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.

Haha, oh that is so hilarious. You can deepstrike 40 boyz and place two of them next to a Painboy, Ghazkgull and a Banner Nob on the other side of the board, the other 38 boyz can run around with full buffs.

pismakron wrote:
Haha, oh that is so hilarious. You can deepstrike 40 boyz and place two of them next to a Painboy, Ghazkgull and a Banner Nob on the other side of the board, the other 38 boyz can run around with full buffs.

No, because the FAQ prohibits it. And the other 38 boyz would be unable to move.

Also Boyz are limited to 30 per unit.

If you were trying to make a point, you mangled it hard.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Haha, oh that is so hilarious. You can deepstrike 40 boyz and place two of them next to a Painboy, Ghazkgull and a Banner Nob on the other side of the board, the other 38 boyz can run around with full buffs.

No, because the FAQ prohibits it. And the other 38 boyz would be unable to move.

Also Boyz are limited to 30 per unit.

If you were trying to make a point, you mangled it hard.

Boyz squads can be mobbed together with a stratagem. In principle there are no upper limit to how many boyz can be in a unit. What does the FAQ prohibit exactly? Regards

40k rules will always be disputed - it’s just the way it is and has always been.

Oh, I found the FAQ entry that fixed the loophole. What a shame that I never got to abuse it :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
For what it's worth, it's almost impossible to describe what we all know and love as unit coherency, using only words, and no pictures.

1) A unit is set up one model at a time, so that all models, except the first model, is set up within 2" of another model from its own unit.

2) A unit is moved one model at a time, so that all models, except the first model, ends its movement within 2" of another model from its own unit.

 Primark G wrote:
40k rules will always be disputed - it’s just the way it is and has always been.

I think the issue (to me personally) is that threads and issues like the one presented in the OP are almost never a rule actually being disputed. It's a person or group of persons who thinks they're clever and wants to show off on the internet. Very few of these threads produce a genuine question to which the community doesn't have an answer to.

I think it's pretty telling that almost no one on this board has ever stated or encountered people actually trying to pull off nonsense like this. So it really boils down to epeenery.

 Elbows wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
40k rules will always be disputed - it’s just the way it is and has always been.

I think the issue (to me personally) is that threads and issues like the one presented in the OP are almost never a rule actually being disputed. It's a person or group of persons who thinks they're clever and wants to show off on the internet. Very few of these threads produce a genuine question to which the community doesn't have an answer to.

I think it's pretty telling that almost no one on this board has ever stated or encountered people actually trying to pull off nonsense like this. So it really boils down to epeenery.

On the other hand I have seen a 15+ page thread about how many scything talons a model actually has because "pair of" seems to be used in some instances and not in others simply because the rules writers took for granted that scything talons come in pairs from the previous edition, even though guns don't like DwBLW or Deathspitters w/SM.

Also, the vast majority of the threads here are people asking for answers that are in FAQs and Errata and are quickly answered by the forum rgulars who are only up to date on those things because they spend their time sitting on the internet watching for and seeing these things.

Anyone who goes to the store, buys the product, and sits down to play without checking the internet runs into all those issues the Faqs and Errata are needed for.

Duskweaver wrote:You can mock, but I'm convinced the much-hated "rules lawyers" are exactly the sort of people GW should be getting to playtest their rules prior to publication.

No mockery here. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Crimson wrote:I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

A 0" move isn't moving. Ergo, you didn't move less than 5". Because you didn't move.

 Infantryman wrote:

Duskweaver wrote:You can mock, but I'm convinced the much-hated "rules lawyers" are exactly the sort of people GW should be getting to playtest their rules prior to publication.

No mockery here. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Crimson wrote:I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

A 0" move isn't moving. Ergo, you didn't move less than 5". Because you didn't move.

You're wrong on this, and you're way OT. Let's not repeat that thread, especially as it has been clarified in an FAQ.

Maybe a mod can put this thread out of its misery as it was answered pages ago?

 Infantryman wrote:

A 0" move isn't moving. Ergo, you didn't move less than 5". Because you didn't move.

You're just failing at language at elementary level. "Everyone who had fewer than five slices of pizza can have ice cream for dessert." Timmy didn't eat any pizza, can Timmy have ice cream?

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If anything it speaks to the intelligence of the rules writers, not the player base. All they would need is ONE technical writer on the team to fix all this, but they refuse, and people who enjoy playing games by the rules get stigmatised for it.

I really don't want the rules to be written for people who are so stupid that they don't understand that zero is less than five. It would probably make the rules at least ten times longer, filled with explanations of what common words like 'up' or 'less' mean.

Quite.


seems we're done here.