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.

The helforged rapier cannon Chaos Space Marine Crew ability has been errated to say the following:

‘When a Hellforged Rapier Battery is set up on the battlefield, all models are set up in unit coherency. From that point onwards, all the Hellforged Rapiers are treated as one unit and all the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another. Chaos Space Marine Crew may only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible unit to the firer.’

The Artillery ability, which has not been errated, reads as follows.

'A Hellforged Rapier can only fire its ranged weapon if a friendly LEGION Chaos Space Marine Crewman model from the same unit is within 3". A single Chaos Space Marine Crewman can not operate multiple Hellforged Rapiers in this way in a single turn. If all of the Chaos Space Marine Crewmen from the same unit within 6" of a Hellforged Rapier are slain,it loses the Artillery ability and gains the Daemon Unleashed ability, and operates under the rules of that ability instead.'

Unfortunately, it is now impossible to fire the rapier cannon, as the rapier cannon will never have a shooting phase with chaos space marine crewmen in the same unit as itself, as per the errata.

furthermore, the ability Daemon Unleashed reads as follows :

'A Hellforged Rapier gains this ability if all Chaos Space Marine Crewmen in the same unit are slain. While a Hellforged Rapier has this ability,it must move as far as possible directly towards the nearest visible enemy unit during the Movement phase(it does not have to Advance, but may do so if the controlling player wishes) ,it may fire normally in the Shooting phase, even if no friendly Chaos Space Marine Crewmen are within 6" and must declarea Charge in the Charge phase if there are any enemy units within 12" at the beginning of that phase.'

This is again, not possible, as per the errata the helforged rapier cannon does not have any Chaos Space Marine Crewmen in it's unit after deployment.

This models rules do not allow it to shoot, it also doesn't allow it to gain daemon unleashed. So they deploy and do nothing...

Am I missing some errata or something ? or am I looking at the wrong datasheet ?

It’s how many years since the FW Indexes and people still need the “they wrote them in a lunch break... use some common sense and work around it” reminder?

No, i know, Obviously I figured I would find a work around . Really just wondering if there was some update I missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its also just funny to see them break a units RAW this hard with an errata. But I guess we have seen that before as well.

You are indeed correct. FW units are a good 60/40 split Broken/Functional RaW as it is, on top of either being OP to all hells and back or "I'd literally do better if I just put this into reinforcement points" tier of useless.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are indeed correct. FW units are a good 60/40 split Broken/Functional RaW as it is, on top of either being OP to all hells and back or "I'd literally do better if I just put this into reinforcement points" tier of useless.

False. He is not correct.

the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another unit, but they are still "a friendly LEGION Chaos Space Marine Crewman model from the same unit" They are just treated as...

So there is no issue here at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are indeed correct. FW units are a good 60/40 split Broken/Functional RaW as it is, on top of either being OP to all hells and back or "I'd literally do better if I just put this into reinforcement points" tier of useless.

False. He is not correct.

the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another unit, but they are still "a friendly LEGION Chaos Space Marine Crewman model from the same unit" They are just treated as...

So there is no issue here at all.

"When a Hellforged Rapier Battery is set up on the battlefield, all models are set up in unit coherency. From that point onwards, all the Hellforged Rapiers are treated as one unit and all the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another." After deployment, the CSM Crew are no longer from the same unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are indeed correct. FW units are a good 60/40 split Broken/Functional RaW as it is, on top of either being OP to all hells and back or "I'd literally do better if I just put this into reinforcement points" tier of useless.

False. He is not correct.

the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another unit, but they are still "a friendly LEGION Chaos Space Marine Crewman model from the same unit" They are just treated as...

So there is no issue here at all.

"When a Hellforged Rapier Battery is set up on the battlefield, all models are set up in unit coherency. From that point onwards, all the Hellforged Rapiers are treated as one unit and all the Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another." After deployment, the CSM Crew are no longer from the same unit.

Not sure what your point is...

The Chaos Space Marine Crew are treated as another unit, but they are still "a friendly LEGION Chaos Space Marine Crewman model from the same unit"

So yea, there is literally no RAW issue.

Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Guys. It’s demonstrably badly written. It’s also easy to use common sense to play the models as intended. An internet bickering session won’t make anyone “right”, it’s just gonna look silly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

So if I combat squad a unit of marines, then buff one half with a stratagem, the other half benefits too?

