Sang Guard Death Mask vs Walkers

[BlackSpike]

(as are the designers of the game that have commented on the issue)

 

Could you tell me who these people are, please? i was not aware of any of the GW games designers commenting here.

[SamaNagol]

The designers can say what they like, if it isn't in an official FAQ or Errata it means diddly

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Well a lot of people said deff rollaz should affect vehicles, but here you seem to be in the minority in regard to this topic. So I don't think that lends any credence to your position.

 

0b :tu:

[BlackSpike]

Well a lot of people said deff rollaz should affect vehicles, but here you seem to be in the minority in regard to this topic. So I don't think that lends any credence to your position.

 

0b :tu:

That was exactly my point! ;)

A lot of people also said they didn't (hence a FAQ was needed).

Numbers of people do not make an argument true.

[Aarkon]

The designers can say what they like, if it isn't in an official FAQ or Errata it means diddly

 

Then there is no use me pointing you to quotes from designers, since you have made your mind up that the oppinions of the makers of the game rules doesn't matter in your eyes, which I find to be an odd statment.

 

Either way, I don't think you and I will agree which is fine, lets hope you and I don't sit at a table together. We would just dice that off since I don't see either camp changing sides really so at this point there is really no point in moving on. Both sides have stated their points and neither seems to budge. This is why the 'dice it off' rule exsits

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

These are the kind of situations that can make a game become unfun quickly. If it were a pickup game I'd find someone else to play. In a tournament I'd ask the TO for a ruling.

 

0b :tu:

[SamaNagol]

Lol I said I won't be using it, and it is so specific I doubt you would see it crop up more than once in a blue moon.

 

My issue is with the wording and language used in rules which whilst they may be colourful and descriptive, they end up being ambiguous. And if you go by the letter of the law in the codex you have to accept the fact that it does affect walkers. I find it baffling that the writer did not say pass a morale test like Fear Of The Darkness

[BlackSpike]

These are the kind of situations that can make a game become unfun quickly. If it were a pickup game I'd find someone else to play. In a tournament I'd ask the TO for a ruling.

 

0b :tu:

 

This is exactly why I read/post in these forums.

So that at the table, i have some idea of what people's readings of the rules are, and what issues there might be.

 

I don't just glance at the rules, say "Oh, of course it means X" and stick with that.

I research what it actually says, what that means for the game, and (unfortunately, due to GWs lax writing) where the loopholes or uncertainties might be.

 

At the table, I state how i think it is, if my foe disagrees, we can have a short discussion, and then if we still cannot come to agreement, we dice off or call a TO.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think this has been discussed to death now. No need for any further comment.

 

0b

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

These are the kind of situations that can make a game become unfun quickly. If it were a pickup game I'd find someone else to play. In a tournament I'd ask the TO for a ruling.

 

0b

 

This is exactly why I read/post in these forums.

So that at the table, i have some idea of what people's readings of the rules are, and what issues there might be.

 

I don't just glance at the rules, say "Oh, of course it means X" and stick with that.

I research what it actually says, what that means for the game, and (unfortunately, due to GWs lax writing) where the loopholes or uncertainties might be.

 

At the table, I state how i think it is, if my foe disagrees, we can have a short discussion, and then if we still cannot come to agreement, we dice off or call a TO.

 

I'd repeat what BO said... after our "short discussion", if your view stands anywhere near trying to find meaning from "the loopholes or uncertainties" I would choose not to play you in future games.

[BlackSpike]

I'd repeat what BO said... after our "short discussion", if your view stands anywhere near trying to find meaning from "the loopholes or uncertainties" I would choose not to play you in future games.

 

That is your right.

I do not try to exploit the loopholes and uncertainties, and apologise if it came across that way.

I look for them so i know how to close them, when an opponent uses them against me.

 

I would much prefer it if GW play tested their rules properly (and I do not think the Risk/Chess analogy used earlier is true.)

In this case all it needed is "This does not affect units without a Ld Value", or "Units without a Ld Value are affected automatically", or "Does not affect vehicles", or some such easy, simple clarification.

[SamaNagol]

Even 'must pass a morale test' would be preferable, as I doubt they intended it to affect Fearless units either due to it being completely counter-intuitive

[Brother_Dan'l]

I think this has been discussed to death now. No need for any further comment.

 

0b

Sold.

