Sang Guard Death Mask vs Walkers

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Not that I expect this debate to ever be resolved but the bottom line really is this:

 

No matter how you are able to prove or qualify either point - We all know the intention of the rule was that it does NOT affect walkers/vehicles, and if you play it otherwise you are really just being a douche.

 

The rulebook is pretty clear when it states that the rules are just a guideline for which you and your opponent should be able to create a 'fun' game out of (page 2). Trying to find hidden meanings and interpretations for sake of exploitation is just ridiculous and sad.

[SamaNagol]

Firstly you cannot assume the intention of the rules. The author probably didn't even consider walkers at all. They also probably didn't consider Fearless units either which is an equally ridiculous hole in the rule

 

Secondly telling people to go and make their own minds up and charging £15 for the privelige is unacceptable

[MaleOpener]

Sanguinary Guard's Death Mask

- an enemy assaulted by one or more unit equipped with Death Masks must pass a Leadership test or be reduced to Weapon Skill 1 for the duration of the Assault Phase.

 

Hmmm...

Walkers don't have Leadership values so I guess the Death Masks automatically reduce them to WS 1...

Death Mask wording doesn't mention non-Vehicle or Walkers...

Nothing on the FAQ... so it should work.

 

 

Its an interesting question.

 

The rulebook states vehicles never take morale checks, but doesn't state anything about LD checks.

 

The rulebook states a characteristic of 0 automatically fails, but doesn't state anything if the model doesn't have the characteristic in the first place.

 

If we were to agree that the Dread's WS drops to 1, the Sang Guard will still struggle to damage it unless a model has a power fist.

 

Likewise, its not too hard for the Dread to roll a 5 or 6 , then using its S10 to squish a Sang Guard model.

 

Personally, I don't sink my points into Death Masks. I use the points instead for infernus pistols, meltaguns, and taking more than one squad of Sang Guard.

 

As for Dreads, I use my tanks to pop them at a distance or "ram" them when they get close.

 

:tu:

[ImperialReaper]

Anyone here has a drivers license ?

 

You pass your test - you get your license and you are good to go.

You fail it - you dont get your license and wont go anywhere.

You dont / cant take the test - you also dont get your license.

 

And thats the most basic comparrison I am capable of.

[BlackSpike]

Not that I expect this debate to ever be resolved but the bottom line really is this:

 

No matter how you are able to prove or qualify either point - We all know the intention of the rule was that it does NOT affect walkers/vehicles, and if you play it otherwise you are really just being a douche.

 

The rulebook is pretty clear when it states that the rules are just a guideline for which you and your opponent should be able to create a 'fun' game out of (page 2). Trying to find hidden meanings and interpretations for sake of exploitation is just ridiculous and sad.

 

We all know that the intention of the rule was that it DOES affect Walkers. No need to use rude words.

 

Trying to find hidden meanings and interpretations for the sake of exploitation (i.e. keeping your dread alive when it should be dead) is just ridiculous and sad.

 

See how it works both ways?

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Not that I expect this debate to ever be resolved but the bottom line really is this:

 

No matter how you are able to prove or qualify either point - We all know the intention of the rule was that it does NOT affect walkers/vehicles, and if you play it otherwise you are really just being a douche.

 

The rulebook is pretty clear when it states that the rules are just a guideline for which you and your opponent should be able to create a 'fun' game out of (page 2). Trying to find hidden meanings and interpretations for sake of exploitation is just ridiculous and sad.

 

We all know that the intention of the rule was that it DOES affect Walkers. No need to use rude words.

 

Trying to find hidden meanings and interpretations for the sake of exploitation (i.e. keeping your dread alive when it should be dead) is just ridiculous and sad.

 

See how it works both ways?

 

Umm no, not even close. The OBVIOUS and CLEAR meaning is that this rule does NOT affect walkers. I do understand that one could IMPLY an alternative meaning from "hidden interpretations"... but for one, to pretend that you cannot see the clear intention of this rule is only hurting your argument, whether or not you agree that the wording can be 'exploited'.

