Dreadknight teleporter

[Brother Valerius]

Again, it is RAW, not RAI that dictates the game until the FAQ is released despite what you want.

 

It isn't cheating to follow the rules as written. House rule it as much as you want. TO's have the discretion to house rule as well. The point I am making is the rule as written makes the dreadknight jump infantry. It does not make the dreadknight move as jump infantry, it makes it jump infantry.

 

This really.

 

And if we were to discuss this in the OR forum come saturday (GK rules questions on the new dex are barred till then), the concensus would be that the NDK became Jump Infantry I'm sure.

 

(All the while everyone knowing this shouldn't be the case, and is ripe for FAQing...)

 

As was previously stated (by others), nothing that I'm aware of in the BRB says that a unit can't be both MC and Jump Infantry. I'm aware of the issues, which Grey Mage summed up nicely. That doesn't matter for the question at hand, however. If we're really going to break it down to the finest letter of the rules, then we need to find a rule that says that a unit cannot have two types. If that rule doesn't exist, then my answer to the RAW purist is that the unit is both an MC, and Jump Infantry simultaneously.

 

You raised a valid point, earlier, about in what fashion the rules should be combined. I will choose, since there is no clear rule stating either way, to cherry pick the rules that favor me the most. You might say that's rather ridiculous behavior, and I agree. If my opponent, however, is willing to insist on being a rules lawyer, then he is already being equally ridiculous and I have carte blanche to be ridiculous right back. At that point my theoretical opponent would probably decline to play me, which is fine since I had no desire to play with him any more anyways. :P

 

The point is, there's no RAW (that I'm aware of) stating that the jump infantry type replaces the MC type. There is also no RAW (that I'm aware of) explaining how to treat a unit that is two types simultaneously, and has conflicting rules as a result. If we want to be really hardcore RAW purists, then I say the can of worms should be opened all the way, not just a little bit.

 

OR... players can simply interact with each other in a sportsmanlike fashion, note that the intent is obviously for the unit to move as jump infantry, and play it that way. That's my preference, but I'm not going to let someone run roughshod over me either.

[Gentlemanloser]

As was previously stated (by others), nothing that I'm aware of in the BRB says that a unit can't be both MC and Jump Infantry. I'm aware of the issues, which Grey Mage summed up nicely. That doesn't matter for the question at hand, however. If we're really going to break it down to the finest letter of the rules, then we need to find a rule that says that a unit cannot have two types. If that rule doesn't exist, then my answer to the RAW purist is that the unit is both an MC, and Jump Infantry simultaneously.

 

The game stops working if you mix unit types. No RAW needed.

 

You have to house rule the game into nothingness if you start to mix unit types. At that point, you're no longer playing 40k, but your own system. Which might be based on 40k, and use the same mini's. But it isn't it.

 

You raised a valid point, earlier, about in what fashion the rules should be combined. I will choose, since there is no clear rule stating either way, to cherry pick the rules that favor me the most. You might say that's rather ridiculous behavior, and I agree. If my opponent, however, is willing to insist on being a rules lawyer, then he is already being equally ridiculous and I have carte blanche to be ridiculous right back. At that point my theoretical opponent would probably decline to play me, which is fine since I had no desire to play with him any more anyways.

 

You're cheating.

 

Cherry picking for your advantage is cheating.

 

Simple as.

 

Edit: The only fair mehthod here would be to dice off on each individual point you and your opponent couldn't agree on.

 

The point is, there's no RAW (that I'm aware of) stating that the jump infantry type replaces the MC type. There is also no RAW (that I'm aware of) explaining how to treat a unit that is two types simultaneously, and has conflicting rules as a result. If we want to be really hardcore RAW purists, then I say the can of worms should be opened all the way, not just a little bit.

 

There's no distinct RAW to stop it, but the main book does state numerous times the units are all different.