 

We really aren't going to resolve this in terms of a consensus simply because some folks are more concerned by flaws in the letter of the rules than in accepting what is the most probable spirit of the rules. And that's fine. There have been all together too many instances in the past where the letter of the rule was so outrageously off that it caused major problems that couldn't be resolved. I don't find this to be one of those times, but others do. To me it's quite simple. Sanguinary Guard Masks and Dante's Death Mask have no effect on vehicles with a WS because they have no LD to test against. Other's disagree but claim they would never try to use a Mask against a Walker in a game regardless. Why this required 6 pages of argument I can't imagine. But like watching any good train wreck I just couldn't look away. Till now. ;)

[Arkio]

aarkon i would like you to show me where the game designers have chimed in and said this was incorrect,

 

secondly, sang guard are not designed to attack walkers period. BUT i follow the logic of those saying not passing =/= failing. as to fail i need to roll higer on two d6 where as passing i need to roll under.

 

my death masks saved my sang guard yesterday multiple times vs hordes of meganobs.

 

i think they did intend it to effect fearless units however a mob of 30 ork boys are fearless, yet the halo of scariness makes those in the front row (going toe to toe with the death masks) need to take a LD check to see if they strike like feeble little girls or not.

 

I agree that walkers should not be affected due to the lack of stats BUT for the sake of devils advocacy, using the taking an exam example, if i go and take an exam and pass or fail i have succeeded at passing or failing the test; however, if i do not show up for the exam (not having that stats to take it) i cannot pass the exam; therefore, the effect takes place.

 

is this looking for the smallest loophole in the rules? of course, is this how the writer(s) intended it? possibly not based on how it is written. Is this a basis for mature responsible discussion to provide the players of the army and those against the army with the ability/information to articulate and back up why one is allowed and the other not i think it needs to be done.

 

i find myself in samanagols camp on this as one of the fence sitters seeing both sides of the argument. where as a player i would agree that it does not affect walkers but as the rule is written i have to agree not being able to test the stats does not constitute failure but inability to test does not constitute passing said test. therefore as the rule is written on page 50 of the codex i would succeed the point to a particularly passionate player as in my reading of the rules i states pretty clearly that that is what occurs. were I in the company of those i regularly find myself playing with we would likley come to a mature decision and rule that that is outside the intent. but until an errata or FAQ comes in stating that as i said 2 sentences earlier i would allow my walker to be redueced to WS 1 and watch as the sang guard are stuck in combat with my dread for the remainder of the game, 125 pnt wlaker tying up a 225+ point squad sounds like a good use of points to me,

 

@ chaplain gunzhard all of your objections to this rule seem to be based on opinion and righteous indignation, and frankly your use of the words common sense and douche and other things i find to be offensive and rude invalidate all your arguments ( see: Opinon) in my eyes as you have not been able to state why this is not the case without stooping to your opinion or mud slinging.

[Leonaides]

i think they did intend it to effect fearless units however a mob of 30 ork boys are fearless, yet the halo of scariness makes those in the front row (going toe to toe with the death masks) need to take a LD check to see if they strike like feeble little girls or not.

 

Shouldnt that have affected every one of those 30 ork boys? They dont have to be in base-to-base to have been assualted by a unit equpped with Death Masks... If my 5 SG's assault a unit of Orks, I'm assaulting the whole unit, not just the 5 guys at the front...

[Arkio]

i think they did intend it to effect fearless units however a mob of 30 ork boys are fearless, yet the halo of scariness makes those in the front row (going toe to toe with the death masks) need to take a LD check to see if they strike like feeble little girls or not.

 

Shouldnt that have affected every one of those 30 ork boys? They dont have to be in base-to-base to have been assualted by a unit equpped with Death Masks... If my 5 SG's assault a unit of Orks, I'm assaulting the whole unit, not just the 5 guys at the front...

 

 

 

sigh..... yes leo it did effect the whole mob (those within the 2" to get swings in) i was using the non table top illustration that those at front would be cowed to a lesser weapon skill despite the large mass of orks. one of thge many reasons i hate forum posts is people that decide to nitpick one sentence from a post and make an offtopic post in here.

 

i'm sorry my eloquence was not what you expected

[Judaz]

The biggest problem here is that too many people is letting their emotions play a part in the discussion. Most of us saying that, by RAW, the mask work against walkers, also say that we wouldn't dream of using it in a game. There's a hole in the rule and we want it closed.

