up in cover and far away, they can be shot. They're not characters, and cover adds to armour, not invulns, so they'd get a 3+ armour save from it ... which is a *womp womp* when you have a 3+ invuln.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nekooni wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
How would it do that unless you have 2 detatchments of crusaders at 1800 pts for 12 full size squads and then whoops you lost first turn roll and your 1 dominion squad died

Or i suppose you could take 12 useless 2 man squads and watch them die in one turn

They can still take transports and they are also 3++ but yes your right they are very fragile and easy to kill.

You cant use transports at full strength squads unless your playing a 3k game because you don't have the points left over to buy one transport. I suppose you could put the 2 man squads in transports but then that would be your whole army. Stormshields do offer some protection but at t3 1w model they are going to drop faster than tactical marines against lasgun/bolt gun fire

Sure, if you set them up in the open, closest to your enemies units. But why would you do that?

Actually, even if you set them up in cover and far away, they can be shot. They're not characters, and cover adds to armour, not invulns, so they'd get a 3+ armour save from it ... which is a *womp womp* when you have a 3+ invuln.

There's this thing called line of sight.

The more i read Dakka, the more i notice players dont play with LoS blocking terrain....

I actually need this question sorted by my play group. I am bringing a Sisters detachment and some AM Crusaders in a detachment and I am gonna be all sorts of fethed up.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The more i read Dakka, the more i notice players dont play with LoS blocking terrain....

True, although even on a flat table you can hide crusaders behind eg your Exorcists.

nekooni wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The more i read Dakka, the more i notice players dont play with LoS blocking terrain....

True, although even on a flat table you can hide crusaders behind eg your Exorcists.

people take those still?!?!?!?!

If you have an army consisting majoratively of melee only units hiding them doesn't really help you just get shot to death more slowly while offering no counter fire. You need to be getting to the enemy to make use of the power swords.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually need this question sorted by my play group. I am bringing a Sisters detachment and some AM Crusaders in a detachment and I am gonna be all sorts of fethed up.

Raw is clear it's a unit ability and so stacks

Rai is unclear and subjective and entirely debated

So go with raw untill/if it gets faq'ed

U02dah4 wrote:
If you have an army consisting majoratively of melee only units hiding them doesn't really help you just get shot to death more slowly while offering no counter fire. You need to be getting to the enemy to make use of the power swords.

2 man crusader squads are just there to multiply the Sisters squads effectiveness. They're a better, cheaper and sturdier imagifier, a pure supporter, not a melee unit.

It seems clear to me that even though the rule is with the unit (which is the only unit to have it in the AM codex), the "On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with this ability can perform an Act of Faith..." means that only one unit in the army can benefit. I am assuming that they didn't put it in the AM preamble of rules because the Crusaders are the only ones with it.

If every Crusader squad could do it then the rule would say "On a roll of 2+, this unit may..." or "Roll a D6 for each of your squads with this ability and on a 2+ that unit can..."

I don't really see the need for an errata for this one.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It seems clear to me that even though the rule is with the unit (which is the only unit to have it in the AM codex), the "On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with this ability can perform an Act of Faith..." means that only one unit in the army can benefit. I am assuming that they didn't put it in the AM preamble of rules because the Crusaders are the only ones with it.

If every Crusader squad could do it then the rule would say "On a roll of 2+, this unit may..." or "Roll a D6 for each of your squads with this ability and on a 2+ that unit can..."

I don't really see the need for an errata for this one.

Except every unit triggers an instance of rolling a D6.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It seems clear to me that even though the rule is with the unit (which is the only unit to have it in the AM codex), the "On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with this ability can perform an Act of Faith..." means that only one unit in the army can benefit. I am assuming that they didn't put it in the AM preamble of rules because the Crusaders are the only ones with it.

If every Crusader squad could do it then the rule would say "On a roll of 2+, this unit may..." or "Roll a D6 for each of your squads with this ability and on a 2+ that unit can..."

I don't really see the need for an errata for this one.

Except every unit triggers an instance of rolling a D6.

...is one reading of this. Don't pretend it's impossible to read it as one D6 for the army. As is very likely intended, and to some amply delivered in the RAW.

It is pretty much impossible to read it any other way

Every unit has the rule so at the start of the turn you have a trigger for each unit saying "role a d6 at the start of your turn."

However since you have multpile instances of rules triggering at the same time you reslove one completely then move to the next. As stated in the core rules

So roll dice is it a 2+ if so I select one unit from my army...
Roll dice 2 is it a 2+ if so I select one unit from my army...
Roll dice 3....
Roll dice N...

That is the only way to read it as it is what is written. What you are doing is interpreting in line with what you believe the intention to be. However intention is subjective and that's why we dont use it.