[BlackSpike]

Umm no, not even close. The OBVIOUS and CLEAR meaning is that this rule does NOT affect walkers. I do understand that one could IMPLY an alternative meaning from "hidden interpretations"... but for one, to pretend that you cannot see the clear intention of this rule is only hurting your argument, whether or not you agree that the wording can be 'exploited'.

 

Well, i was just going by what the words in the book actually say.

 

What might be obvious and clear to you is not always obvious and clear to other people.

Can you explain to me why you think that the intention was to exempt Walkers from the effect?

I would have thought they would have mentioned it, or said "If you Fail a Ld test, reduce your WS to 1".*

 

I can see why people would think that Walkers are exempt from the effect (having no Ld value), but I do not think that the rules actually make that distinction.

 

*I also thought they would have play-tested this rule, and had someone on hand to say "What about Walkers?", but I was wrong there, too! :(

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Umm no, not even close. The OBVIOUS and CLEAR meaning is that this rule does NOT affect walkers. I do understand that one could IMPLY an alternative meaning from "hidden interpretations"... but for one, to pretend that you cannot see the clear intention of this rule is only hurting your argument, whether or not you agree that the wording can be 'exploited'.

 

Well, i was just going by what the words in the book actually say.

 

What might be obvious and clear to you is not always obvious and clear to other people.

Can you explain to me why you think that the intention was to exempt Walkers from the effect?

I would have thought they would have mentioned it, or said "If you Fail a Ld test, reduce your WS to 1".*

 

I can see why people would think that Walkers are exempt from the effect (having no Ld value), but I do not think that the rules actually make that distinction.

 

*I also thought they would have play-tested this rule, and had someone on hand to say "What about Walkers?", but I was wrong there, too! :(

 

Aaannnddd... we are back to the beginning where the obvious answer is 'common sense'. You are correct that no specific distinction was made, as it should not be needed and as is the case with the majority of the rules intended for reasonable people to read (you can always try to add 'hidden meanings'), but you do acknowledge 'why people would think that Walkers are exempt', because that is really the "common sense" reading of the rule.

 

For one thing, if GW designed 40k solely for the exploiters and rules-lawyers - we would have risk or chess. The variety and the flexibility, and sometimes the 'loose-ness' of the rules are what make it fun for mature individuals. Look at the expansions... Planetstrike basically 'breaks' 40k... if done maturely it is terribly fun!

 

Now let's apply your implied logic to another rule in the book: The rulebook makes no specific distinction for vehicles launching assaults. It explains how you can assault a vehicle and how to hit a vehicle and even that vehicles don't stay locked in combat, but it never specifically says that a vehicle cannot itself launch an assault. And as the vehicle has no WS value, by your logic, it automatically 'passes/fails' (add your own exploited bs reason here) it's to-hit roll... so then what happens? It has no S value either so it automatically 'passes/fails' it's to-wound roll also... OR you quite TRYING to look for reasons to justify something that you know is total BS and enjoy the game for what it is...

[BlackSpike]

Now let's apply your implied logic to another rule in the book: The rulebook makes no specific distinction for vehicles launching assaults. It explains how you can assault a vehicle and how to hit a vehicle and even that vehicles don't stay locked in combat, but it never specifically says that a vehicle cannot itself launch an assault. And as the vehicle has no WS value, by your logic, it automatically 'passes/fails' (add your own exploited bs reason here) it's to-hit roll... so then what happens? It has no S value either so it automatically 'passes/fails' it's to-wound roll also... OR you quite TRYING to look for reasons to justify something that you know is total BS and enjoy the game for what it is...

 

Actually, I said that it neither passes nor fails, rather than your opposite, and meaningless, statement that it "automatically passes/fails".

 

I agree (and hadn't noticed before!) that there are no rules regarding Vehicles launching an Assault.

As you cannot compare WS with a unit that has no such characteristic, there is a problem.

There are Tank Shock rules, but it is never stated that these replace assault rules, but are an option.

Bad GW Rules-Writing.

 

I do not agree that this is the same as the point under discussion here.

 

I am not "looking for hidden meanings" or trying "exploited bs".

I am reading the rules, and using them as written.

 

The rule for Mask states:

- an enemy assaulted by one or more unit equipped with Death Masks must pass a Leadership test or be reduced to Weapon Skill 1 for the duration of the Assault Phase.