[Captain Idaho]

As was previously stated (by others), nothing that I'm aware of in the BRB says that a unit can't be both MC and Jump Infantry. I'm aware of the issues, which Grey Mage summed up nicely. That doesn't matter for the question at hand, however. If we're really going to break it down to the finest letter of the rules, then we need to find a rule that says that a unit cannot have two types. If that rule doesn't exist, then my answer to the RAW purist is that the unit is both an MC, and Jump Infantry simultaneously.

 

The game stops working if you mix unit types. No RAW needed.

 

You have to house rule the game into nothingness if you start to mix unit types. At that point, you're no longer playing 40k, but your own system. Which might be based on 40k, and use the same mini's. But it isn't it.

 

Massive over reaction. There is simply not a single other unit or character out there which requires mixing unit types, so it's a one-off house rule, one which everyone can see is obvious and makes sense, one which WILL be corrected in a future FAQ by GW.

 

If you and like minded individuals want to be stubborn and say a model which is giant (easily the tallest model in the game except for maybe the Trygon and pretty wide too) uses the rules for a basic jumping infantry model and somehow loses a portion of it's strength, then go knock yourselves out and enjoy it, but the majority of the gaming community will NOT be doing that.

 

And you should be courtesous when playing someone who does want to play with common sense, or quickly find people will have a rather low opinion of you.

 

There's no distinct RAW to stop it, but the main book does state numerous times the units are all different.

 

That's just it, you are playing RAW but picking and choosing your interpretation. Like said before in this topic, there is no precedent for a joint unit type and so you can't say it is forbiddon just because you don't like a flying Dreadknight.

 

Incidently, I am never going to collect Grey Knights and will likely play them, but I will accept the mistake and it's likely solution with good grace and allow my opponent to use their jumping MC.

[Gentlemanloser]

Massive over reaction. There is simply not a single other unit or character out there which requires mixing unit types, so it's a one-off house rule, one which everyone can see is obvious and makes sense, one which WILL be corrected in a future FAQ by GW.

 

If you and like minded individuals want to be stubborn and say a model which is giant (easily the tallest model in the game except for maybe the Trygon and pretty wide too) uses the rules for a basic jumping infantry model and somehow loses a portion of it's strength, then go knock yourselves out and enjoy it, but the majority of the gaming community will NOT be doing that.

 

And you should be courtesous when playing someone who does want to play with common sense, or quickly find people will have a rather low opinion of you.

 

Don't make it personal, I've already stated how I and my group will personally play it. The RAW discuss has nothing to do with it.

 

It's not an overreaction, it's a statement on the rules.

 

If you say;

 

"It's ok for a unit to be of mixed types, as there's nothing to stop it"

 

Then it's ok for *every* instance. Including a Bike/Vehicle, an Infantry/Artillery or an Infantry/Bike/MC/Vehicle. Which breaks the game massively.

 

40k, as written, cannot be played if units are allowed to mix thier types freely.

 

If you want to house rule that just the NDK can, then go for it, there's nothing to stop you doing anything you want with houserules.

 

 

There's no distinct RAW to stop it, but the main book does state numerous times the units are all different.

 

 

That's just it, you are playing RAW but picking and choosing your interpretation. Like said before in this topic, there is no precedent for a joint unit type and so you can't say it is forbiddon just because you don't like a flying Dreadknight.

 

Incidently, I am never going to collect Grey Knights and will likely play them, but I will accept the mistake and it's likely solution with good grace and allow my opponent to use their jumping MC.

 

I'm not picking and choosing. Without breaking the rules, you have to follw the RAW given for the PT. The MC become JI. That's how the PT wargear works, and doing so, while unrealistic, doesn't break the basic rule set of the game, by mixing unit types.

 

Yes it's silly. Yes it's probably an oversight. Yes it deserves a FAQ and will most likely get one as soon as the first new GK FAQ is made.

 

Up until then, a NDK with a PT is no longer a MC, but JI. For all that entails.

 

Feel free to house rule it anyway you want. I will be.

[Captain Idaho]

Feel free to house rule it anyway you want. I will be.

