Tele-Homer, Librarian, The Summoning, and Warp Stabilization

[Whitefireinferno]

Geeze guys does it mention Teleportation? in any way shape or form? Nope then it is not going to work thus why we have locator beacons and Teleport Homers they work on different things remember you cannot just go and Add word to rules to make them go in your favor I Mean REALLY.

[thade]

Geeze guys does it mention Teleportation? in any way shape or form? Nope then it is not going to work thus why we have locator beacons and Teleport Homers they work on different things remember you cannot just go and Add word to rules to make them go in your favor I Mean REALLY.

When the unit vanishes from the field then reappears somewhere else, we have a term for this; a term that has been used since the 80s so they felt no need to mention it directly. It's called "teleportation". It is unfortunate that, when they wrote the rule, they weren't anticipating rules lawyering. They were anticipating "the Most Important Rule" or, as I like to call it, the GW De Facto "We Write Rools Gewd" Cop-out.

 

As I said, I'll happily accept the rulings of my local clubs while I wait for an FAQ that addresses it directly. Don't expect me to cow to literal RAW, especially when there are several other stellar examples of gross oversites in the GK codex. Unless, of course, you like the idea of a Culexus gaining +24 shots from two Psyker units, or the like. ;)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Very well said thade ! Rules lawyers should be sent to Dakka. *evil*

 

G B)

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh come on.

 

I've been on the other side of the debate here, but I *begrudge* being called a rules lawyer because GW wrote a bad rule.

 

Falchions should be +2A. There. B)

 

The Summoning *might* be teleportation, but that's a personal opinion I'm afraid. It could be warp gates. It could be connecting to points on the space/time fabric together. It could be a portal. It could be handwavium.

 

Even if you *insist* The Summoning is Teleportation, even by existing fluff, it doesn't work with a Teleport Homer. That's just not the way that that specific wargear is built to function.

 

But being called a rules lawyer because the RAW and Fluff support that The Summoning doesn't work with a TH, even if we *wish* it would...

 

Come on.

 

In the least, Ward could have given the Libby a Locator Beacon, but *chose*, for some reason not to.

 

That's no argument to belittle those following the rules of the game though.

[nurglez]

for me, deepstriking and being placed using the deep strike rules are 2 different things.

 

Would you guys allow a squad jumping out of a storm raven using "shadow skies" to benefit from a mystic to not scatter? is this not the same thing?

 

I'd love the teleporter homer to work for summoning, however, unless things are spelled out in black and white via GW I err on the side of caution, thought falchions would be +1 attack even though there was fair argument for +2 attacks, and they were +1.

 

I use a Libby with teleporter homer alongside my Draigo wing, and it is the only unit in my army that has the choice for a homer or skulls. 15 points to ensure that a squad or 2 doesn't scatter when deepstriking in? wonderful.

 

However I have been wrong, (once or twice in my life).

[thade]

I've been on the other side of the debate here, but I *begrudge* being called a rules lawyer because GW wrote a bad rule.

I certainly mean no offense; while I recognize that "rules lawyer" is a pejorative, it is something we are all guilty of. Even those of us that use RAI (i.e. me).

 

It's true what I said. They do not anticipate or try to address potential rules-lawyering with their rule set. They write a rule set that is intended for fun and friendly play; not competitive play. It is ironic that they sanction tournaments when you consider their professed stance...but it makes sense. They're in this to sell models and books; the game is just the medium they use to do it. It is the crux of virtually all rules issues. We want a rule set that is firm and clear...one that will be completely impervious to lawyering. They do not give us one.

[Whitefireinferno]

But Thade it IS clear remember something only does something as long as it says it can and in this case they are not teleporting as much as you want them to be you can fluff it however you want too it still has nothing to do with the rules how the space battles look in your head they could be donning Pink fluffy bunny costumes and jumping to their new position either was the Teleport homer makes no mention of these Bunnys.

 

Oh and Gentlemanloser I am so Glad I did not loose that due to I did not really want to eat mini's.