I stopped using Rapiers after a game where someone argued this exact point.

RAW, the Rapier is a unit, the crewmen are a separate unit, and the rules only allow the gun to be fired when crewmen from the same unit are within 3". Unless you allow the crewmen models to belong to more than one unit OR revise the definition of unit to accommodate some kind of "superunit" that encompasses 2 units, the rules do not allow the gun to be fired.

I understand the Forgeworld stuff is poorly written. The reason I stopped using Rapiers is because I don't like pausing the game for 45 minutes to argue about the wording. Given enough games, the odds of having to stop for an argument increases to nearly 100%. Given enough arguments, the odds other players will have hurt feelings or accuse you of cheating increases to nearly 100%. It's much simpler to take Contemptors or Deredeos then open yourself up to stupid grievances and accusations.

The arguing is what I hated most about previous editions. The most redeeming factor about 8th edition is games feel less like an Appeals Court hearing. Expecting someone to ignore RAW because FW rules were poorly written just invites more of that, so I'd rather put the Rapiers on a shelf and come back to them if there ever is a FAQ.

Yes, RAW it is broken. The intent is pretty clear though, so they are usable. This is just another case where RAW isnt fit for purpose and GW expect us to use our judgement.

For anyone who is capable of not making the fallacy that doing so would be the same as claiming Marines have a million wounds this won't be a problem, and thankfully most of us never have to play against people like that.

 Stux wrote:
Yes, RAW it is broken. The intent is pretty clear though, so they are usable. This is just another case where RAW isnt fit for purpose and GW expect us to use our judgement.

If "GW expects us to use our judgement" then why bother writing rules? Surely they would just say "use your judgement on how fast Marines move and what stats Bolters have."

I want to make very clear that this is not a fallacious line of reasoning. I understand that GWs rules, and FW rules in particular are poorly written, but the only objective and logically consistent way the game can function is if you follow the rules, no matter how poorly they are written. (Please note the use of the term "objective" here, obviously small groups can subjectively make whatever rules they want, from allowing Assault weapons to work as "intended" to banning all models painted pink. The use of the term "logically consistent" relates to the fact that if one rule is allows to be ignored, for whatever reason, that same reasoning allows pretty much any rules to be ignored, which leads to every rule being ignored.)

I would also like to point out the various counter examples where GW have provided errata that everyone except possibly me and two and a half other people would consider "nitpicky" and fixable if you just "use your judgement". Such examples include the change to Single Use Weapons (you are no longer forced to fire all such weapons the first time you fire), the change to the Aerial Spotters stratagem to affect keywords instead of model names, the change to the Loot It stratagem preventing Meganobz to gain a 1+ Save characteristic, which due to the FAQ capping a dice roll to a minimum of 1, gave Meganobz the equivalent to a 2+ invulnerable save, and the additional change to the Loot It stratagem allowing a unit disembarking from a destroyed transport to Loot said transport.

 Stux wrote:
Yes, RAW it is broken. The intent is pretty clear though, so they are usable. This is just another case where RAW isnt fit for purpose and GW expect us to use our judgement.

For anyone who is capable of not making the fallacy that doing so would be the same as claiming Marines have a million wounds this won't be a problem, and thankfully most of us never have to play against people like that.

I don't know how fair it is to expect someone else to know which rules to follow and which ones to stretch to fit the intent.

Aside from all other factors, the ultimate goal of 40k is for players to enjoy themselves. Some players are distressed seeing the rules written one way and played another. That's legitimate and you can't really fault them for it.

There's been this whole argument about whether Rhinos can pop smoke during your opponent's shooting phase. At my FLGS, that's how we've played it since the start of 8th edition because it's RAW. I never would have thought there was a RAI argument until people started complaining about it online. I think GW would have FAQed it by now if they really wanted popping smoke limited to your player turn, but who knows what they are thinking.

Certainly the RAI argument for Rapiers is compelling and common sense. But talking about people who are 'capable of not making the fallacy...' - that's needlessly personalizing a dispute about the rules. We all know GW does stupid stuff sometimes. It's not their fault for sticking with what's written.

All I am saying is theres nothing wrong with interpreting intent of the rule when the RAW falls short, and that trying to say you cant ever do that, and therefore you cant use this unit, is the result of a slippery slope or other such fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From my point of view, only talking in pure RAW doesnt make any sense because no one I've played against, and almost no one I've spoken to about it with one exception) actually plays pure RAW. So looking at RAW only is meaningless when discussing how to play the game, which is essentially is what this forum is for.