 

I'm not intending to make it seem personal and I apologise for my part if the discussion is leaning towards a being over-heated.

 

However, if you agree it's a mistake, agree you and your group will house rule it, why are you arguing it? We all understand what RAW says and no-one really is disputing it, barring the single idea that no-where does it say you lose MC status but that isn't the crux of the matter anyway.

 

We are saying, with good cause, that the obvious mistake needs to be accepted as that regardless of RAW, and your argument has implied you won't be accepting it.

 

So what would you do if someone, in a pick up and play game at a club or store, said they are using a Dreadknight with Personal Teleporter and wanted to count it as a MC that moves as JI? Would you insist they play it as purely a JI model or would you allow them to play it as the model was intended?

[Gentlemanloser]

Me, of course not. I'd personally play it that the PT makes a MC move like JI. But I'd not assume everyone will play to my houserules.

 

If I'm asked a rules question about it, post in the OR forum, or someone says to me "Hey, you don't get the 2d6 pen as you're now JI", the answer has to be that the NDK isn't a MC any more.

[ValourousHeart]

Is this conversation still going on... For crying out loud... give it up you WAAC jobs.

No opponent, Tournament, or GW (as soon as they get the FAQ out) is going to allow you to treat the Dreadknight as a JI model and allow you to embark it on a stormraven.

 

Really now, stop being idiots about this... and just accept that it works just like every other monstrous creature with wings.

[Marshall666]

Is this conversation still going on... For crying out loud... give it up you WAAC jobs.

No opponent, Tournament, or GW (as soon as they get the FAQ out) is going to allow you to treat the Dreadknight as a JI model and allow you to embark it on a stormraven.

 

Really now, stop being idiots about this... and just accept that it works just like every other monstrous creature with wings.

 

Seconded

[Gentlemanloser]

Well, let's hope that the FAQ is released 9AM Saturday then.

 

Otherwise, for a while at least, the NDK *will* be JI with a PT...

[Brother Valerius]

The game stops working if you mix unit types. No RAW needed.

 

You have to house rule the game into nothingness if you start to mix unit types. At that point, you're no longer playing 40k, but your own system. Which might be based on 40k, and use the same mini's. But it isn't it.

 

Your argument has no substance. Remember, we are talking about a theoretical opponent who wants to play by the strictest letter of the rules, no matter how ludicrous it may be. In that case, that opponent needs to show me a rule that says it can't be two types, or he needs to shut up. He has already chosen to ignore common sense in favor of the rules, so your argument (which is meritorious in general) doesn't apply because it is an appeal to common sense.

 

You're cheating.

 

Cherry picking for your advantage is cheating.

 

Simple as.

 

Edit: The only fair mehthod here would be to dice off on each individual point you and your opponent couldn't agree on.

 

No, sir. It is not cheating (cheating is breaking the rules of the game, which we have established do not exist in this particular case), it's unsportsmanlike. But as I said, if someone starts off by being unsportsmanlike, I'm going to not play (most likely) or, if I do, be unsportsmanlike right back at them. The rules lawyer opponent is the one who chose to drag the game down to that level when they claimed that the unit is no longer an MC, and they can deal with the fallout.

 

There's no distinct RAW to stop it, but the main book does state numerous times the units are all different.

 

Yet our theoretical opponent is clinging to explicit RAW as the only thing which should be followed. If there's no distinct RAW to stop it, then it's allowed.

 

Again, I would never act like this in most situations. But if someone wants to be a :), I'll be a :D right back.

[Gentlemanloser]

Your argument has no substance. Remember, we are talking about a theoretical opponent who wants to play by the strictest letter of the rules, no matter how ludicrous it may be. In that case, that opponent needs to show me a rule that says it can't be two types, or he needs to shut up. He has already chosen to ignore common sense in favor of the rules, so your argument (which is meritorious in general) doesn't apply because it is an appeal to common sense.

 

All anyone needs to do to counter my arguement is explain how a mixed unit works. By the rules. Without houserulling *anything*.