[thade]

But Thade it IS clear remember something only does something as long as it says it can

This is so not true in this game; so much is left to our memories of prior editions that it gets frustrating. Two examples I cited today (which were only FAQ'd very, very recently) were:

• An IC in TDA attached to a PA unit will prevent that unit from performing Sweeping Advance.
  
• Calgar's "choose to pass or fail" ability does not garner No Retreat! wounds should you choose to pass while locked in assault.
  

The former we agreed to on this board and everybody's played it that way, yet it was only included in the rules very recently. The latter was a Grey Area rule, yet the vast majority of players I encountered played it that way listed above; also only included in the rules very recently.

 

This game's rule set is not written in a strict and clear enough way to be taken as black and white. Really, that is the very point I'm trying to make. It'd be nice, and when it is clear, we treat it as such; but it is not always clear.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

GW didnt write a bad rule. It is people like you that ruin it for everyone else. Rules lawyers say the rules are poorly written as an excuse to exploit them.

 

G :)

 

 

 

Oh come on.

 

I've been on the other side of the debate here, but I *begrudge* being called a rules lawyer because GW wrote a bad rule.

 

Falchions should be +2A. There. ;)

 

The Summoning *might* be teleportation, but that's a personal opinion I'm afraid. It could be warp gates. It could be connecting to points on the space/time fabric together. It could be a portal. It could be handwavium.

 

Even if you *insist* The Summoning is Teleportation, even by existing fluff, it doesn't work with a Teleport Homer. That's just not the way that that specific wargear is built to function.

 

But being called a rules lawyer because the RAW and Fluff support that The Summoning doesn't work with a TH, even if we *wish* it would...

 

Come on.

 

In the least, Ward could have given the Libby a Locator Beacon, but *chose*, for some reason not to.

 

That's no argument to belittle those following the rules of the game though.

[thade]

No reason to single people out, especially in that way. That sort of flaming will only get this thread locked. :\ And it doesn't help anything anyway.

[Gentlemanloser]

GW didnt write a bad rule. It is people like you that ruin it for everyone else. Rules lawyers say the rules are poorly written as an excuse to exploit them.

 

Really...

 

After years of playing RT, I took a break from 40K. I came back to 4th Edition, and maybe with a fresh set of eyes saw that the way *everybody* was playing it was, well wrong.

 

Invulnerable saves and allocation.

 

The all consuming consensus was that if you Marine Squad with Chappy was hit by a lascannon, wel the Chappy took it and made a save with his Rosarius.

 

That was wrong. Terribly wrong, and something that everyone just 'accepted' was the right way to play it.

 

You couldn't allocate wounding hits. You could only allocate unsaved wounds. There was no way for said Chappy to allocate himself to take the Lascannon hit and then use his Invulnerable save.

 

It was prohibated by the rules. Even though that's how everyone played it.

 

And the stuff I was called when I tried to explain this, and see why everyone was playing the game incorrectly.

 

Then 5th came out, and changed the wound allocation rules to help sort the situation out.

 

Now, back to people like me.

 

*Obviously* I was trying to ruin 40K for everyone involved. Sure...

 

And GW doesn't write bad rules? ROFL.

 

That's why, 2 weeks before the release of the Codex we had a 9 page thread about the dodgy rule sin the new GK Codex. Becuase all the rules written are pure gold. Right?

 

Well, the FAQs disagree with you there, and I think every other 40K player would to.

 

This game's rule set is not written in a strict and clear enough way to be taken as black and white. Really, that is the very point I'm trying to make. It'd be nice, and when it is clear, we treat it as such; but it is not always clear.

 

Quite true. (Edit: *Becuase GW writes BAD rules* ;) )

 

But in this specific case, there's no grey areas or wiggle room. :)

 

The RAW doesn't let a TH work with the Summoning. The Fluff for a TH doesn't let it work with The Summoning.

 

It would make sense for them to (or the libby to have a Locator Beacon instead). But it's not a case of a grey area to be solved with a gentlemans agreement. This is so purely black and white it would take a retcon by GW (and they've done it before) to correct.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I see you need to constantly re-assure yourself... that is why you repeat yourself with each post. The rules change on a constant basis. If you want super tight rules then maybe chess would be better for you. I think it is cool new abilities are introduced. It is very easy to criticize. Like I said rules lawyers are the first to cry "bad rules".