Instead I take a more probabilistic rather than a purely logically deductive approach - look at how LIKELY a particular interpretation is to be the intention, and if over a satisfactory threshold then consider that the rule to go by even if it isnt as written.

Yes, that threshold is inherently arbitrary - but that doesnt stop it being necessary given we've established (for everyone except one person) that not having it at all is counter to how everyone plays the game.

 Stux wrote:
All I am saying is theres nothing wrong with interpreting intent of the rule when the RAW falls short, and that trying to say you cant ever do that, and therefore you cant use this unit, is the result of a slippery slope or other such fallacy.

I have never said you can't ever use RaI, I am saying you shouldn't because who gets to be the ultimate arbiter of what is RaI? You? Me? Giuseppe the Barber? Maybe you come to an agreement, but what if you don't? It leads to an argument and bad blood. The only way to avoid that argument is to simply play by the RaW as it is an objective standard that is set independent of what one player may want over the other.

And I fundamentally disagree that it is a slippery slope. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. From an objective standpoint, there is no valid argument for "ignore rule A", only "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". If you allow rule A to be ignored for one of those arguments, the opposing player can argue just as subjectively that rule B can be ignored "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". You cannot then say argument A is valid when argument B isn't, because they are both the same argument. Either both are true or neither are true. That isn't a slippery slope, it's a logical chain of events.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are indeed correct. FW units are a good 60/40 split Broken/Functional RaW as it is, on top of either being OP to all hells and back or "I'd literally do better if I just put this into reinforcement points" tier of useless.

Considering that FW only shows up to supplement Custodes and or the dreadnoughts and considering how many rules there are for FW models and armies, 95% is bad and 5%ok.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
All I am saying is theres nothing wrong with interpreting intent of the rule when the RAW falls short, and that trying to say you cant ever do that, and therefore you cant use this unit, is the result of a slippery slope or other such fallacy.

I have never said you can't ever use RaI, I am saying you shouldn't because who gets to be the ultimate arbiter of what is RaI? You? Me? Giuseppe the Barber? Maybe you come to an agreement, but what if you don't? It leads to an argument and bad blood. The only way to avoid that argument is to simply play by the RaW as it is an objective standard that is set independent of what one player may want over the other.

And I fundamentally disagree that it is a slippery slope. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. From an objective standpoint, there is no valid argument for "ignore rule A", only "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". If you allow rule A to be ignored for one of those arguments, the opposing player can argue just as subjectively that rule B can be ignored "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". You cannot then say argument A is valid when argument B isn't, because they are both the same argument. Either both are true or neither are true. That isn't a slippery slope, it's a logical chain of events.

This post is nonsense. It’s entirely possible to use some critical judgement and use appropriate leeway. If you can’t make such distinctions then you won’t get on with any GW rulesets. Just barking “objectively” doesn’t make it an objective take or even valid. I despair at the number of threads in YMDC that get derailed this way. Try some critical judgement and actual thinking instead of just repetitive soapboxing.

Ah yes, the old "deductive analysis is the only way to parse rules" crowd.

Always a fun bunch; I pray they don't apply the same standard to other written documents, since language itself is unparsable with deductive analysis.

As the OP my question has been answered, I havn't missed any updates.

Conclusion, play it as you and your opponent thinks is RAI or not at all.

Thanks for the insights.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
All I am saying is theres nothing wrong with interpreting intent of the rule when the RAW falls short, and that trying to say you cant ever do that, and therefore you cant use this unit, is the result of a slippery slope or other such fallacy.

I have never said you can't ever use RaI, I am saying you shouldn't because who gets to be the ultimate arbiter of what is RaI? You? Me? Giuseppe the Barber? Maybe you come to an agreement, but what if you don't? It leads to an argument and bad blood. The only way to avoid that argument is to simply play by the RaW as it is an objective standard that is set independent of what one player may want over the other.

And I fundamentally disagree that it is a slippery slope. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in. From an objective standpoint, there is no valid argument for "ignore rule A", only "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". If you allow rule A to be ignored for one of those arguments, the opposing player can argue just as subjectively that rule B can be ignored "just because" or "I subjectively think it should work like this". You cannot then say argument A is valid when argument B isn't, because they are both the same argument. Either both are true or neither are true. That isn't a slippery slope, it's a logical chain of events.

