Adepticon FAQ

[SamaNagol]

RAW has no relation to common sense or intentions or logic. It is utterly defined by the words on the page.

 

And

The only other option I get from the wording is (at some point during the attack resolution...not sure when) you pick a model engaged with your SS-wielder and say "Wounds caused by *that* guy are saved on a 4++". So if that figure inflicts, say, 2 Power Weapon wounds on a 4-man squad (One has a SS) you can place one on the SS wielder who gets to save it at 4+, while the other wound goes to another model in the squad. If a second enemy model inflicts, say, 3 PW wounds and one of those would be allocated onto your SS-wielding figure, that wound would go up against your regular save (5+ Invul for a Termie).

is the definition by RAW.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

RAW has no relation to common sense or intentions or logic. It is utterly defined by the words on the page.

 

Dude, they write the rules with logic and common sense in mind. Ie 'Space Marines do not all possess the Rending USR, because that's retarded' (next codex notwithstanding ;) ). As such, when a RAW interpretation leads to a situation which is clearly stupid (off the top of my head, the ability of a Deathwatch Razorback to technically Deepstrike), it's entirely reasonable to ignore it. GW have even said as much, in both the BRB and the DA FAQ; RAW is no longer 'set in stone', so to speak. In 4th edition, GW essentially gave up and said 'stuff it, we're sick of answering your inane and ludicrous questions, just read as written and play the damn game!'

 

Having had time to think such a ruling over, they've now calmed down and say

'You know what, stuff it. If you don't like the rules, and your opponent doesn't care, feel free to modify them, provided you both agree. We're still not interested in answering your questions, because they're still stupid.

P.S.: Ultramarines must always win, nobody gets their stuff, unless you decide as per above'

 

:P Mmmm...ah well, at least they've got the ball rolling on updating old codicies. The Wolves are next, which means Inquisiton can't be a decade behind (being optimistic here :D ).

 

I feel, without clear reasoning as to how the SS is supposed to work (GW is totally silent, the armoury entry is unclear, and the Adepticon interpretation appears to make the SS worse if anything), we should go with the simplest solution (ie Occam's Razor) and simply modify the SS-equipped models to have 4+ invul in close-combat. They still suffer wounds and allocate like normal. Thats easy to understand for both you and your opponent, and it's hardly game-changing (wow, you go from saving about 1/3rd of the time to 1/2 the time. Pity I hit you with two powerfist wounds anyway).

And

QUOTE

The only other option I get from the wording is (at some point during the attack resolution...not sure when) you pick a model engaged with your SS-wielder and say "Wounds caused by *that* guy are saved on a 4++". So if that figure inflicts, say, 2 Power Weapon wounds on a 4-man squad (One has a SS) you can place one on the SS wielder who gets to save it at 4+, while the other wound goes to another model in the squad. If a second enemy model inflicts, say, 3 PW wounds and one of those would be allocated onto your SS-wielding figure, that wound would go up against your regular save (5+ Invul for a Termie).

is the definition by RAW.

 

Yeah, but you can see how retarded that interpretation is. It's unecessarily complex and makes the SS totally worthless. 'RAW' is no longer the standard, RAI is what GW wants us to do now.

[Melissia]

Meh, if they want to do RAI, then I'll argue that Celestians should have access to BP+CCW for free because it is obvious that they are intended to be close combat specialists given the fluff that is put beside their stats, as well as their increased CC stats and holy hatred.

 

You call it RAI, I call it "house rules". RAW at least is semi-stable, unlike house rules/RAI.

[Gentlemanloser]

Technically, with this ruling you could attach a GK Hero with a SS to a squad of IST, and in CC make one enemy roll to wound versus T4 instead of the Majority T3 of the 'Troopers.

 

An added bonus would be the GKGM loses Fearless (lol!), and wouldn't have to suffer 'No Retreat!' gazillion extra wounds, when the IST are decimated.

 

Bad thing is, he'll run off the table like a scared child, not having ATSKNF and being able to regroup (assuming the IST are reduced to under half).

 

Ah, good days.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Meh, if they want to do RAI, then I'll argue that Celestians should have access to BP+CCW for free because it is obvious that they are intended to be close combat specialists given the fluff that is put beside their stats, as well as their increased CC stats and holy hatred.