 

How does an Infantry/Artillery unit work?

 

If you can't (and do so for every possibly combination), then the ability to freely mix unit types breaks the game fundamentally. That in itself is enough reason to disallow the NDK being both JI and MC.

 

No, sir. It is not cheating (cheating is breaking the rules of the game, which we have established do not exist in this particular case), it's unsportsmanlike. But as I said, if someone starts off by being unsportsmanlike, I'm going to not play (most likely) or, if I do, be unsportsmanlike right back at them. The rules lawyer opponent is the one who chose to drag the game down to that level when they claimed that the unit is no longer an MC, and they can deal with the fallout.

 

You're houseruling to an advantage. That's not just unsportsmanlike behviour, but outright cheating.

 

It's like houserulling that you get to choose the side of your dice to pick the rolled number off, and your opponent can't, but nothing in the main book says you can't.

 

Yet our theoretical opponent is clinging to explicit RAW as the only thing which should be followed. If there's no distinct RAW to stop it, then it's allowed.

 

Stop what?

 

The RAW says you become JI. That's simple. the RAW doesn't say you remain a MC while also being JI.

 

That's what some are trying to argue.

[Brother Valerius]

All anyone needs to do to counter my arguement is explain how a mixed unit works. By the rules. Without houserulling *anything*.

 

How does an Infantry/Artillery unit work?

 

If you can't (and do so for every possibly combination), then the ability to freely mix unit types breaks the game fundamentally. That in itself is enough reason to disallow the NDK being both JI and MC.

 

No, it isn't. By clinging to RAW, a person makes it clear that they don't hold reason or common sense to be valid. They cannot then turn around and use them as arguments against RAW.

 

You're houseruling to an advantage. That's not just unsportsmanlike behviour, but outright cheating.

 

It's like houserulling that you get to choose the side of your dice to pick the rolled number off, and your opponent can't, but nothing in the main book says you can't.

 

It isn't cheating. Cheating has a very specific definition, and it does not include house ruling to your advantage. House ruling to one's advantage is, by nature, done openly and must be done with the consent of the other side. Furthermore, this isn't house ruling. This is interpreting the rules in a situation which they do not cover (namely, how does one choose which characteristics to apply?).

 

Stop what?

 

The RAW says you become JI. That's simple. the RAW doesn't say you remain a MC while also being JI.

 

That's what some are trying to argue.

 

Actually, the RAW does say you remain an MC while also being JI. It says in one place that the unit is MC. It says in another that the unit is JI. There is no rule saying the latter type replaces the former. There is also no rule saying a unit cannot be both. RAW, it is both.

[hmk17]

I can see both sides of the argument here, but your posts do seem that you are getting hot under the collar about this, Gentlemanloser. Take a step back and breathe.

 

RAW says a lot of things, but that is not necessarily what is supposed to be there.

 

You, yourself, are arguing the point elsewhere that Mastercraft (which affects ONLY to hit rolls, RAW) can cause re-rolls to wound on template weapons. You can't have your cake and eat too when arguing RAW.

 

The problem is that this has not occurred on this scale before. While there are similar examples (Hive Tyrants, Daemon Princes, etc.), those had a more thorough writer that followed through on the rules. I'm also casting a glaring eye at the play testers and proof readers at GW.

 

 

The most logical thing is this:

 

Dreadknight remains a Monstrous Creature, but gains "moves as if it were jump infantry" (Just like an MC with wings) and gains the 30" teleport.

[hmk17]

Stupid double posts

[Gentlemanloser]

I can see both sides of the argument here, but your posts do seem that you are getting hot under the collar about this, Gentlemanloser. Take a step back and breathe.

 

Aplogies if it seems that way! Honestly I'm not! :huh:

 

Promise!

 

You, yourself, are arguing the point elsewhere that Mastercraft (which affects ONLY to hit rolls, RAW) can cause re-rolls to wound on template weapons. You can't have your cake and eat too when arguing RAW.