This post is nonsense. It’s entirely possible to use some critical judgement and use appropriate leeway. If you can’t make such distinctions then you won’t get on with any GW rulesets. Just barking “objectively” doesn’t make it an objective take or even valid. I despair at the number of threads in YMDC that get derailed this way. Try some critical judgement and actual thinking instead of just repetitive soapboxing.

100% this. I've said it on numerous occasions before that YMDC is often the worst please to go for rules advice because instead of getting an answer you can use in-game you get 5 pages of bickering over pointless minutiae. Even putting that to one side, BCB's post is pretty obviously nonsense. All you have to do is look at how many people play the assault weapon rule "correctly" to see how pointless that approach is. There's absolutely no problem for 99% of players to understand what certain poorly written rules mean and all the ridiculous soapboxing achieves is muddying the waters when it comes to the difference between obvious, easily solved errors in the rules and genuinely dubious situations.

I for one am glad that I will not be seeing any more Hellforged Rapier's on the table until GW fixes this rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

So if I combat squad a unit of marines, then buff one half with a stratagem, the other half benefits too?

Why would they benefit?

Combat squads is a very different rule and has no bearing on the Hellforged Rapier Battery rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

So if I combat squad a unit of marines, then buff one half with a stratagem, the other half benefits too?

Why would they benefit?

Combat squads is a very different rule and has no bearing on the Hellforged Rapier Battery rules.

Yeah but didn't you know if you don't follow one small rule exactly as written then bolsters fire jam and if you ever roll a double 6 you have to give your opponent your car?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

So if I combat squad a unit of marines, then buff one half with a stratagem, the other half benefits too?

Why would they benefit?

Combat squads is a very different rule and has no bearing on the Hellforged Rapier Battery rules.

What, pray tell, is the difference between splitting a unit and splitting a unit?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because they aren't from the same unit.

The unit has split. The rule literally says the Crew become "another" unit. You can't be in another unit and be the same unit as the Rapiers.

Except they are...

So if I combat squad a unit of marines, then buff one half with a stratagem, the other half benefits too?

Why would they benefit?

Combat squads is a very different rule and has no bearing on the Hellforged Rapier Battery rules.

What, pray tell, is the difference between splitting a unit and splitting a unit?

If you don't know the difference to this existential problem... I don't know what to say. That's like saying "I don't understand what I don't understand." See? I hope I cleared that up for you.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I stopped using Rapiers after a game where someone argued this exact point.

RAW, the Rapier is a unit, the crewmen are a separate unit, and the rules only allow the gun to be fired when crewmen from the same unit are within 3". Unless you allow the crewmen models to belong to more than one unit OR revise the definition of unit to accommodate some kind of "superunit" that encompasses 2 units, the rules do not allow the gun to be fired.

I understand the Forgeworld stuff is poorly written. The reason I stopped using Rapiers is because I don't like pausing the game for 45 minutes to argue about the wording. Given enough games, the odds of having to stop for an argument increases to nearly 100%. Given enough arguments, the odds other players will have hurt feelings or accuse you of cheating increases to nearly 100%. It's much simpler to take Contemptors or Deredeos then open yourself up to stupid grievances and accusations.

The arguing is what I hated most about previous editions. The most redeeming factor about 8th edition is games feel less like an Appeals Court hearing. Expecting someone to ignore RAW because FW rules were poorly written just invites more of that, so I'd rather put the Rapiers on a shelf and come back to them if there ever is a FAQ.

So did someone actually try to argue the unit you have paid points and $$ for for cannot shoot/do anything at all??
I mean its pretty obvious how it should work.. (yes yes.. raw is raw but the rai is pretty simple unless you really reeeeaaaaally don't want it to be)

Who are all these people and why fuel them with games lol….

I don't think the issue is "I can't run these because the RAW is broken!"

The issue is the RAW being broken-even when the solution is relatively clear, it doesn't take that much effort from a company as big as GW to make it work as intended. This isn't even hard to see that it's broken.

 Type40 wrote:
As the OP my question has been answered, I havn't missed any updates.

Conclusion, play it as you and your opponent thinks is RAI or not at all.

Thanks for the insights.

Good summary.

Moving on.