 

I assault your Dreadnought. It is reduced to WS1 unless you pass a Ld test. Have you passed your Ld test? No, because you cannot take the test, and can neither pass nor fail.*

Therefore, you are reduced to WS1.

Where is the Hidden Meaning? Why is my argument not "Common Sense"? What "exploiting bs" have I used?

 

Why is your "obvious and clear" interpretation more valid than my "obvious, clear and supported by words in the book" interpretation?

 

Why not quit trying to look for reasons to justify keeping your dread alive, and enjoy the game for what it is?

 

*Note again: "neither pass nor fail", quite distinct from "automatically pass/fail", which I have never said.

[Oiad]

Reading through both the codex and BRB I'm gonna have to go with the following:

RAW - The walker is affected though whether it is automatic or they take a test, I dunno. Does the lack of a leadership value neccessarilly constitute as a 0? *strokes chin*

RAI - Depends on whether you feel the driver would be affected (he see the masks after all), discuss it before the battle with your opponent. Roll for it if you disagree.

 

The problem lies in the fact that the BRB only specifies morale tests and not leadership tests in their affects on vehilces and walkers. Morale tests tend to represent bravery and mental endurance while leadership tests cover morale and many other facets of the warriors battlefield psyche. Going by the description of what the masks do - 'forming a horrifying halo... [sic] then they should inflict morale tests strictly speaking but are tested on the wider spectrum of the leadership test. I blame it yet again on more lousy writing...

[jsutter]

Well, I think it is ridiculous to try to say that they affect walkers and I probably would not play against the player who tried this more than once. But, if the person was an otherwise decent player (in my opinion) I would just add Tycho or Sicarius to my BA or C:SM force and make all of my units LD 10.

[Aarkon]

Ok well there is only one other power out there that I can recall of that can set a precedent. That would be Gift Of Chaos. Now this was mentioned WAY back but no one seemed to care.

 

The argument is, since the Dreadnought has no Leadership it can not there for 'Pass' the test. And thus the Mask goes off.

 

Gift of Chaos is the same sort of power as you must 'Pass' a toughness test or be reduced to a Spawn. Gift of chaos then sets precedent for further rules by saying "Models without a toughness characteristic cannot be affected"

 

This is where I would point to there being prior precedent that, models without a stat are unaffected by abilities that call for checks on that stat.

 

Thats what I would point to if my opponent tried to pull this on me, if we disagreed from there we'd be rolling a dice because I woldn't push from the camp of it doesn't work on Dreads.

[SamaNagol]

I already answered the Gift of Chaos issue. You must roll above the models toughness. As a vehicle has no toughness value it is impossible to roll above its toughness and as such a vehicle can never become spawn. If the rule stated that "you must pass a toughness test otherwise you are turned into spawn" then vehicles would automatically become spawn.

 

Thankfully this isn't the wording.

 

Anyone who says they find it ridiculous a sentient driver of a walker can be affected by the awe inspiring visage of a death mask, I would retort that I too find it ridiculous that my Fearless unit is affected by a death mask because they aren't afraid of anything. My opinion of the intention of the rules has no less founding in truth or fact than your opinion and this is why it is VITAL to address RAW issues such as this one. Opinions vary and the only way to have fair games is to have an official ruling where rule wording is inadequate. Just because you find this one instance to be ridiculous, but accept say a Grey Knight Force Weapon killing outright and ignoring Eternal Warrior, does not mean you will always play people who agree with your opinion. This is where arguments happen.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You can just as much say the walker cannot fail the test as well since it never has to take one. Common sense tells us this only applies to units with a leadership value.

 

0b :tu:

[SamaNagol]

And let me reiterate; I HIGHLY doubt anyone in this thread will go off and start charging walkers with their sanguinary guard siting RAW. We are simply highlighting sloppy wording of rules.

 

This is why I firmly believe GW should have a standardised language for rules and only use their flowery descriptive prose for the fluff descriptions in the bestiary.

 

You can just as much say the walker cannot fail the test as well since it never has to take one. Common sense tells us this only applies to units with a leadership value.

