warding staves and nemesis falchions

[Gentlemanloser]

My C&P Fails, but check the GK FAQ.

 

The save can be taken against *all* wounds caused while engaged in close combat, and not just close combat attacks.

 

When does the wound taken from a perils when activating Might of Titan or your Force Weapon happen?

 

While engaged in Close Combat?

 

Therefore Codex > BRB and your get a 2++ versus the wound caused by Perils.

[IndigoJack]

this is what confused me

warding stave grants the 2++ in cc, if i perils in cc is it "a wound in close combat" or completely different?

the way i saw it was for example

grey knight terminators + libby assault a squad of tacticals -> libby casts hammerhand, rolls 2 1s, suffers perils -> rolls for 2++ save because he is in close combat and suffered a wound while in close combat

i want to get this straightened out before i go to tournament and open a can of worms if this happens

You can ask a TO, but I doubt they'd allow it. On the off chance that they did and you managed a win, people are going to assume it's because of WAAC playing, not through your own ability, no matter how skillful you played.

That doesn't make it any less wrong

It's not 'wrong' though. You might not like it, or think it should work differently. But that's currently the rules.

For the third time, according to RAW, yes, you can do it. It's morally wrong, because you're exploiting a loop hole in the game.

and it's directly contrary to the rule about no save being allowed against perils

But that's exactly what a Codex over ride is supposed to do.

Take Supporting Fire.

You *must* be the unit being charged, in order to make an Overwatch attack.

But there is exists a Codex rule that directly contradicts that.

Supporting Fire is so contradictory to the rule book, that they made it a special rule. It's clear that supporting fire is supposed to override the normal rules for overwatch. The FAQ entry for warding stave does not mention that it can be used for perils specifically, it just says all wounds. You have mentioned in the past that GW isn't the best at rules writing. Don't you think this is more of an example of poor word usage rather than allowing a 2++ for a fringe case of perils?

[dswanick]

 

This stuff again? There should be no argument about this whatsoever because the codex and the rulebook do NOT conflict with each other in this scene. The Staff gives you a 2++ save against wounds in close combat, and the rulebook says that no ++ saves can be taken against perils. Its like saying your terminators could take an armor save against plasma fire just because the codex says it gives the model a 2+ save.

A Warding Staff gives a save against Wounds suffered in close combat. Perils causes a wound (sometimes, even in close combat as defined by the FAQ). There's your conflict.

[thade]

As dswanick has made clear, this one's a lil' bit dodgy. RAW is clear: a GK with a warding stave does seem to be permitted to take an invuln save against Perils, while no other model in the game has that option. If this was in fact their intention (it may have been) I'd have preferred for them to have been a bit clearer about it...but that's GW for you. Some people may (vehemently) disagree with you, as the pure (if wonky) RAW serves the GK player a substantial benefit: not only can the model be a veritable tank for the unit in CC, but now it can brush aside Perils of the Warp in the meat-grinder as well.

You'll want to hash this out with your gaming group beforehand to see if people get bent out of joint about it, so you can reach an understanding before coming to a halt mid-game. This is as good a write-up as any here to demonstrate both what the rules seem to say and how the disagreements tend to go.

For the record, I'd play this one as dswanick explained it. While it's not written in a way that satisfies, it doesn't really leave much ambiguity, unless you start layering assumptions onto it. Codex says that it works against all wounds incurred in close combat, so there it is.

[Aethernitas]

I have to say I'm a little surprised and a little disappointed that B&C of all the forums I regularly frequent seems to be the most uncompromising and bleakest when it comes to enforcing RAW over all. Theres really no love lost for naive fluffbunnies like me. Worst of all - Thade has also joined the dark side. Damn cookies.

[dswanick]

I have to say I'm a little surprised and a little disappointed that B&C of all the forums I regularly frequent seems to be the most uncompromising and bleakest when it comes to enforcing RAW over all. Theres really no love lost for naive fluffbunnies like me. Worst of all - Thade has also joined the dark side. Damn cookies.

Don't misunderstand - I would never play this way, nor advocate or condone others playing this way. It is, however, the RAW way to play - and I would not fight someone playing it that way in a competitive environment.

It is also important for self-proclaimed "fluffbunnies" to know what a rule is before making a counter-argument based on what it probably should be.

Now, have a cookie. ;)

[thade]

I have to say I'm a little surprised and a little disappointed that B&C of all the forums I regularly frequent seems to be the most uncompromising and bleakest when it comes to enforcing RAW over all. Theres really no love lost for naive fluffbunnies like me. Worst of all - Thade has also joined the dark side. Damn cookies.

Haha, How often do I go on tirades about how important RAI is? Even right here on the GK boards.

It's a good idea to operate in RAW-land when its statements are so clear; not only because it's a very easy way to provide a common frame of reference, but also because it's kind of nice when it's clear at all. There are more than a few wonky grey areas in the game that I'm at the forefront of the complaint-parade on. When rules are unclear and we need a definitive answer (so we know how to play it) RAI and friendly discussion amongst your gaming group is the way the conflict will be resolved.

In cases like this, however, the only reason the RAW is being questioned is that some of us here simply don't find it palatable. Do I find it palatable? No. Is that grounds for me to assume it works another way? Not really, no.

