Codex: Demon Hunter Gotchas

So... How many terminators/artificer'd guys can I put in a LRC?

KingdomCome wrote:So how can anyone but the game designer know what the 'intentions' were when writing rules?

They've been writing these rules for what, the past 20 years? I find it quite simple to understand what their intentions were when writing rules. Namely, THEY rely on us to read beyond the words so that there aren't stupid arguments (Quite like most of the arguments I see for things on other Forums).

As I said, it's easy to realize that when you embark on a vehicle, YOU'VE MOVED! But the rules don't say that as written. It is written that if the unit is within 2" they may embark, embarkation is not referred to as a movement in the rules, so the argument by strict RAW is sound.

If my Vendetta moves flat out my people can't disembark. If it gets shot down after moving flat out and is wrecked... do my guys automatically die? Strict RAW says that they die because the ship moved 24" dissallowing people to disembark.

If all Space Marine Land Raiders have the machine spirit... and my Grey Knight Land Raiders have the machine spirit... shouldn't my Inquisitorial Land Raider (Which is just a regular Land Raider driven by regular marines.. duh) get the machine spirit as well? NO! The FAQ calls out Grey Knight Land Raiders, so suck on it!

The entire reason there are FAQs is because RAW doesn't cut it because people will always look for the RAW ways to screw someone out of something in their Codex, or squeeze an extra treasure out of a rule that is blatantly obvious. FAQs are an added cushion of balance against the RAW whores who will do their best to break the game in their favor. But that doesn't mean knowing simple rules as stated above isn't important. And knowing a rule doesn't make you a rules lawyer, neither does enforcing them. Enforcing them makes you the rules police, prosecuting the offenders makes you the rules lawyer.

Matt1785 wrote:
The entire reason there are FAQs is because RAI doesn't cut it because people will always look for the RAI ways to screw someone out of something in their Codex, or squeeze an extra treasure out of a rule that is blatantly obvious. FAQs are an added cushion of balance against the RAI whores who will do their best to break the game in their favor.

See what I did there?

You're confusing RAW with RAI. By very definition RAW leaves little to, ideally, no room for interpretation. You can't say the same about RAI.

You want to play RAI? Here: description of things are now rules. Enjoy my AP1 shuricatapults bitches. They cut molecules in half so surely GW just got ap5 wrong.

The problem with your argument chris is that your profile states AP5, so the intention of the writers was... Well, AP5 =P

Bolters shoot miniature grenades, surely should be STR 6 AP 4- but they're not, and its not because RAI or RAW wouldn't allow it, its because the game designers, for obvious reasons, couldn't field models to fluff.

RAI vs RAW is only arguments used for complex wording of rules, not the obvious rules. You've taken a radical stand on the matter and pushed a tad far.

RAI should be strongly considered during the period in which FAQ is being written, because that should be what a FAQ/Errata is- GW informing the populace what the writer intended.

Otherwise, RAI is a cool way to play a friendly game. Hard to bring it to a tournament setting, unless your name is Brian, in which case you're the most awesomely non-chalant competitive player at Joel's (when you show up).

Leviticus wrote:The problem with your argument chris is that your profile states AP5, so the intention of the writers was... Well, AP5 =P

And how exactly do you know that was their intent? Because its written in the book. Any inference by the reader enters an area of uncertainty that is unfair to your opponent.

Until an FAQ or Errata is written, you have to play it how it is written in the book.

That alone is the reason GW writes these errata/faq. If we all just made up our own rules they wouldn't bother putting out a faq.

Well look at the writing for Doom of Mal'antai, the rule is so loosely strung together that ANY kind of inference could be made, so which one do we choose? We the choose the one that gives most benefit to the player because of, in my opinion, very faulty deductive reasoning.

"Well, it's not a shooting attack
Well, its not a psychic attack
Well it just happens."

Well now I ask you, where ANYWHERE in a wargaming tabletop do people "just die"- it doesn't. SOMETHING has to be happening, other than the FLUFF "Oh he's leeching their souls"... Great, that does nothing for me, what are the rules? There are none is what your argument suggests.

So what does the book infer? That it just happens. Well I'm going to take a cover save. Why? Because I just do, running on the same logic as above.

THAT is why RAW can fall short, though I'll still let someone cheese the shiznickles out of me and drain my landraider of termies, I still find that the entire doom of mal'antai crap is based on faulty logic and horrible inferences.

The Eldar Guy wrote: Until an FAQ or Errata is written, you have to play it how it is written in the book.

That alone is the reason GW writes these errata/faq. If we all just made up our own rules they wouldn't bother putting out a faq.

Is this not what I said above? The FAQ is there so that what is written is clarified to those that are attempting to break it... Haha. And I have to agree, what is intended is... AP5 because he wrote it. I've already said before, Fluff is just that, fluff and it has nothing to do with the rules for the game, so why even bring that into the discussion? And RAW can be INTERPRETED differently by other parties. Intended = As it was meant to be. Interpreted = That's how I think it reads.

The reason why the Doom works is for the same reason that Psychic Hoods effect casters in transports. If you need me to go into deeper reasoning you should read through the rulebook yourself.

Pro tip: It has to do with measuring to the hull of a vehicle to determine distance to a unit embarked.


I get it. I shouldn't have been sarcastic and talk about fluff. My bad. Stop focusing on it. It has nothing to do with the conversation other than to point out how ridiculous not following the rules sounds.

Point is Rules as Written is simply the rules in the book, while Rules as Intended are a players assumptions of how the rule SHOULD work... according to who? The player.

The Eldar Guy wrote:
I get it. I shouldn't have been sarcastic and talk about fluff. My bad. Stop focusing on it. It has nothing to do with the conversation other than to point out how ridiculous not following the rules sounds.

