Sang Guard Death Mask vs Walkers

[Baragash]

Whilst it may carry no weight in many people's eyes, there was an older FAQ regarding the Talos (question arising from Mind War) where GW ruled that Ld-based effects didn't effect models that didn't possess the characteristic.

[BorisBC]

*/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.

 

The problem with getting your mate to do that, is it misses the key history behind 40K, and that is that vehicles have never, ever, taken a leadership test UNLESS SPECIFIED. It's why they don't have a value, and if they do need to, then it's noted in the rules (like Mr Libby Dread). Remember GW make you roll for things, and if you can't roll for it, then you can't do it. It doesn't need to be spelled out, as anyone who's played the game understands that. It goes against the whole core aspect of the game that things need dice rolls to happen.

 

If however, someone wanted to argue the point - and I was being nice - I would potentially let them take the test but with the walker as Ld10. There's precedent for that. I sure as hell would not let it pass as an autofail. That's Jersey Shore levels of stoopid. :P

 

 

 

Whilst it may carry no weight in many people's eyes, there was an older FAQ regarding the Talos (question arising from Mind War) where GW ruled that Ld-based effects didn't effect models that didn't possess the characteristic.

 

I couldn't find that anywhere - it's not in the DE dex or the FAQ. And the FAQ treats it as a Monstrous Creature, plus it's actually got a Ld, it's just '-', so that just confuses things even more!! :lol:

[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.

 

 

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.

 

What I meant to say was that a majority of the people that claims that the mask should work, also say that we wouldn't use it in a game. I'm sorry if my english failed.

 

And if you read through the pages, the pro-posts are quite logical and non-judging, while the con-posts sometimes uses insults and I do believe it was you that brought in a 'double face palm' into a discussion. How is that logical and not emotion?

[Judaz]

And that old Talos FAQ would be interesting to see, that might be the ruling we are looking for.

[Spacefrisian]

The Talos thing is noted in the Dark Eldar codex.

[Judaz]

Yep, read the DE codex and the Talos have a Ld of '-' so it's not helpful here. But if there was an older FAQ it might help, but then it's older than the DE codex, so it may be too old to be of any use here.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Not really as it would answer the question from GW POV.

[Judaz]

In a way it would be guiding, but if it's from the 4th edition it's not the ruling we need. We need something fresh, from the 5th to shut this down completely.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

4th edition is fine.

 

0b ;)

[Brother Weasel]

Not really as it would answer the question from GW POV.

 

why does it take 7 pages to get to this point?

 

you aren't going to get an official ruling any time soon, it's a pretty minor loophole in the grand scheme of the game.

 

as for their play testing, just because one little thing (that most people who have played the game, that would include play testers I'm guessing, general assume if you can't take the test then it doesn't effect the target) again, in the grand scope of the codex or the game, is a pretty minor thing.

 

Most of use wouldn't use it, nut then again, most of us probably aren't charging a dread with the sang guard anyways:) if someone used it against me, I'd let em, woopie, it's really a very minor thing going on, after the game i'd let em know my feeling towards it and have a discussion to see if we'd play again, mostly because i tend to just want to have fun and it's not a big problem:)

 

but you aren't going to find a rule in the rule book that refutes that it works, and if you go by pure raw then it did not pass the test.. argue back and forth over what is logical, good, smart whatever, no one will "win" the argument as written, so it's an exercise in futility. After 7 pages people are just arguing to argue.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some of the posters here cannot let it go. I think this is obvious by now. It's all about having the last word at this stage.

 

0b ;)

[Morticon]

Which will have to be a mods no doubt.

 

I cant believe this went on for 7 pages.

 

Sillyness.

 

Closing for sillyness and past sell-by date.