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.

Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

Like any rule, you and your opponent need to agree to use them. They are usable in matched play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

Like any rule, you and your opponent need to agree to use them. They are usable in matched play.

other that that they are only used for example in a vigilus campaign tour? i mean what is the most "official" thing?

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

They are intended for Matched Play. If you and your opponent agree to a Matched Play match, the assumption is that these rules will be legal in the same way that you'd assume Codex Space Marines would be legal.

 Kriswall wrote:

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

They are intended for Matched Play. If you and your opponent agree to a Matched Play match, the assumption is that these rules will be legal in the same way that you'd assume Codex Space Marines would be legal.

This. BCB is incorrect above in that you need to agree their use. Matched Play assumes all Matched Play rules are valid unless stated as optional (e.g. Terrain rules, or playing Cities of Death, which would need agreeing).

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

They are intended for Matched Play. If you and your opponent agree to a Matched Play match, the assumption is that these rules will be legal in the same way that you'd assume Codex Space Marines would be legal.

This. BCB is incorrect above in that you need to agree their use. Matched Play assumes all Matched Play rules are valid unless stated as optional (e.g. Terrain rules, or playing Cities of Death, which would need agreeing).

Literally every single game relies on you and your opponent agreeing to the game. Are you going to handcuff your opponent to the table if they don't want to play with you?

The default assumption is that, yes, by agreeing to a game you agree to all the rules as they are. That is what I said.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

They are intended for Matched Play. If you and your opponent agree to a Matched Play match, the assumption is that these rules will be legal in the same way that you'd assume Codex Space Marines would be legal.

This. BCB is incorrect above in that you need to agree their use. Matched Play assumes all Matched Play rules are valid unless stated as optional (e.g. Terrain rules, or playing Cities of Death, which would need agreeing).

Literally every single game relies on you and your opponent agreeing to the game. Are you going to handcuff your opponent to the table if they don't want to play with you?

The default assumption is that, yes, by agreeing to a game you agree to all the rules as they are. That is what I said.

Yeah, but your comment isn't helpful to this discussion. It's a reasonable assumption that if people agree to play a game that they will be playing by the standard rules. You do this all the time and it's never really helpful.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

SIKAMIKA wrote:
Hello there....can i use them and their 4 stratagems in any matched play now? (the ones for the veteran intercessors) or do i have to play the vigilus campaign only?

They are intended for Matched Play. If you and your opponent agree to a Matched Play match, the assumption is that these rules will be legal in the same way that you'd assume Codex Space Marines would be legal.

This. BCB is incorrect above in that you need to agree their use. Matched Play assumes all Matched Play rules are valid unless stated as optional (e.g. Terrain rules, or playing Cities of Death, which would need agreeing).

Literally every single game relies on you and your opponent agreeing to the game. Are you going to handcuff your opponent to the table if they don't want to play with you?

The default assumption is that, yes, by agreeing to a game you agree to all the rules as they are. That is what I said.

This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

It's BaconCatBug. It's normal.

I'd think they'd be fine in any regular game.
It's no different to back in the day with codex armageddon or eye of terror.
If it was for a specific type of game like city fight or jungle fight or something similar that might be different

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Signatures don't appear for everyone.

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Having a disclaimer in your sig doesn't give someone carte blanche to make the sort of pointless, unhelpful comments BCB is well known for. Instead of having a disclaimer about it, how about not make the unhelpful comments in the first place? It's like people who start a sentence by saying "no offence, but...". IF you don't want to give offence, don't say offensive things. The same applies here.

ValentineGames wrote:
It's BaconCatBug. It's normal.

I'd think they'd be fine in any regular game.
It's no different to back in the day with codex armageddon or eye of terror.
If it was for a specific type of game like city fight or jungle fight or something similar that might be different

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Signatures don't appear for everyone.

Yeah, it doesn't show for me on mobile. I logged in on my PC once specifically just to check out this infamous sig!

ValentineGames wrote:
It's BaconCatBug. It's normal.

