Grand Strategy and Death Company

[Morticon]

Nah, im a BA player. Im sure as heck not wanting GK to take one of my armies best units for unfluffy reasons.:D

Its not about what I want, its about the stronger argument being presented.

 

So far what you've implied is that there is a hierarchy of rules conditions (obviously based on language).

 

You are positing that:

 

1. "Cannot do X"

 

and

 

2. "Can never do X"

 

Are completely different in your mind. (fair enough)

 

You are positing that:

 

3. A rule saying: "Can do X if Y" - is only applicable in case 1. and case 2 supercedes it on account of the use of "never".

 

What i'm positing is that if something tells me I can do something and something else tells me I can never do it...

 

that this is a direct contradiction.

 

 

You argue: "No it's not, because it says it can 'NEVER' do it".

 

I argue: "But the rule says I "CAN" do it in this instance".

 

How does your argument supercede mine without you cycling back to saying: "it says never" ?

 

(because my argument will cycle back to me saying "but in this case it says I can").

 

It really does seem clear to me that when it says "never" it means "never"

 

In terms of rules for 40k, never doesnt ever mean never. It means never until exceptions show otherwise.

[awfulawful]

In terms of rules for 40k, never doesnt ever mean never. It means never until exceptions show otherwise.

 

And that, my friend, is why I simultaneously love and hate 40k. :lol:

[thade]

Can a Grey Knight Grand Master inspire marines who've fallen to the Black Rage? I'd say the result of that would be DIV BY 0 and the game would crash...which means the table would flip itself. @_@

[Morticon]

Can a Grey Knight Grand Master inspire marines who've fallen to the Black Rage? I'd say the result of that would be DIV BY 0 and the game would crash...which means the table would flip itself. @_@

;)

[thade]

Well...the arguments for both sides seem well formed and solid and yet they are in opposition. Neither one really makes significantly more assumptions than the other. RAW grey area?

 

As far as RAI goes, that's also a bit of a pickle fluff-wise; I'd say Black Rage trumps Grand Strat... as (let's be honest here) if the GK saw the Black Rage kick up they'd immediately probe the affected marines for taint and then answer the epic ageless question that should never be answered about the Blood Angels...which (more honesty here) would probably result in the GK Allies turning on their no-longer-Convenient BA Allies.

 

As for RAI meta-wise, let's be honest still. It seems cheeky. Your opponent will probably think it seems cheeky which is not very sportsman-like (as being cheeky is not very sportsman-like). Thus, on that factor alone I strongly recommend against trying to do this...unless you've talked it out at length with your opponent beforehand and he or she agrees with you, of course.

[Gentlemanloser]

What's the wording on vehicles 'never' scoring?

 

Does the BRB state that vehicles cannot ever score?

 

If so, that invalidates the arguement that TGS can't make DC scoring, as they can never score.

[thade]

What's the wording on vehicles 'never' scoring?

 

Does the BRB state that vehicles cannot ever score?

 

If so, that invalidates the arguement that TGS can't make DC scoring, as they can never score.

Codex trumps BGB, so when the GK Codex says "That which cannot score now can" that's fine if it's disagreeing with the BGB. It is not fine when you have Codex vs Codex. In the absence of true clarity or an FAQ, both Codecies are on equal footing, so which one takes priority?

 

I stand by my conclusions above.

[Gentlemanloser]

Specific versus General? Basic versus Advanced? Dice off? And on a 4+ the DC score? lol!

[thade]

Specific versus General? Basic versus Advanced? Dice off? And on a 4+ the DC score? lol!

No, those were not my conclusions.

 

...Besides, didn't you leave us? <3

[Aidoneus]

I agree with Mort on basically everything. So, where does this put us... We all think the Grand Strategy applying to allies is clear-cut, but different people think it clearly leads to different results. Meanwhile, we seem to all agree that Unyielding Anvil vs. Black Rage is intractably contradictory. :P Lovely.

 

Personally, I'm not going to use Grand Strategy in this way because I don't want the hassle of arguing about it with my opponents. That being said, I really wish the rules were better written and we had a clear answer, just because I like knowing the boundaries of what I am and what I'm not allowed to do. I'm finding this to be more and more of a problem with 6th ed the more I read and discuss it. :lol:

[thade]

Meanwhile, we seem to all agree that Unyielding Anvil vs. Black Rage is intractably contradictory. :) Lovely.

