Xenith Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Actual lawyers. Messing with the rules. Tactical squad sergeant or veteran sergeant. The previous RS rules were tactical squads only. We all know what it should be. GW/FW have stated before that if your specific interpretation of the rules seems to grant an easter egg, then its probably wrong. There are no easter eggs in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodTzar Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 What IF they wanted to interpret it the way it used to be and they made the typo? What IF they just wanted to make this more attractive for 6th ed moreover to sell more priest models (as they sell pack of 2) ? There is allways the "IF" factor present, therefore I have written to the FW lets see what they will come back with... (sorry for typos, hate this HTC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindhamster Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 no reply from forgeworld on their facebook, just another person saying the rules clearly state tactical squads. Hope you get a reply mate. In fairness, if it turned out to legitimately be all Veteran sergeants, that'd be pretty crazy good and a fun way to use the silly number of priests I have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disruptor_fe404 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 no reply from forgeworld on their facebook, just another person saying the rules clearly state tactical squads. Hope you get a reply mate. In fairness, if it turned out to legitimately be all Veteran sergeants, that'd be pretty crazy good and a fun way to use the silly number of priests I have... If it turns out to be all Veteran Sergeants, I'll do a counts-as list and give myself an actual reason to use all my Apothecary bitz! (also, to clarfiy, I know how ridiculous my suggestion about Tactical non-Vet Sergeants without Red Scorpions CT takign the upgrade was, given that you need CT: RS to even get Purity Above All) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodTzar Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Hello brothers, I have an official answer from FW : Hi Michal, We passed your rules question onto the rules team and they came back with this reply. The Purity Above All Chapter Tactic special rule refers to "Any Tactical Squad Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant..." This refers to any Sergeant or Veteran Sergeant in a Tactical Squad. I hope that helps If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.Regards, Forge World Well it seems it is not so hot as I tought :( ~BT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memento Of Prospero Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 That's the problem with rules lawyering. If you have to strings and technicalities, it's not what they meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Actual lawyers. Messing with the rules. Tactical squad sergeant or veteran sergeant. The previous RS rules were tactical squads only. We all know what it should be. GW/FW have stated before that if your specific interpretation of the rules seems to grant an easter egg, then its probably wrong. There are no easter eggs in the rules. I'm not a lawyer. That's the problem with rules lawyering. If you have to strings and technicalities, it's not what they meant. FWIW, I have said all along that BlindHamster's interpretation was likely what was intended. However, you can't argue 'intended' in the face of actual wording without authority to back your argument. I'd also like to mention that there was no rules lawyering in any of my posts in this thread. I was applying the ordinary meaning of the words written. Now that FW have clarified, we can all move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindhamster Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 except everyone (bar a couple on this very thread) that I've spoken to read it exactly as FW intended... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Now that FW have clarified, we can all move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.