When you isolate the "select one unit from your army" part of the rule you ignore the first sentance alter the rule and change its meaning which if you want a correct rules answer you can't do.

It doesn't mean your interpretation of their intention is wrong, it's that convention is that you follow RAW over RAI, so intention is unimportant. A clear counter argument to your intention would be that they wrote it they way they did because that is how they intended it to work and they intended you to roll a dice for each crusader unit. However that argument is useless because you can't prove their intention one way or the other.

Out of curiosity how do they work with the SOB? I'm not really interested in abusing the rules or how to manipulate it, but what is their actual intended use? I don't have the Index on hand sadly so I can't look up the SOB.

SOB is once per army not unit. Hence people trying to break and abuse this error.

 Tsol wrote:
what is their actual intended use?

Wrong forum. This forum is to discuss rules, not intended use.

As it stands the AM Crusaders are totally and entirely isolated from the Index SoB list. They don't interact at all.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
what is their actual intended use?

Wrong forum. This forum is to discuss rules, not intended use.

I'm pretty sure we're allowed to discuss rules in general, and that includes the intention behind them if a rule seems wonky. Just because you only want to discuss RAW (and claim to only play RAW) doesn't mean everyone is the same as you.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

You should just make sure you clearly state what you're talking about - RAI or RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tsol wrote:
Out of curiosity how do they work with the SOB? I'm not really interested in abusing the rules or how to manipulate it, but what is their actual intended use? I don't have the Index on hand sadly so I can't look up the SOB.

You get 1 Act of Faith by having Sisters of Battle units with that rule (or some similar qualifier) on a 2+.
You can add Imagifiers (Banner Sisters basically) for 40 points that give another Act of Faith usage on a 4+, but only to units within 6'' of the Imagifier
Celestine gives another Act of Faith usage within 6'' of herself, but doesn't have to roll to gain it.

Well said. A bit tired of "RAW is law" being the only thing people think is permitted to discuss here (it isn't). Sometimes people want to figure out how to play the game and make it work, not just 'be right on the internet'.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well said. A bit tired of "RAW is law" being the only thing people think is permitted to discuss here (it isn't). Sometimes people want to figure out how to play the game and make it work, not just 'be right on the internet'.

The problem you have is that in most of these situations this thread being a clear example.

The RAW answer to the initial question is clear. AM is a unit ability SoB is a an army ability therefore they are treated differently.

In other words the rules work. So any RAI discussion is not based on making the rules work they do.

The RAI discussion is based on changing how the rules work because some players don't like them.

It should be a simple answer but the RAI arguments cloud the issue look back and you'll see discussions about but that's too powerful usually from more casual players or its not that strong from the more tournament inclined players this is not about does the rules work this is a tactical discussion more so than a RAI one but general principle rule X is too strong therefore it must not be what was intended. However it is always counterabe by the argument that gw suck at rules balancing and so didn't recognise how strong it would be or that it isn't as strong as the weaker players perceive.

You will also see arguments about intention of the writer is it conceivable the writers intended it to work like SoB? - yes. is it possible they intended it to be different?-yes. maybe they intend to change the rule on the mythical day when they intend to introduce plastic sisters and intend to use this as a test run-unevidenied random hypothesis. The key points of these arguments is there is no evidence apart from what is written it is entirely subjective and because there is no evidence the opposite can be argued

So RAW gives you a clear answer how to play the game RAI does not it does however cloud the issue.

Does that mean there is not a place for RAI most of the time yes but there are occasional instances where RAW literally doesn't work eg super heavy robot giulliman in 7th in these cases RAI is about making the game work and is helpful.

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well said. A bit tired of "RAW is law" being the only thing people think is permitted to discuss here (it isn't). Sometimes people want to figure out how to play the game and make it work, not just 'be right on the internet'.

The problem you have is that in most of these situations this thread being a clear example.

The RAW answer to the initial question is clear. AM is a unit ability SoB is a an army ability therefore they are treated differently.

In other words the rules work. So any RAI discussion is not based on making the rules work they do.

The RAI discussion is based on changing how the rules work because some players don't like them.

It should be a simple answer but the RAI arguments cloud the issue look back and you'll see discussions about but that's too powerful usually from more casual players or its not that strong from the more tournament inclined players this is not about does the rules work this is a tactical discussion more so than a RAI one but general principle rule X is too strong therefore it must not be what was intended. However it is always counterabe by the argument that gw suck at rules balancing and so didn't recognise how strong it would be or that it isn't as strong as the weaker players perceive.