Perhaps we should in fact put this up for Grey Area consideration? Or should we instead wait for the second FAQ wave? (Mods?)

 

Personally, I'm not going to use Grand Strategy in this way because I don't want the hassle of arguing about it with my opponents.

This is precisely the best way to deal with it, in my opinion. It's how I will treat it as well, personally. (I will in fact be bringing GK Allies alongside my BA-codex using army.)

 

That being said, I really wish the rules were better written and we had a clear answer, just because I like knowing the boundaries of what I am and what I'm not allowed to do. I'm finding this to be more and more of a problem with 6th ed the more I read and discuss it. <_<

This has been true since the dawn of 40k, man. Nothing new here. The game's built for fun times and epic narratives; it's poorly suited for competitive play. It is what it is. <3

[Gentlemanloser]

...Besides, didn't you leave us? <3

 

In spirit. <_<

 

Couldn't quite do it in body. :)

 

(My Basic/advanced post above was totally tounge-in-cheek! ;) )

[Morticon]

Meanwhile, we seem to all agree that Unyielding Anvil vs. Black Rage is intractably contradictory. :) Lovely.

 

Aidoneus, if you're the one using this ability, and your opponents were okay with it, would this not be perfectly fluffy/rulesworthy to then roll off the rules? If you believe theyre intractably contradictory?

[dswanick]

...Besides, didn't you leave us? <3

 

In spirit. <_<

 

Couldn't quite do it in body. :)

 

(My Basic/advanced post above was totally tounge-in-cheek! ;) )

Well, get your tongue out of my cheek - you prtv... ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

lol!

 

I'm a bit lazy atm, so have a bit of a beard, and my wife doesn't like it... <_< So I'll have to find any willing cheek! :)

 

(Far too off topic now! Er, something on topic about TGS).

 

Does anyone have any notion about how TGS works with multiple detachments? No Issues?

 

I really think the issue was nailed shut by Codex rule versus Codex rule, and this needs a FAQ.

 

Sure GS wasn't FAQed like things like 'litanies' was. But then Those FAQ were rushed and shoddy. What AP is a Daemonblade with the Etherblade upgrade for example. ;)

 

TGS was 'probably' missed out in the round of FAQing that limited buffs to same codex only.

[Aidoneus]

The game's built for fun times and epic narratives; it's poorly suited for competitive play. It is what it is. <3

I'm not even talking about competitive play. I make it to 1 or 2 friendly local tournies a year, so 99% of my gaming is for fun times anyway. But even then, my friends and I want to know what the rules are. These issues come up, we look them up in the book, and then get frustrated when there is no clear answer. "Friendly" doesn't mean "playing-fast-and-loose-and-to-hell-with-rules." At least, not to us.

 

Does anyone have any notion about how TGS works with multiple detachments? No Issues?

I don't see why it would be a problem. The rules says choose units "in your army," not in your detachment. As far as I know, multiple detachments have no effect other than giving you more force org slots.

 

I really think the issue was nailed shut by Codex rule versus Codex rule, and this needs a FAQ.

I think that's been clear for the past few posts, at least. Best bet is to avoid it. If not, at least discuss it with your opponent, and possibly offer to Hand Of God it (it works on a 4+). Otherwise, start the long and fruitless wait for an adequate FAQ. ;)

[thade]

"Friendly" doesn't mean "playing-fast-and-loose-and-to-hell-with-rules." At least, not to us.

Nor does it to me.

 

Since Allies that are not Battle-Brothers typically cannot use powers and abilities on units in other Codecies, it seems safe to me to assume GMs can't Grand Strat the DC, or anybody. Consider this: there is a reason that GK are Battle-Brothers with no one, and not only because it makes fluffy sense. It's because the powers in the GK book are insane and this is balanced out by all of their models cost a lot of points, making the number of models per army is low. Battle-Brothers would allow you to work around this fundamental restriction on that codex: namely you could take a Librarian and five PAGK and discover why Might of Titan and Quicksilver aren't allowed to be used on Death Company or Nobz. The Grand Master's ability to make other units Scoring is really the same kind of thing.

 

Analysis

Here's my honest analysis of why - in game terms - this is probably not allowed.