Occam's razor is our friend. Assuming it means precisely what it says involves at least one less supporting assumption than assuming it does not mean precisely what it says. (Namely, you'd need to assume first that it doesn't mean what it says, THEN assume it means something different, THEN assume reasons why that may be the case.) Because the RAW interpretation in this case can prove so powerful for the controlling player, eschewing your invuln saves vs. Perils can only gain you good rep. (Well, and also you'll be fighting up hill.) It's not a bad idea to go that road if you wish. I do for a lot of other stuff. In fact, if my opponent seemed miffed about the RAW here and didn't seem to understand it, no reason to not let it slide.

[Gentlemanloser]

For the third time, according to RAW, yes, you can do it. It's morally wrong, because you're exploiting a loop hole in the game.

 

Morals and loopholes are very subjective.  There's no real way to discuss them other than I'm right/you're wrong.  Which isn't productive (nor interesting).

 

Everyone can house rule, and I'm sure a lot of folk do.  About a bunch of issues.

 

But the moment you do, you're no longer playing Warhammer 40k, but your version of the game.  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  As long as you don't expect others outside your local group to be playing the same as you (or wanting to play the same).

 

 

The FAQ entry for warding stave does not mention that it can be used for

perils specifically, it just says all wounds. You have mentioned in the

past that GW isn't the best at rules writing. Don't you think this is

more of an example of poor word usage rather than allowing a 2++ for a

fringe case of perils?

 

The vast majority of thier rules are badly written, we should really expect that as the norm.  Sadly.  Like a Brotherhood Champion being able to take Digial Weapons as an upgrade option.

 

We're all trying to use thier badly written rules.  The whole Assault phase is a jumbled mess that needs to be totally rewritten, from the ground up.

 

And if you give a global condition (all wounds in this case), you really don't need to specify.  That would mean your global conditiion isn't really global.  If all wounds doesn't include wounds inflcted by perils, then what does it include?  What else can you exclude becuase it's not specifically mentioned?

 

And if we're assuming that all wounds doesn't actually mean all wounds, then how can we assume that any other global condition GW have given us is actually global?

 

There is such a lack of concise, robust rules, that if you start to try to apply intentions or assumptions to some, you can't stop.  And in the end you'll need to rewrite the entire game.

 

Or produce a massive FAQ packet like the TO's do.

 

 

Occam's razor is our friend. Assuming it means precisely what it says

involves at least one less supporting assumption than assuming it does

not mean precisely what it says. (Namely, you'd need to assume first

that it doesn't mean what it says, THEN assume it means something

different, THEN assume reasons why that may be the case.) Because the

RAW interpretation in this case can prove so powerful for the

controlling player, eschewing your invuln saves vs. Perils can only gain

you good rep. (Well, and also you'll be fighting up hill.) It's not a

bad idea to go that road if you wish. I do for a lot of other stuff. In

fact, if my opponent seemed miffed about the RAW here and didn't seem to

understand it, no reason to not let it slide.

 

And this is what I dislike about interjecting RAI.  Especially when the rules are clear.  The RAW is clear here, as is support by Occam's Razor, if you use that as a means of viability.

 

So why then should we be expected to deny ourselves this ability, just to make our opponent feel better?

 

Should we also deny other RAW solid things as well?  Like making Brotherhood not activate all our force weapons, as our opponent feels its unsporting for us to be able to remove entire units of multie wound bases through it.  Or that making a DreadKnight scoring is so powerful.

 

Edit;

 

I find the new-ish FAQ that gives Helldrakes 360 torrent flamers to be un-palatable, and too powerful.  I'd never suggest to an opponent that they shouldn't use that change though.

[thade]

Morals and loopholes are very subjective.  There's no real way to discuss them other than I'm right/you're wrong.  Which isn't productive (nor interesting).

No conflict over the rules is intrinsically moral in nature; the motivations behind a given player's arguments can be. There certainly are "real ways" to discuss this kind of thing, but it requires both players to be coming at the discussion with one core interest in mind: to ensure that both players have fun. Make friends with the people you game with. <3 This is a good idea no matter what game you're playing, but with a rule-set as hard to follow as this one can be, the better that players get along, the better everybody's experience will be.

 

Everyone can house rule, and I'm sure a lot of folk do.  About a bunch of issues.

 

But the moment you do, you're no longer playing Warhammer 40k, but your version of the game.  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  As long as you don't expect others outside your local group to be playing the same as you (or wanting to play the same).

Indeed it's not a bad thing; in fact, it's RAW. See The Spirit of the Game and The Most Important Rule. It's a good idea to stick as closely to the RAW as you can, especially when playing with new people. But if you and your opponent both hate the way a rule works, well, the game permits you to change it amongst yourselves. 

 

Should we also deny other RAW solid things as well? ...

Slippery slope. Changing one rule that a given set of gamers hates doesn't necessarily mean that the entire game breaks down. All that matters for rule alterations, whether or not they're absolutely necessary, is that the players involved are both clear on the Why and clear on the What Now.

[chaplain belisarius]

wow! complicated stuff! thanks guys..

[soots]

yea sorry guys

this is what happens when your studying for exam...your brain goes wack