 

0b :tu:

 

Sir, we do indeed say the walker cannot fail the test. We have said that many times in fact.

 

The issue is that failing the test is irrelevant. The walker must pass the test to avoid the death mask effects, not fail the test to activate them.

[Aarkon]

I already answered the Gift of Chaos issue. You must roll above the models toughness. As a vehicle has no toughness value it is impossible to roll above its toughness and as such a vehicle can never become spawn. If the rule stated that "you must pass a toughness test otherwise you are turned into spawn" then vehicles would automatically become spawn.

 

Thankfully this isn't the wording.

 

Anyone who says they find it ridiculous a sentient driver of a walker can be affected by the awe inspiring visage of a death mask, I would retort that I too find it ridiculous that my Fearless unit is affected by a death mask because they aren't afraid of anything. My opinion of the intention of the rules has no less founding in truth or fact than your opinion and this is why it is VITAL to address RAW issues such as this one. Opinions vary and the only way to have fair games is to have an official ruling where rule wording is inadequate. Just because you find this one instance to be ridiculous, but accept say a Grey Knight Force Weapon killing outright and ignoring Eternal Warrior, does not mean you will always play people who agree with your opinion. This is where arguments happen.

 

 

No argument, at this point if you and I were at a table I would simply say we can dice off or we can clean up our models and maybe play diffrent opponents. If it was a tournament and this wasn't an option I would simply call the TO over, we can both state our facts and we'll go by what that TO says.

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

Now let's apply your implied logic to another rule in the book: The rulebook makes no specific distinction for vehicles launching assaults. It explains how you can assault a vehicle and how to hit a vehicle and even that vehicles don't stay locked in combat, but it never specifically says that a vehicle cannot itself launch an assault. And as the vehicle has no WS value, by your logic, it automatically 'passes/fails' (add your own exploited bs reason here) it's to-hit roll... so then what happens? It has no S value either so it automatically 'passes/fails' it's to-wound roll also... OR you quite TRYING to look for reasons to justify something that you know is total BS and enjoy the game for what it is...

 

Actually, I said that it neither passes nor fails, rather than your opposite, and meaningless, statement that it "automatically passes/fails".

 

I agree (and hadn't noticed before!) that there are no rules regarding Vehicles launching an Assault.

As you cannot compare WS with a unit that has no such characteristic, there is a problem.

There are Tank Shock rules, but it is never stated that these replace assault rules, but are an option.

Bad GW Rules-Writing.

 

I do not agree that this is the same as the point under discussion here.

 

I am not "looking for hidden meanings" or trying "exploited bs".

I am reading the rules, and using them as written.

 

The rule for Mask states:

- an enemy assaulted by one or more unit equipped with Death Masks must pass a Leadership test or be reduced to Weapon Skill 1 for the duration of the Assault Phase.

 

I assault your Dreadnought. It is reduced to WS1 unless you pass a Ld test. Have you passed your Ld test? No, because you cannot take the test, and can neither pass nor fail.*

Therefore, you are reduced to WS1.

Where is the Hidden Meaning? Why is my argument not "Common Sense"? What "exploiting bs" have I used?

 

Why is your "obvious and clear" interpretation more valid than my "obvious, clear and supported by words in the book" interpretation?

 

Why not quit trying to look for reasons to justify keeping your dread alive, and enjoy the game for what it is?

 

*Note again: "neither pass nor fail", quite distinct from "automatically pass/fail", which I have never said.

 

This is why I think this is all complete BS... you know you are really stretching here and you know what the intended rule is... as for your logical conclusion that "because you cannot take the test, and you can neither pass nor fail," you are thusly affected by the rule. I'm sorry if you think it's rude, by you must know that any opponent you try to impose this on is going to think you are a jerk - though I am certain you know this, you are just arguing that by the letter of the rule it IS possibly to make this interpretation.

 

And regardless your logic is not entirely sound and given the (lack of) information at hand the only conclusion we can make is based on reason and common sense.

 

...let's take another perspective: an enemy must turn his car left or drive off a cliff. What if he does not have a car? ...does he still drive off a cliff? You are trying to prove absolute truths in abstract, fictional rules when you know darn well the real meaning... - total - b - s ...