 

Oh by RAW it doesn't, totally agree there. The rerolling wounds is just how I'd like it to work (one or all). Having a useless wargear option is pointless, and terrible design.

 

The problem is that this has not occurred on this scale before. While there are similar examples (Hive Tyrants, Daemon Princes, etc.), those had a more thorough writer that followed through on the rules. I'm also casting a glaring eye at the play testers and proof readers at GW.

 

Fo sho!

 

Not that I'm suggesting we could do a much better job, for free, if we were just given a little early access to the 'dex or anything. :P

 

Actually, the RAW does say you remain an MC while also being JI. It says in one place that the unit is MC. It says in another that the unit is JI. There is no rule saying the latter type replaces the former. There is also no rule saying a unit cannot be both. RAW, it is both.

 

So for example, you'd argue that Marines bought Jump Packs aren't actually Jump infantry, but a unit of Infantry/Jump Infantry. Or Eldar bought Jet Bikes are also mixed unit type of Infantry/Jet Bike?

 

If that's the case, why stipulate in the unit type rules that Jump Infantry or Bikes follow certain rules for Infantry? It's not necessary. These units are Infantry *anyway* so those rules apply by default.

 

The description for different unit types heavily implies that there are totally seperate form the 'infantry' basic type, even if they utilise some of the Infantry rules (as it would just clutter the book to reprint rules that were the same.

 

No, it isn't. By clinging to RAW, a person makes it clear that they don't hold reason or common sense to be valid. They cannot then turn around and use them as arguments against RAW.

 

This is still a RAW arguement.

 

Show me the RAW that explains how an Infantry/Artillery or Infantry/Vehicle unit works.

 

If you can't, you're just houserulling.

[Grimtooth]

By the standard some of you wish to RAI with your MC/JI stance, Interceptor squads are both Infantry/Jump Infantry.

 

So how many Interceptors can fit in a Storm Raven?

 

Can Interceptors ride in a Rhino?

 

How far can Interceptors move?

 

What kind of terrain test do Interceptors take when ending their movement in difficult terrain?

[boreas]

Wow. I'm... surprised!

 

Let's see. Let's say I'm stuck at a red light and it's obviously defective because it's been 5-6 minutes and it's never shifted to green despite the light switching from green, to red, to green in the other direction. I know it's against the law to cross the intersection, yet nobody in his right mind would stay there until the repair crew passes by.

 

By RAW, he's JI. Okay. But we all know it's going to be FAQed. 100% sure. Actually, I've never so sure about a FAQ answer. Ever. So, why is it important to debate this?

 

Phil

[Brother Valerius]

By the standard some of you wish to RAI with your MC/JI stance, Interceptor squads are both Infantry/Jump Infantry.

 

So how many Interceptors can fit in a Storm Raven?

 

Can Interceptors ride in a Rhino?

 

How far can Interceptors move?

 

What kind of terrain test do Interceptors take when ending their movement in difficult terrain?

 

You've misunderstood. I don't think that the unit is JI. I will never play it that way. I merely intend to answer anyone who refuses to recognize the obvious intent of the rules by holding them to the absolute letter of the law, which is that the unit is both MC and JI simultaneously (which is ridiculous, but I have no problem answering ridiculosity with ridiculosity.

 

Show me the RAW that explains how an Infantry/Artillery or Infantry/Vehicle unit works.

 

If you can't, you're just houserulling.

 

I don't have to. RAW doesn't have to be all-inclusive to be the RAW. This is a situation that, RAW, exists without an explanation of how to handle it. That doesn't change the RAW. You're looking at the situation and claiming that because it creates a serious breakage, it is implicitly disallowed. That is a RAI argument, not a RAW one.

[Gentlemanloser]

which is that the unit is both MC and JI simultaneously (which is ridiculous, but I have no problem answering ridiculosity with ridiculosity.

 

See, this is exactly what i'm debating.

 

That can't possibly be correct. it's game breaking. Brother Ramese and Val have given other viewpoints of why, and as of yet, no one has been able to explain *how* a mixed unit type unit works in game.