 

But Melissa, we all know Celestians are just the extra-strength PMS Sisters, which the Canoness surrounds herself with more even more 'hormonal rage' ;) ;) and they simply irrationally bring along their bolters, leaving their chainswords and pistols at home (except for two of them, which grab a special/heavy weapon before leaving).

 

Seriously though, what you're suggesting isn't RAI, it's a change to a units actual wargear. Thats different to saying 'does a SS, that the model is equipped with, grant +1A?', you're suggesting something like 'hey, why don't Salamanders have the option to upgrade all members of a squad from bolters to flamers? Thats keeping with fluff, or at least the style I presume them to have'. It's not anywhere near as broken to upgrade Celestians with bolt pistol+ccw (I hope they do change it to that in the next codex), but it's still a clear departure from the written wargear.

You call it RAI, I call it "house rules". RAW at least is semi-stable, unlike house rules/RAI.

 

You're confusing house-rules with RAI. 'House rules' covers a wide field of player changes, anything from 'that rule is retarded, lets both agree to play X as Y' to 'my entire army of Daemonhunters gains the 'Preferred Enemy' USR against Daemons, because thats fluffy', or 'Blood Angels should all get Rending, because they're clinically insane on the battlefield'.

'Read As Intended' is murky and subjective, I'll agree, but it's restricted to actual rules and how they operate. We're attempting to interpret 'official' stuff, we're not inventing wholly new conventions, alotted wargear/special rules or units.

Technically, with this ruling you could attach a GK Hero with a SS to a squad of IST, and in CC make one enemy roll to wound versus T4 instead of the Majority T3 of the 'Troopers.

 

I do this with my '91 points of yawn' BC+psycannon a lot (cos he's kinda meh attached to a PAGK, but a great bullet absorber for the IST's). However, in close-combat it's not likely to make much difference.

An added bonus would be the GKGM loses Fearless (lol!), and wouldn't have to suffer 'No Retreat!' gazillion extra wounds, when the IST are decimated.

 

Thats not really good, because it means the unit can be reduced to under 50%, fail a Morale check and Fall Back, and be caught in a Sweeping Advance. Bye bye BC!

Bad thing is, he'll run off the table like a scared child, not having ATSKNF and being able to regroup (assuming the IST are reduced to under half).

 

Nope, because he can detach and thus regain 'Fearless' status (and auto-regroup). While he's attached though, he'll run like a little sissy :lol:

[Gentlemanloser]

There's no more detaching. He'd have to end the movement phase mroe than 2" from the Squad. Which is technically impossible, unless the CC has moved him 2" away before the fall back, as the whole squad has to move as directly as possible towards the friendly board edge. The BC wouldn't be able to swing away from the squad, or move less than the Squad, to end up over 2" away from them at the end of a movement phase.

 

Yay for not giving GK ATSKNF, then allowing 'Fearless' to be able to be lost...

[Reclusiarch Darius]

There's no more detaching. He'd have to end the movement phase mroe than 2" from the Squad. Which is technically impossible, unless the CC has moved him 2" away before the fall back, as the whole squad has to move as directly as possible towards the friendly board edge. The BC wouldn't be able to swing away from the squad, or move less than the Squad, to end up over 2" away from them at the end of a movement phase.

 

Yay for not giving GK ATSKNF, then allowing 'Fearless' to be able to be lost...

 

Damn thats really stupid. Sigh....

 

Wait, could he detach while IN combat? Then at least, he fights seperately (and when the IST's run away/die he is unaffected).

[Gentlemanloser]

Only if casulaties and wierd pile in moves manage to get him over 2" away from the Squad.

 

He'd still fall back when you lose, as he'd be a part of the squad until the the next Movement Phase, at which point he automatically leaves the squad (from being more than 2" away), and regains his IC status and Fearless, and would regoup the turn after.

[Melissia]

You're confusing house-rules with RAI.

Fact 1: RAW = Standard rules

Fact 2: RAI = changing the standard rules so that they are your interpretation of how they were intended to be.