You will also see arguments about intention of the writer is it conceivable the writers intended it to work like SoB? - yes. is it possible they intended it to be different?-yes. maybe they intend to change the rule on the mythical day when they intend to introduce plastic sisters and intend to use this as a test run-unevidenied random hypothesis. The key points of these arguments is there is no evidence apart from what is written it is entirely subjective and because there is no evidence the opposite can be argued

So RAW gives you a clear answer how to play the game RAI does not it does however cloud the issue.

Does that mean there is not a place for RAI most of the time yes but there are occasional instances where RAW literally doesn't work eg super heavy robot giulliman in 7th in these cases RAI is about making the game work and is helpful.

And the problem with treating every written word as accurate is that we know they aren't. It's fine to discuss obviously broken stuff and fixes without proclaiming it's obviously fine and it works in a totally broken manner BUT THAT'S RAW!

That doesn't work for me as much as debating the intent of every rule doesn't either.

Giving other posters some credit and assuming they're applying some critical judgement and common sense regarding when to discuss hotfixes/RAI stuff would be a welcome development round here, rather than deriding anything not strictly RAW as laughable, baseless, without merit, etc. Some people want to play the game without infinite range spore mines (obviously not intended) and without glaring errors creating random uberunits.

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well said. A bit tired of "RAW is law" being the only thing people think is permitted to discuss here (it isn't). Sometimes people want to figure out how to play the game and make it work, not just 'be right on the internet'.

The problem you have is that in most of these situations this thread being a clear example.

The RAW answer to the initial question is clear. AM is a unit ability SoB is a an army ability therefore they are treated differently.

In other words the rules work. So any RAI discussion is not based on making the rules work they do.

The RAI discussion is based on changing how the rules work because some players don't like them.

It should be a simple answer but the RAI arguments cloud the issue look back and you'll see discussions about but that's too powerful usually from more casual players or its not that strong from the more tournament inclined players this is not about does the rules work this is a tactical discussion more so than a RAI one but general principle rule X is too strong therefore it must not be what was intended. However it is always counterabe by the argument that gw suck at rules balancing and so didn't recognise how strong it would be or that it isn't as strong as the weaker players perceive.

You will also see arguments about intention of the writer is it conceivable the writers intended it to work like SoB? - yes. is it possible they intended it to be different?-yes. maybe they intend to change the rule on the mythical day when they intend to introduce plastic sisters and intend to use this as a test run-unevidenied random hypothesis. The key points of these arguments is there is no evidence apart from what is written it is entirely subjective and because there is no evidence the opposite can be argued

So RAW gives you a clear answer how to play the game RAI does not it does however cloud the issue.

Does that mean there is not a place for RAI most of the time yes but there are occasional instances where RAW literally doesn't work eg super heavy robot giulliman in 7th in these cases RAI is about making the game work and is helpful.

If you* feel that someone is violating the tenets of YMDC or something doesn't belong in YMDC or a post is derailing a thread, then please report that post. You're not a moderator, so you don't get to issue "warnings" in the thread. You don't use the tenets as an argument as to why someones opinion is invalid. If it genuinely is offtopic/inappropiate, a mod will deal with it. There's no need for you to police the board.

*I'm using "you" in a general sense, not just you specifically.

Can we please get back to the topic now?

Units in Index Imperium 2 have Acts of Faith written on their datasheet. They don't spell out the entire rule but refer you to the page where the rule is found.

If the argument is that because the AM Crusaders have the Acts of Faith in their Unit Abilities every unit with Acts of Faith gets to roll 2+ and get another unit to use Acts of Faith then that would also apply to every other unit with Acts of Faith found in Index Imperium 2. Its clear that the Index 2 Armies can only have one Acts of Faith per turn unless they have a special ability granting more and the wording is the same. Since the only thing that changed was spelling out Acts of Faith in the datasheet for the one unit in AM that has the rule for convenience, I don't see how RAW has changed.

I didn't use the tennet's or refer to them or warn anyone?

I mearly summarised the issue as it has been explored throughout the thread and explained why RAI was not going to give you a coherent answer in this context but RAW does I think that's on topic.

I am sorry if that caused offence but sometimes when discussing a rule you have to demonstrate why an answer is invalid in order to get to the valid one.

I would concur with earlier answer by baconcatbug that some of these answers would be better placed in the proposed rules or tactical discussions threads I don't think he's wrong to point that out

Much ofThe RAI discussion in this thread is based on changing how the rules work because some players don't like them, it's not about how the rules work and it makes it look like the rules are unclear when it's not




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to Johnny hell the problem is who is going to be the arbiter of what is broken and what is fine. Just because you do not wish to play against it doesn't mean others won't and what your looking for is a house rule fix which is fine locally but it does represent a deviation from the rules and if things are as overpowered as you suggest they will be faqed sooner or later. If there not overpowered as you think they probably didn't need fixing