 

If Death Company were Scoring, they would be auto-take; they are super, super good. They're like Vanguard with Boltguns. Only they hit way harder and have FNP, Fearless, and Rage built-in. They are one of the few ways in the BA dex to take a unit with JPs and boltguns. If they took up a Fast or Elite slot, they would compete pretty fiercely (almost unfairly) for those slots, impacting list diversity. So they're too good to go into Elite or Fast slots, but way too good if they can score. The solution? Troop unit choice that never scores. (Recall that the old BA codex solution was that they basically didn't take up a slot but you just "got them" if you had enough other units.

 

So, now, if this Grand Strat works as you assert, well I'd be stupid to not take at least one GM in every single list because DC are way better than my other Troop choices. Why take Tacticals or an assault squad when I can take units with built in FNP and they're both Fearless and Rage (neither of which have drawbacks any longer). I don't need Sanguinary Priests, Tacticals, Assault Troops, Scouts, nothing. It's basically required to take two cheap-as-dirt GMs as two five-man PAGK squads, then pack in the DC. At least two will be scoring, probably three. The rest are still nasty, nasty Death Company.

 

Bottom-line: this seems to landslide too quickly to me. It's not unstoppable, but it it's very very strong as an all-comer and you'd have to kit a list specifically to deal with it. (If you've ever faced a list of all DC - even in last edition - with Dante and Lemartes, you know what I mean.) It's so good, I can't see them intending for it to ever be allowed...that's why, I think, they put never there.

[Grey Mage]

That being said, I really wish the rules were better written and we had a clear answer, just because I like knowing the boundaries of what I am and what I'm not allowed to do. I'm finding this to be more and more of a problem with 6th ed the more I read and discuss it. :)

Thats because its barely been out more than a week.

 

Give it a few months and a core book FAQ atleast.

[Gentlemanloser]

Why should we have to wait that long?

[Splitwrist]

Why should we have to wait that long?

 

Because it's a table top game and not computer game that can be patched in a long afternoon of coding...

[Grey Mage]

Why should we have to wait that long?

 

Because it's a table top game and not computer game that can be patched in a long afternoon of coding...

Pretty much. While FW did have a 24 hour turn around on their holofield FAQ, GW usually takes a month to three months...

 

And its not unreasonable to wait until atleast the first FAQ to come out before we start saying the sky is falling. Between now and then a few gentelmans agreements and a bit of patience goes along way.

[thade]

This game is extremely complex. There are lots of options, allowing us an absolutely massive number of ways to customize our armies. This is not without downsides. Namely, because the number of options is so huge, it's nigh impossible for the GW team to test them all prior to release. Their core rules are a bit loose to allow them to be creative with upcoming codecies as well as not impacting the older ones in bad ways; small changes can have very wide-reaching implications and, as it's so impractical to test everything, they probably at least give a change a few weeks in frequent games to see that it's not tragic. If t turns out tragic, they take more time.

[Gentlemanloser]

lol at CG patching.

 

This is an issue we're discussing *days* after release of the rules.

 

It would be shocking that we, as humble gamers, could find flaws that *professional* developers (who get paid to find these things) missed so close to the release.

 

This is hardly an issue of complexity, but rather an issue of laziness/complacency.

 

Which is something I *won't* stomach for a product that is vastly overcosted anyway.

 

Doesn't anyone think that GW missed off giving Flakk by accident? The tin foil hat of watning to sell more Fortifications aside, it's seemingly a laziness/complacency issue.

 

Yeah yeah, we've put Flakk into the game. We'll get aorund to giving it to you sometime.

 

Really?

 

How long?

[dswanick]

Yeah yeah, we've put Flakk into the game. We'll get aorund to giving it to you sometime.

 

Really?

 

How long?

Especially in light of thier rigorous Codex update schedule. Dark Angels is almost twelve years and two Editions old. It wasn't so long ago the Codex: Space Wolves was the most-out-of-date codex. So what's next? Are certain armies not going to get Flakk for another ten years and two codexs?

[Morollan]

Doesn't anyone think that GW missed off giving Flakk by accident?

 

Not for one moment. I'm 100% convinced that it is a deliberate decision and that it will be added in to the new version of Codex: Space Marines when that is redone. Why let people who've already bought a codex have something when they can be required to buy a new codex in order to have it? Particularly when you're already trying to get these people to buy the old codex again by issuing it in digital format.