 

Without houserulling it.

 

There is no need to use houserules with a PT equipped NDK. The game rules (the RAW) is quite clear. It works, it doesn't break the game nor require any houserulling.

 

Making the NDK both MC and JI at the same time on the other hand does. It breaks the game and requires hourserulling to work.

 

The RAW of the PT isn't half as rediculous are trying to claim that mixed unit type units are a possibility.

[KnowThyEnemy]

correct me if im wrong, but i dont believe anyone is trying to claim that the DK is a MC AND JI. I believe the original argument is that it is a MC that moves as JI and not just a JI because the personal teleporter replaces its MC type. the reason it has been stated that it is both MC and JI is because people refuse to use common sense in this case. Im sure the FAQ will make some people right and some people wrong, either way this is a pointless loop.

[Wahotsu]

By the standard some of you wish to RAI with your MC/JI stance, Interceptor squads are both Infantry/Jump Infantry.

 

So how many Interceptors can fit in a Storm Raven?

 

Can Interceptors ride in a Rhino?

 

How far can Interceptors move?

 

What kind of terrain test do Interceptors take when ending their movement in difficult terrain?

 

6.

probably not.

12", with a 30" 'shunt'

dangerous terrain?

 

what is the exact difference between infantry and jump in fantry?

what is the exact difference between infantry and a monstous creature?

what is the exact difference between infantry and a vehicle?

 

EDIT: TY knowthyenemy

[KnowThyEnemy]

if the jump pack works just like a normal one (minus the 30" move) then i believe they take up 2 slots in a transport, at least they do in the BA dex when it comes to stormravens. and i dont think interceptors can be placed in a rhino (unless im remembering it wrong). also, by declaring a unit is now jump infantry (not just a MC but a regular unit for example) what rules come in conflict with its counterpart? isnt the only change between jump infantry and infantry movement related? so wouldn't that be the only difference between monstrous creatures and jump monstrous creatures (new phrase! JMC :))?

[Grimtooth]

By the standard some of you wish to RAI with your MC/JI stance, Interceptor squads are both Infantry/Jump Infantry.

 

So how many Interceptors can fit in a Storm Raven?

 

Can Interceptors ride in a Rhino?

 

How far can Interceptors move?

 

What kind of terrain test do Interceptors take when ending their movement in difficult terrain?

 

12.

probably not.

12", with a 30" 'shunt'

dangerous terrain?

 

what is the exact difference between infantry and jump in fantry?

what is the exact difference between infantry and a monstous creature?

what is the exact difference between infantry and a vehicle?

 

How is it able to take 12? Jump Infantry take up two slots in a Stormraven so wouldn't it only be 6?

 

Why can't they ride in a Rhino? They are Infantry after all.

 

Infantry can only move 6".

 

Infantry do not take dangerous terrain tests for moving in difficult terrain.

 

Just to point out:

 

P28 GK Dex (Strike Squad and Interceptor Entry): "Units with personal teleporters are jump infantry...."

 

P93 GK Dex (Interceptor Entry): "Unit type: Infantry"

[Wahotsu]

It would appear, that despite the evidence given, people just want to argue.

 

quick note: has anyone actually tried contacting GW and getting their take on this?

or is that outside the realm of possibilities?

[Grimtooth]

Just to clarify a couple things in this thread;

 

1. A Storm Raven would only be able to carry one JI Dreadknight. It is a unit, only one unit may be in a transport at a time.

 

2. IIRC, a Dreadknight is only ever a unit of one so cannot be joined by an IC and placed in said Storm Raven

 

I am looking at this as a balance issue and seeing just what happens:

 

With a PT making you JI you gain:

 

12" JI movement

30" Shunt

Easier cover save

Embark in a Storm Raven

Deep Strike

 

With PT making you JI you lose:

 

2d6 Armor Pen

Move Through Cover

Relentless

Fire two weapons

 

So where is the glaring imbalance of the rule as written in that the PT changes the unit type to JI?