Fact 3: House Rules = non-standard rules

Conclusion: RAI = House Rules

 

I submit, sir, that you are wrong, and that I am right.

[Doomaflatchi]

Fact 1: RAW = Standard rules

Fact 2: RAI = changing the standard rules so that they are your interpretation of how they were intended to be.

Fact 3: House Rules = non-standard rules

Conclusion: RAI = House Rules

I think what he was trying to say is that RAI and House Rules, while both being deviations, are different in their scope. That is to say, RAI is more of "What is this official written rule supposed to mean?", and House Rules are more like "I think I'll make this up, because it makes me enjoy the game more" (which is not to be discouraged, as GW itself says that "Fun" is the first rule of the game).

[Melissia]

Which is a fine distinction that I'm unsure I want to make, because a lot of RAI rulings seem like they're just making crap up to me.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Only if casulaties and wierd pile in moves manage to get him over 2" away from the Squad.

 

He'd still fall back when you lose, as he'd be a part of the squad until the the next Movement Phase, at which point he automatically leaves the squad (from being more than 2" away), and regains his IC status and Fearless, and would regoup the turn after.

 

Wow, thats really terrible. Maybe I shouldn't attach him in future...although, with Ld10, they don't fail Morale tests very often.

QUOTE (Melissia @ Jan 8 2009, 10:20 PM) *

Fact 1: RAW = Standard rules

Fact 2: RAI = changing the standard rules so that they are your interpretation of how they were intended to be.

Fact 3: House Rules = non-standard rules

Conclusion: RAI = House Rules

 

I think what he was trying to say is that RAI and House Rules, while both being deviations, are different in their scope. That is to say, RAI is more of "What is this official written rule supposed to mean?", and House Rules are more like "I think I'll make this up, because it makes me enjoy the game more" (which is not to be discouraged, as GW itself says that "Fun" is the first rule of the game).

 

Yeah, thats what I meant. I think we're in argeement ^_^

 

House rules = RAI, new units, new wargear, new rules entirely

 

as a sub-set

 

RAI = An interpretation of official rules/wargear/units

 

Which is a fine distinction that I'm unsure I want to make, because a lot of RAI rulings seem like they're just making crap up to me.

 

No, it's worthwhile to make, because as you so eloquently put it, 'people make up crap' . Its important to distinguish between 'hey, thats not how I or you wanna play that rule, lets do it this way, because it makes more sense to both of us', and something like 'I wanna change the wargear from X to Y'. I actually agree with you that Celestians should be more 'hacky', but in an official game they've got bolters. In a friendly match, I'd be happy to allow them to have bolt pistol+ccw, but we all at some point play in tourney's (well, at least some of us). The closer we stick to the actual rules, the less problems arise in tourney matches against total strangers.

[SamaNagol]

Unfortunately RAI or common sense are not legally binding in competetive play situations, and the only way you can interpret rules in those environments is RAW, regardless of how retarded it ends up being.

 

God bless GW and their complete lack of proof-reading or regularly updated Errata.

[the jeske]

As such, when a RAW interpretation leads to a situation which is clearly stupid (off the top of my head, the ability of a Deathwatch Razorback to technically Deepstrike), it's entirely reasonable to ignore it

in the 4th when you had that and the rules for one of the lost legions that allowed to deep strike tanks etc while the fluff part of DW told that they use many unortodox and strange methods of deep striking . rules have nothing to do with reason . If rules were true to fluff tyfus should be able to destroy a full IG platoon with armored support and sm should be able to stop tanks with just bolters .

 

Am going with melissa here , RAI are house rules . If it changes how a unit works , no matter if it changes gear or special rules , its illegal . pluse most of you guys are not tournament players , arent you there for fun ? why would you want to changed the rules if balance is not an important aspect of playing for fun.

[boreas]

why would you want to changed the rules if balance is not an important aspect of playing for fun.

 

I kind of agree, here. RAI, are, technically speaking, house rules. And yes, it's because one plays for fun that he wouldn't want "exploits" from poorly written rules.

 

Phil

[Melissia]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use house rules. Houseruling can be fun, especially for those of us who use outdated rules (Daemonhunters comes to mind, with some wargear that GW themselves admitted areuseless and refuse to fix).