 

G :)

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah Ad-homenien.

 

Thanks.

 

It would have been nice if you actually had something to add. But oh well.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I am now dumber for having read this thread. Sure, reasonable people can disagree, and it is not like one of the sides here is acting insane or has a totally absurd argument. But still, really guys? How many times are you going to say the same thing? Even before the childish bickering this thread was repetitive from both sides. Why not go play some more 40k or contribute to another thread? The key word here is "contribute" which is different from simply posting.

[nurglez]

well I said something above but it hasn't been noticed, so I'll write it again.

 

for me, deepstriking and being placed using the deep strike rules are 2 different things.

 

Would you guys allow a squad jumping out of a storm raven using "shadow skies" to benefit from a mystic to not scatter? is this not the same thing?

 

And yeah, stop with personal attacks, people have different opinions on things, thats what makes us different.

[thade]

I am now dumber for having read this thread

If you really feel this way and really oppose posts that don't contribute...why did you post something that doesn't contribute?

 

Other than the mud-slinging, there's been a lot of good points made in this thread.

[thade]

Would you guys allow a squad jumping out of a storm raven using "shadow skies" to benefit from a mystic to not scatter? is this not the same thing?

This is very similar to something that came up on the OR board before (I believe I referenced it in here?): can an IC with JPs attach to and DS with a unit of Terminators? Can an IC in TDA attach to and DS with a unit of Jump Infantry?

 

So far as RAW, it seems like these things can be done; the BRB DS rules are written (frustratingly) from the perspective of a Teleport DS, with only a hand-waivey mention of Jump Packs. However it completely defies common sense, so RAI is "No, you can't do this."

 

If you're married to RAW, it's "easy". Even if it leaves you scratching your head.

[Gentlemanloser]

Other than the mud-slinging, there's been a lot of good points made in this thread.

 

One of the betters I enjoyed from this thread was the Fluff discussion of Strike Cruisers, Teleport Arrays and Teleport Homers.

 

So far as RAW, it seems like these things can be done; the BRB DS rules are written (frustratingly) from the perspective of a Teleport DS, with only a hand-waivey mention of Jump Packs. However it completely defies common sense, so RAI is "No, you can't do this."

 

If you're married to RAW, it's "easy". Even if it leaves you scratching your head.

 

Does the Wargear entry for (all types of) TDA say they *must* DS by teleportation? Or that they *can*? An important distinction. :devil:

 

Like the old Deathwatch Kill Team rules, their method of DS was varied and optional. Grav Chute, Mole Mortars and others were given as methods by which they could DS.

 

Perhaps the durability of TDA also allows them to DS by Grav Chute? Or from a low altitude drop from Thunderhawk (much like Jump Packs)?

[thade]

I really hope come 6th Ed. they delineate types of Deep Strike, i.e. Teleporting, Falling From The Sky, Otherwise Appearing From Nowhere Such That You Can't Shoot At Us Before We Arrive, etc. It would address all of these points of confusion.

[Gentlemanloser]

(Can't resist! :evil:)

 

I really hope come 6th Ed. they delineate types of Deep Strike, i.e. Teleporting, Falling From The Sky, Otherwise Appearing From Nowhere Such That You Can't Shoot At Us Before We Arrive, etc. It would address all of these points of confusion.

 

Well, if GW wrote good rules... ;)

 

:)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

There he goes again.

 

G :devil:

[thade]

I lol'd. :devil:

[Gentlemanloser]

There he goes again.

 

Someone steal your sense of humour?

 

;)

[thade]

There he goes again.

 

Someone steal your sense of humour?

 

;)

Actually, I read that as him contributing to the humor; it was lacking in smilies/winkies though, which - in a world of cold text - are more or less required to help with "inflection". <3

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If we give into the incessant whining then surely the world will be a better place for it.

 

G ;)