Some quick help: Typhus, Quad Guns, zombies, tally

[keithb]

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

so Rules as Written, except when you think it is stupid?

[the_trooper]

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

RAW and RAI it works so I fail to see why it would be annoying and infuriating.

[GossWeapon]

Because Tau can't do it.  Tau suck.

[Sir_Prometheus]

OMFG.  Can I express an opinion, without it becoming about me personally?  Please? Because everything I want, is about how it affects me and my armies, specifically? 

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

so Rules as Written, except when you think it is stupid?

I have recently (like last 6 months) come to the opinion that RAI>RAW.  Mostly because GW rules are often written so piss-poorly (FAQs) in particularly, that RAW often becomes a joke.  Bouncing FMCs.  FMC that apparently were meant to have skyfire all along, but in no way did.  Demons that people were arguing weren't demons.  Etc.  I thought I had actually been pretty clear in that. 

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

RAW and RAI it works so I fail to see why it would be annoying and infuriating.

RAI?!?  You really think it was intended, for a model whose attack affecting it's own units was supposed to be a downside, to interact with a SC from a different codex, so that charging a model that may or may not even be legal to charge (that question has definitely not been answered) to then give you a massive bonus?

You think that somewhat ludicrous series of events was intended?

[Chase]

Apparently there's also this little bit of shenanigans...

"Tau shenanigans when it comes to the defense line Quad Gun and a battlesuit with multi-tracker? The quad gun replaces whatever weapon you would normally use in the shooting phase, but as long as you have 2 weapons and a multi-tracker on a battlesuit you can fire the quadgun and one other weapon on the battlesuit."

I don't understand exactly what's happening here, but it seems legit to me.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Where is that quote from, exactly?  But yes, that would work.  Multi-tracker lets you fire two weapons.  So yeah, it lets you fire a suit weapon and quad gun, if you want. 

Fun fact:  There's nothing really saying what kind of model can fire the gun.  So can an MC fire the gun?  Yes, apparently, nothing stping it, and it doesn't even seem that silly, in the case of a Wraithlord or Dreadnight.  Now, with Tyranids, it seems a little sillier, but fair is fair, right? 

But here's where it gets dumb:  Can a Walker, like a dreadnought use the gun?  Nothing says it can't.  And I dunno, maybe he can jack into it, or something.  But then how do you say a rhino can't fire it?  You can't.  RAW, a tank can fire the gun.

See what I mean?  RAW is often so stupid that reasonable people didn't even consider all the possibilities.  THat's why I'm saying RAI is often better than RAW. 

'Course, in this case, you'd have to decide where to draw the line, because GW hasn't.  I think we can agree tanks firing the gun is stupid.  But is an MC doing so?

BTW, crisis on the gun is one of the least crazy things to do with it.  Vindicare SNIPING people with it totally works, and is way worse, as is an Eldar exarch just ignoring cover with it, and shooting it twice for no reason. 

[Benjamin]

Battleground observes RAW. Personal inconvenience and/or verbal incontinence does not change this.

[Ian Mulligan]

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

so Rules as Written, except when you think it is stupid?

Legit guffawed.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Battleground observes RAW. Personal inconvenience and/or verbal incontinence does not change this.

That's nice.  Very authoritative.  Ben, if you want to act like an authority figure, can you act grown-up and refrain from referring to other people's thoughts as "verbal incontinence?"  Tends to start arguments/fights. 

Like I said, I really don't know it follows RAW, because it's really not clear that you can assault a Quad-gun that isn't controlled by the enemy.  And by "unclear" I mean just that, I think it's unclear and I 'm not advocating a position, so don't make it sound like I am.  But by RAI it's stupid.



Moving along......I think I've made a convincing case that RAW can sometimes be so stupid it should not be used.  Unless you think I should be able to use a rhino to fire a gun emplacement?  Because I don't think you actually think that.  But that really is the RAW. 

[Benjamin]

That's nice.  Very authoritative.  Ben, if you want to act like an authority figure, can you act grown-up and refrain from referring to other people's thoughts as "verbal incontinence?"  Tends to start arguments/fights.

I just calls it as I sees it.

And for the record, you associated your post with verbal incontinence. I gave you the option.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Being sly doesn't really make it better, Ben. It's not cute, it's passive aggressive bullshit.


Your holier than thou pronouncements about "we follow RAW" would be asinine even if you understood what the RAW was, or wasn't. But you don't.

Aren't you one of the fluffy "let's roll dice and have fun" guys?  You should probably stick to that.

[Grimwulfe]

I love the crap fest that this thread has turned out to be.  However just for the record Ben has and is part of the unofficial tourny crew.  He has done a ton of work to get the invitation sorted and has helped the tourny scene.  We may not always agree but the fact remains he does have a degree of clout when it comes to BG tournies.  At least a small amount anyway.

That said Matt I would also like to bring up the fact of distaste in any type of smearing unless warented.  Unfortunately I think your reputation is proceeding you and causing these types of responses.

This is just my opinion however.

In the immortal words Rodney "Cant we all just get along?"

[andalucien]

Just to nudge the thread even closer towards Hitler comparisons,

I don't think RAW really exists.  Words need someone to interpret them.  Especially words written as sloppily as GW rulebooks are written.   I think what we need is RATSB (Rules As They Should Be).  We'll still have to argue about the way the rules should be, but at least then we'll be honest about the fact that we are bringing additional meaning to the original words.  If you say you are sticking to RAW, it opens it up to lots of shouting matches, because you have 2 different points of view that both believe that they are the only possible literal interpretation of certain words.

[the_trooper]

OMFG.  Can I express an opinion, without it becoming about me personally?  Please? Because everything I want, is about how it affects me and my armies, specifically? 

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

so Rules as Written, except when you think it is stupid?

I have recently (like last 6 months) come to the opinion that RAI>RAW.  Mostly because GW rules are often written so piss-poorly (FAQs) in particularly, that RAW often becomes a joke.  Bouncing FMCs.  FMC that apparently were meant to have skyfire all along, but in no way did.  Demons that people were arguing weren't demons.  Etc.  I thought I had actually been pretty clear in that. 

I personally do not think this particular trick should be allowed.  On the very technical grounds that it is stupid.  No, I don't think you're especially likely to see it tried, at least not by a good player, who probably has better plans, but it would just be annoying and infuriating to see it done.

RAW and RAI it works so I fail to see why it would be annoying and infuriating.

RAI?!?  You really think it was intended, for a model whose attack affecting it's own units was supposed to be a downside, to interact with a SC from a different codex, so that charging a model that may or may not even be legal to charge (that question has definitely not been answered) to then give you a massive bonus?

You think that somewhat ludicrous series of events was intended?

Yes. I think it was completely intended. So much so that they made the codex with the rule written that way. Do you disregard all rules you don't like?

[Sir_Prometheus]

Yes. I think it was completely intended. So much so that they made the codex with the rule written that way. Do you disregard all rules you don't like?

Do you really, honestly think there's even only one RAW interpretation?  Or are you just pretending so in order to be combative?  Because seriously, there's nothing saying you can charge an unattended emplaced gun.  It's not an enemy model.  There's also nothing saying you can't...it just has no precedent, at all. 

But as far as disregarding rules I don't like?  If I have been given to think they're dysfunctional, and I can get my opponent to agree to it, then of course.  I didn't want to play the bouncing FMC as bouncing, even though that was pretty clear the RAW.  It was also dumb and obviously not RAI.  In practice I'd just let my opponent with the FMC play it whichever way he preferred. 

I don't think RAW really exists.  Words need someone to interpret them.  Especially words written as sloppily as GW rulebooks are written. 

This