[SamaNagol]

So you agree that in this issue an official judgement call would need to be made.

 

And of course I would abide by a judges ruling.

 

So you agree that in this issue an official judgement call would need to be made.

 

And of course I would abide by a judges ruling. Same as I would abide by an official errata/FAQ even of it didn't follow RAW. it's happened before and it will no doubt happen again

[SamaNagol]

Not having a car doesn't preclude you from turning left :tu:

 

And no one is being a jerk or name calling here. The phrase 'must pass a test' is very clear in it's wording. If you cannot pass a test then you are at ws1. blame the writer.

[Aarkon]

So you agree that in this issue an official judgement call would need to be made.

 

And of course I would abide by a judges ruling.

 

So you agree that in this issue an official judgement call would need to be made.

 

And of course I would abide by a judges ruling. Same as I would abide by an official errata/FAQ even of it didn't follow RAW. it's happened before and it will no doubt happen again

 

NO I do not agree. I agree that if you and I were at a table we would need a ruling. I am a Blood Angel player and would never even attempt this as I am part of the RAI camp (as are the designers of the game that have commented on the issue), not the RAW camp. I usually find the RAW camp is always attempting to break the rules or game for personal gain in games. My opponents would never need an official rule/FAQ/ERRATA as I would never pull this.

 

You and I at a table would as you appernently would try to pull this.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think most people will agree that this only applies to models with a Ld value. Some are digging to deep.

 

0b :tu:

[SamaNagol]

Why do you think reading the rules clearly is on some way gaining an unfair advantage

[Aarkon]

I already answered the Gift of Chaos issue. You must roll above the models toughness. As a vehicle has no toughness value it is impossible to roll above its toughness and as such a vehicle can never become spawn. If the rule stated that "you must pass a toughness test otherwise you are turned into spawn" then vehicles would automatically become spawn.

 

I am not saying these rules use the same wording what I am stating is that in this rule, GW set a precedent, where a power is unable to affect a model without the stat that is affected by the power. This, in my mind shows GW's intention that, models without a given stat can not be affected by powers/abilites that call for a check on that given stat.

[BlackSpike]

This is why I think this is all complete BS... you know you are really stretching here and you know what the intended rule is... as for your logical conclusion that "because you cannot take the test, and you can neither pass nor fail," you are thusly affected by the rule. I'm sorry if you think it's rude, by you must know that any opponent you try to impose this on is going to think you are a jerk - though I am certain you know this, you are just arguing that by the letter of the rule it IS possibly to make this interpretation.

 

And regardless your logic is not entirely sound and given the (lack of) information at hand the only conclusion we can make is based on reason and common sense.

 

...let's take another perspective: an enemy must turn his car left or drive off a cliff. What if he does not have a car? ...does he still drive off a cliff? You are trying to prove absolute truths in abstract, fictional rules when you know darn well the real meaning... - total - b - s ...

 

So, without actually addressing any of my points, you are going to continue blindly quoting "common sense" and "reason", when you actually mean "opinion"?

 

You have not pointed out where my logic is not sound.

You merely state that my conclusion of "because you cannot take the test, and you can neither pass nor fail," will make people think I am a jerk. (Again, just your opinion of what other people will think)

This is not something that is either new or scary to me!

It is also not something that decides what the right ruling is! People called me a jerk when I said Deff Rollas could effect vehicles.

 

Until someone explains why "not being able to take the test, due to no Ld value"* exempts them from the effect of reduced WS, I don't think I have much more to say here.

 

*Although Gift of Chaos uses a similar mechanic, it specifically states what to do in such a case, which I do not feel is good enough to form binding precedent. The Masks do not specifically state, so no such exception is made.

[Aarkon]

Why do you think reading the rules clearly is on some way gaining an unfair advantage

 

I didn't say that reading the rules clearly = gaining an unfair advantage. What I said was people in the RAW camp in my personal experience seem to attempt, the key word being attempt, to use RAW vs RAI to gain an advantage where one was not intended.

 

This doesn't mean I am more or less correct then you, I am just pointing out my feeling on the subject at this point which can widely vary from others obviously.