Well then you probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Further, I understand how targeting units inside vehicles work WITH PSYCHIC POWERS. So is that what it is? Is it a psychic power? Is it a shooting power? If its neither- then what is it? "Its an aura" will be your argument, so go through the effing rule book and show me how auras work, if you can't (which I know you can't) then "auras" are a player made fictional argument.

Oh Jeez... Doom of Atlanta argument again? It's a poorly worded rule. NO ONE is disagreeing with that. It's just a ridiculous RAI argument that needs to be FAq'ed. No one is disagreeing with that either. Where I get a bit ticked-off is when people go, " fuck it. It doesn't negatively hurt me and actually screws the other guy up pretty good." So they choose to use it as conveniently as possible with no RAW to back it up. Then the counter argument is ," well it's easy to kill. So it shouldn't bother you." That, gentlemen, is the issue with RAI. Some times it can be useful, but MOST of the time it's complete bullshit.

Again with your Land Raider. Play it as it's written dude. Accept the fact your book is OLD and OUTDATED and that sadly, it's the only rules written for your black templars. It isn't GW making shitty rules it's just an antiquated book. It doesn't work well within the current system.

Yeah, to avoid people crying I changed up the list and put in a terminator chaplain and just moved the EC into the 14 man squad with the marshall. Not a big deal, my post about the land raider here was in hopes of making the topic more light hearted- but that quickly fell apart.

To be honest, doom hardly affects me since most of my army is LD 10, which means I'll only lose 1-2 models in each unit on a drop. But the problem isn't the effectiveness of doom's rule, its the principle that people are seriously debating the impossible- that the model is reaching into the vehicles to deal wounds- which is outrageous.

"Your power can not affect vehicles. My unit is in a vehicle. Your power has no affect"

Unless you want to debate aura, which doesn't exist, so you already lose that argument. I want to see where in RAW it says that the model CAN affect models inside transports.

"Well it doesn't say it can't"
to which I will reply
"It also doesn't say I can't take a 2+ aura cover save against it"

I like your counter argument for Doom of Atlanta. The land raider thing actually doesn't bother me. In fact I had no clue they had those limitations placed on them in the BT 'dex. It just shows you're an honest dude with a question. I'm sure there's been much douchbaggery of people simply knowing the difference and not caring. In other words, cheating. I have something similar with my Tau, (it would actually help me more if I didn't play the way written, but intended) but I'd rather lose an honest game than cheat a win.

It'd be dumb to take advantage of my old codex's strengths (army wide preferred enemy) and then hide its weaknesses. In the end it hardly affects my playability to move my emperor's champion away from my overkill squad, so ce la vie.

As far as our local metagame goes, it just sucks that I'm one of the few who feel strongly about doom of malan'tai homoness. What happens if my units fail a morale check in a vehicle? They can't fall back, but I'll throw a table at someone if they say "Oh your unit cant fall back, they die." Thats just dumb.

There's too many ways that doom reaching into a vehicle messes up game mechanics and dodges rules, whereas if he didn't, it WOULDN'T create the rules evasion and mechanics setup. How could the writer INTEND to mess up the current rules? GW would slap his wrist and apologize to the community for getting them hard for nothing.

I feel strongly about it too bud. Lucky I killed the over-sized roach on the turn it came in without it killing a thing.

Doom of whatever effects all units within 6". If you need to measure to a unit that is currently embarked in a vehicle you measure to the vehicles hull (BRB).

Psychic powers don't effect units in transports because of the eldar FAQ. Otherwise, it would.


If Doom doesn't effect units in transports than neither do Psychic hoods. I'm perfectly happy with a house rule, and personally I think it needs it, but don't pretend it doesn't follow the rules.


AP5:"Well then you probably shouldn't have brought it up."
Don't be a douche.


I mean, LMAO, out of all the armies at the store Doom hurts mine the most.

Telling someone to open up the rulebook and insinuate that they haven't read it is quite douchey, let alone the unnecessary "Pro Tip." If you can't eat it, dont dish it.

Further, the rule states that if you need to measure range INVOLVING THE EMBARKED UNIT- now we debate semantics.

Does Doom's rule state specifically that it involves embarked units? No, it certainly does not. The unit it affects is the transport, which, coincidentally, is immune to its fictional aura. Said fictional aura does not specify that it penetrates the very real walls of the rhino carrying the unit, therefore fictional aura is negated by the very real rhino that holds the unit.

BRB stands with me on this.

I concede. No more psychic hoods or runic weapons affecting psychers in transports.

btw, there are others- but here you go: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241148&page=10

I did, personally, mess up playing against Doom though. I didn't allow myself cover saves. Cover is only disallowed in certain specified situations, such as HtH, template weapons, or dangerous terrain.

What would the cover save count as in said scenario? 4+? =P

yea

Oh Chris Nooooooooo...... You actually quote CrapSeer? Most of those dudes have horrible advise. As soon as mchmmr667 posted "The INAT FAQ: Read it! Know it! Use it!" , that was the end of the conversation for me. I totally shot down any hope of that thread being valid. Doom was obviously made to hurt people OUT of transports (i.e. foot armies). I hate the fact people even bring up this non-sense.

Wow this threads gone to shit....

Noooo kidding.

I'm sorry, I can't respond to your post without insulting you.

Edit: Second attempt

The RAI INAT FAQ has nothing to do with that thread.

The Eldar Guy wrote:I'm sorry, I can't respond to your post without insulting you.

Edit: Second attempt

The RAI INAT FAQ has nothing to do with that thread.

Why? I haven't insulted you at all.... And if I did it wasn't my intention.

My point was, you're reading a debate with a guy that supports the INAT FaQ. It's the mindset I'm against.