Jump to content

Dark Angels Assault Squads.....


KGatch113

Recommended Posts

If you want proof that GW makes different wordings for the very same mechanics look at the Standards page.

 

In the three different Sacred Standards they use the terms "of this standard" "of the model carrying this standard" and "of this banner"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want proof that GW makes different wordings for the very same mechanics look at the Standards page.

 

In the three different Sacred Standards they use the terms "of this standard" "of the model carrying this standard" and "of this banner"

 

I do not disagree with your analysis at all.

I in fact agree with it completely.

As a former National Tournament Pro Tour level judge in MtG... I agree with the assessment that WoTC views their 'game' differently.

I just wish GW would at least try harder... like I said $180 for some books that come with flaws from day 1 is irritating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were only a couple of typos I wouldn't be too bothered, but several pages of stuff ups and the need for multiple threads about what in hell do they mean is pathetic.

 

I produce legal prosecution docs most days at work; if my work had such a poor standard I'd get a beatin' from our lawyers when they got back from court.

 

We usually know what GeeDub usually means but often 'WE' don't; I'd rather read threads about how to use our well written rule set to kick face but am constantly disappointed by their sloppiness. We end up with these threads full of arguments and vitriol and discuss how not to cheat instead of how great GeeDub is at producing dexes.

 

Back to mediocrity...

 

That is all

:P

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side, these are our future lawyers/politicians in training. msn-wink.gif

I am boarding the next shuttle to Mars

EDIT: Stobz for one I wont agree with you. Yes there are mistakes and yes they could Have done a better job. But all those threads are nothing more than a desperate cry out to: Lash on the book for just the heck of it and simply to abuse perfectly clear rules just because they can. You can expect them to have a grammar specialist to take into context every last word and phrase. Its a guidebook for a game not guide to learn english in twenty steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is all this talk of two flamer templates on the charge?  You give the Sgt./Vet. Sgt. a combi-flamer (and powerfist), so you have THREE flamer templates on the charge.

 

Otherwise, it is easy to argue as to which interpretation is correct.  Are all of the other codex entries wrong, and this one is right, such that these two marines supposed to be the only Swiss army knife marines of any codex, in the entire game?  Or, are they suppose to follow the other interpretation, which follows the format of every other unit in the game, such that these two marines swap out a basic weapon for a another weapon?

 

Thinking...rationally....making...brain...hurt....NNNNNGGGHHH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha Brother I,

I have no problem understanding GWs rules or intent (most of the time). It is very clear to me that having two flamers and two plas pistols (and a combi flamer Shabbz) is not allowed in our Assault Squads.

I, like others, spend a lot of money on this hobby and would like a better product for that money.

Simple really.

 

:D

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a look at the Chaos Space Marine entry in their new codex....

One Chaos Space Marine ..... replace his boltgun with a:

- Flamer

- Meltagun

- Plasmagun

By the rationale of the OP, Chaos Marines could have a guy with a flamer, another with a melta and a third toting plasma....... and yet I haven't read a single thread in the Chaos forum where someone is trying to argue that this is possible. Yet in this sub-forum it seems that every day there's a new thread trying to exploit the rules! wallbash.gif

Sorry I'm just really cross about this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or by the argument made that since there isn't an "or" listed in that choice structure, facmanpob, that one Chaos Space Marine could actually be entitled to take all three on the same model, because as the argument said, if it doesn't say "or" then it actually means "and". So one Chaos Space Marine may replace his Boltgun with a Flamer and a Melta-gun and a Plasma Gun. That's one kitted out dude (not to mention would probably be a funny model to make).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha Brother I,

I have no problem understanding GWs rules or intent (most of the time). It is very clear to me that having two flamers and two plas pistols (and a combi flamer Shabbz) is not allowed in our Assault Squads.

I, like others, spend a lot of money on this hobby and would like a better product for that money.

Simple really.

biggrin.png

S

Agreed and In the past I had jumped ( and at times still do) at their throat for such behaviour.

Rules however in this codex are clear. There have been a couple of problems that were open to debate (missile lock, LR deathwing vehicle etc) but those were FAQed and cleared Immediately. There are mistakes and problems overall with quality but the two matters are seperate. Thats what I am trying to say. For once people try to create loopholes insted of discovering ones. I guess if one is used to such behaviour, its destined to be repeated no matter what. Whats more dissapointing is that the questions arrising from such debates are not RAW vs RAI but borderline to: how can I take advantage of a situation when I clearly cant.

It sadenss me to see such behaviour from people who were great sportmen and I liked to think that this was not due to nessecity (gimped codex). Now it seems we have been given a well balanced codex and no matter what we have to turn it into a cheesestorm, whether we can or not.

Sorrowfull times to indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Bryan - Having just returned from the dentist I still have lots of painkillers coursing through my system from the injections, and my face is all tingly. I have therefore decided that I am no longer bothered about exploits and so I propose that all grammatical conjunctions ("and", "or" etc) be immediately removed from all codexes, thereby allowing us to do whatever we want.......

 

 

 

 

 

......or that may just be the drugs talking ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Bryan - Having just returned from the dentist I still have lots of painkillers coursing through my system from the injections, and my face is all tingly. I have therefore decided that I am no longer bothered about exploits and so I propose that all grammatical conjunctions ("and", "or" etc) be immediately removed from all codexes, thereby allowing us to do whatever we want.......

......or that may just be the drugs talking msn-wink.gif

We can ignore codices and homebrew everything too. That will do good to your dentist BTW. I can see a lot of people need work done on their moyths after...some friendly brawls on the new rules msn-wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel like some are so used to the bad design codex in v4, trying to find loopholes to profit from bad units with bad rules so that they may have an army with a chance to win, that they don't profit from what they already have... biggrin.png

Though I agree with Jehoel on most he said, I recognize that Stobz is right too.

Sure GW is not a game company but a model company. The v6 have flaws, it's the reason why it WILL be a v7 and therefore more models sales.

However, like for everything, there's a limit : explain me WHY, for Lion's sake, the entry of the vets introduced : "up to 3 veterans may replace..etc", instead of "any veteran may replace"?
That's not what I call a typo, a forgotten word or an added one... No that's just an entire sentence wrong!
Same thing for my French version : they replaced special wargear by chapter relics in the techmarine entry... Damn it's just totally different!
But that explain why some may try to find interpretations where it's not needed : how to be sure when you see such mistakes?

So yes we can't expect GW to word better the PP/flamer issue of the OP, but there's still way of improvement... And correct this kind of loophole will indirectly prevent such PP/flamer interpretation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.