I'd think they'd be fine in any regular game.
It's no different to back in the day with codex armageddon or eye of terror.
If it was for a specific type of game like city fight or jungle fight or something similar that might be different

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Signatures don't appear for everyone.

Not only that, but it's also not the norm to have disclaimers in your signature. Most forum goers will add links or funny anecdotes. Very few add disclaimers to explain their non standard behaviors and reactions. The signature in particular is a wall of text with a very small font. That will turn off many people from reading.

Slipspace wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Having a disclaimer in your sig doesn't give someone carte blanche to make the sort of pointless, unhelpful comments BCB is well known for. Instead of having a disclaimer about it, how about not make the unhelpful comments in the first place? It's like people who start a sentence by saying "no offence, but...". IF you don't want to give offence, don't say offensive things. The same applies here.

Actually, that's the point of a disclaimer.

The phrase "No offence, but..." is typically used when you wish to make a point to somebody but you know that it could be perceived as hurtful, and that's not the way you want it to come across. There are people who cannot take another persons opinion at face value, and regularly receive it as an insult or personal slight. For example, if someone comes up with an idea, and I say it's a stupid idea, a lot of people will think that I said that they are stupid. which I didn't say, or mean.

Altering your response in order to accommodate peoples feelings works in society, but in rules discussions or (more seriously) a court of law, isn't a good habit to get into. Making your points clearly is by far a better way than dodging gently around the point to spare peoples feelings. If you don't feel strongly enough about a point to express it wholeheartedly and haters be damned, then you should probably avoid trying to make it.

My personal view: if something offends you, don't read it. No offense.

 some bloke wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion, and the orkmoticons suggest it's just done as a windup.

Does literally no one ever read BCB's signature? At this point I think we need to petition Dakka to make it flashing and neon or something...

Having a disclaimer in your sig doesn't give someone carte blanche to make the sort of pointless, unhelpful comments BCB is well known for. Instead of having a disclaimer about it, how about not make the unhelpful comments in the first place? It's like people who start a sentence by saying "no offence, but...". IF you don't want to give offence, don't say offensive things. The same applies here.

Actually, that's the point of a disclaimer.

The phrase "No offence, but..." is typically used when you wish to make a point to somebody but you know that it could be perceived as hurtful, and that's not the way you want it to come across. There are people who cannot take another persons opinion at face value, and regularly receive it as an insult or personal slight. For example, if someone comes up with an idea, and I say it's a stupid idea, a lot of people will think that I said that they are stupid. which I didn't say, or mean.

Altering your response in order to accommodate peoples feelings works in society, but in rules discussions or (more seriously) a court of law, isn't a good habit to get into. Making your points clearly is by far a better way than dodging gently around the point to spare peoples feelings. If you don't feel strongly enough about a point to express it wholeheartedly and haters be damned, then you should probably avoid trying to make it.

My personal view: if something offends you, don't read it. No offense.

This isn't really about feelings or causing offense. It's more about BCB's inexplicable need to constantly point out that every rule is "optional" because you always have the option of not playing the game. My argument is that he's needlessly confusing the issue by introducing elements that are almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Just click ignore and get on with answering the question then.

 Kriswall wrote:
This isn't really about feelings or causing offense. It's more about BCB's inexplicable need to constantly point out that every rule is "optional" because you always have the option of not playing the game. My argument is that he's needlessly confusing the issue by introducing elements that are almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So which is it? I say that you have to play the game by the rules, I get abuse. I say you don't have to play the game by the rules, I get abuse. I don't have a "need" to point out rules are optional, my view is actually the opposite but I've been informed I am not allowed to state that anymore.

The fact of the matter is that, yes, the Vigilus book is usable in matched play. I was simply pointing out that like everything related to 40k, you're free to not use it or not play with opponents that use it. The usual suspects then come out and start their abuse.

I think this has gotten way out of hand. The original post from BCB is really not controversial, it didn't warrant all this silliness.

Question is answered, let's try and leave it at that.

We're done here