 

I don't care if you would leave the table if someone tried to use it against you. The problem is that the opponent even had a slight chance to abuse the rules. If the rules were better written, like the gift of chaos, then this discussion would be done at page 1.

 

And fluffwise, it's not just a piece of mask, it's a 'golden energy' that forms a 'horrifying halo' so fearless troops aren't exactly scared of the mask, it might be a warp thing :lol:

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I think you've completely missed the point. RAW is not the be all end of every rules argument. In this particular case saying it's RAW is quite a long stretch. RAW advocates are always quick to kill any threats to their interpretations.

[Arkio]

I can see both sides of the arguements. and i do think judaz os correct in regards to the people having kneejerk reactions and puting emotions into the situation. these discussions are just that and one of the reasons i refuse to play at GW or game stores. most of my experience at those stores are of 14 y old kids whose parents drop them off and treat the gw store as a free daycare/babysitting service while they shop downtown, and i look at most of the posts and see the 14 year old kids coming out of the woodwork saying waaaah thats not fair as opposed to formulating concise accurate arguments

[Judaz]

Of course RAW are to be the end of all discussions regarding rules...in a perfect world. Unfortunately it isn't so since the rules are written quite bad sometimes. This is one of those times. And we don't kill any threats, we just don't believe anyone has brought us any evidence against our case that the mask will work against walkers.

 

Almost every argument against masks working against walkers is made with common sense and reason. But common sense and reason just ain't enough if you face an opponent with another point of view. In those cases we need rules that says what common sense tells the majority of us: that the mask don't work against walkers. But the way it's now, there are no rules or FAQ that tells us that is so.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Not really. Lots of people use How I Would Play It (HIWPI) versus RAW. In fact I go so far as to say that is the majority. Often the answers in GW FAQs are not based on a RAW interpretation. There are many cases where RAW simply breaks down and does not work. For example you are only able to reroll a dice once, so if you tied rolling to see who goes first then tied again by RAW the game is over because you can't roll again.

 

>.<

 

Sure lots of times RAW is the best way to interpret a rule but it shouldn't be blindly applied.

 

0b :lol:

[SamaNagol]

Actually a tied dice off is not a re-roll. It is a separate roll.

[BorisBC]

how the hell did this get to six pages? Walkers are vehicles and they don't take Ld tests - cause they don't have that value! It's not value 0 so auto-fail, it's they can't take the test! Sheesh. The only time a vehicle has to take a Ld test is Libby dreads, and it specifically states they are Ld 10. Death masks have no effect against vehicles at all. Anyone who pulled this BS rules-lawyer crap against me in a game would be laughed and mocked until my throat was sore!

[Arkio]

how the hell did this get to six pages? Walkers are vehicles and they don't take Ld tests - cause they don't have that value! It's not value 0 so auto-fail, it's they can't take the test! Sheesh. The only time a vehicle has to take a Ld test is Libby dreads, and it specifically states they are Ld 10. Death masks have no effect against vehicles at all. Anyone who pulled this BS rules-lawyer crap against me in a game would be laughed and mocked until my throat was sore!

 

*/DISCLAIMER*

While I have been unable to find rules that refute this rule soundly, I agree that it was not intended to work this way.

*/END DISCLAIMER*

 

In an impartial individuals logical interpretation, having asked a friend who does not play the game to read the sections on vehicle leadership, leadership checks, and walker rules. agreed that the logic of how the combination of the rules are worded that the walker IS reduced to WS 1

 

vehicle LD checks on PG 63 strictly talk about morale checks, not leadership tests, these are both different tests.

also in charecteristics tests its discusses nothing about not being assigned a stat for LD causing either an automatic pass or fail, (please find me a page number for this)

furthermore, if one cannot take a test one cannot PASS a test, while i agree not being able to take a test does not make you fail one either, the rule on page 50 of the blood angel codex stats to PASS a leadership test do X, not on a failed leadership test do X

I would love to see the page(s) of the RULEBOOK refute this. as i would like to have the nessesscary page numbers available if someone tries to pull this on my blood talon dread.

[Spacefrisian]

The biggest problem here is that too many people is letting their emotions play a part in the discussion. Most of us saying that, by RAW, the mask work against walkers, also say that we wouldn't dream of using it in a game. There's a hole in the rule and we want it closed.

 

 

Dont say that most peeps say that by Raw it works cause that aint true. Only 2 or 3 say it works vs the many others (including me). And saying that we bring in emotions to this is also weird as we simply use common ssense on this matter.