|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 24, 2008 4:48:18 GMT -5
ssgtdude, I give you a good grade in the lawyering dept. you did well in simply finding a new angle to attack your proposed interpretation of the rules from every time your current angle was shot down and you never once admitted we had valid points - all very important things in lawyering...while great for pushing your perspective, it's not great for figuring out how rules are actually interpretted which is what the forum strives to do. so with that having been said, I kindly request that you cease with the rules lawyering as we're not trying to be sold on an interpretation of the rules but are interested in promoting the correct rules interpretation (which requires compromise, humility, the ability to relinquish ones stance on a rules interpretation when they've been adequately convinced that another interpretation is more correct, etc.)
in other words, I don't want to be on a first name basis with the rulesboyz and spend all my time in the IGMB courtroom talking with people who are uninterested in conceding that the community as a whole could be correct vs. their unpopular interpretation of a rule.
I like to be able to turn my attention to other threads or even have more time to paint. that sounds alot more fun and better than what this thread has turned into...and another thread or two as of late too that have descended into rules lawyer vs. everyone else with the community as a whole just trying to leave the thread with what is commonly considered the correct ruling on a matter as the last word.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2008 16:16:11 GMT -5
point taken Turtleboy.
Does this mean that you decided against the call to the boyz then? Also, thanks for the props, but do have to say. IF the community at large plays the rules in a specific manner I will play along those lines. IF that is the interpretation in the community then a single voice will not change it.
I would like to know what the official word is in the mean time and if it means I make the call in your stead I do not mind doing so.
Also you need to be given more props for keeping the entire conversation civil. Not many people do that. Shows a lot more maturity than many board mods your age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 24, 2008 16:58:05 GMT -5
thanks for the compliments bud, and I hope I didnt come off too inflamitorily in my last post - it's sometimes hard to diplomatically get across a tough point without trampling a bit.
as far as calling the rulesboyz, I was up getting butchered by orcs late into the night last night so I slept late and missed the window of time which I'm able to call in during (gotta love the pacific west coast of the US eh?).
if you feel like calling the rulesboyz that'd be totally cool (and frankly kinda appreciated) as I'm really lookin' at calling them on your behalf. I feel as if I understand the rules clearly already and have not really been swayed to the point of questioning what I believe to be the correct interpretation.
the gw rulesboyz run on eastern standard time in the states, so make sure you call in the 9-5 standard business hours time window. hope this saves you a day in getting thru to 'em!
|
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2008 22:54:55 GMT -5
Not a problem bud. Just got to dig the number out myself. If all goes well I may find the time tomorrow while traveling from one clinic to the next to be able to get through.
Just to put to rest anything on this. I am probably the most honest person you will ever run into. I'll give you the low down exactly as they hand it out.
Ohh and on the master Vox question. I didn't see anything that said an officer had to be present to have it operate. Only that the officer's leadership was used. which, if there isn't an officer in the unit it still hinges on if a Commissar is filling the bill or not. Oh, well we'll get the answer soon enough then.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatuous on Mar 25, 2008 5:56:11 GMT -5
Heeheee that is funny, love ur reasoning, what would 40k be with easy to inderstand, none ambiguous rules?!?!?! It is the officers leadership special rule that is extended by the vox. That is all the vox does, removes the range restrictions for the officers leadership special rule. Commissars do not have this special rule, it is not in their entry in the codex, they do not get the leadership special rule that officers get. Therefore they can not use vox networks. Personnally I think that the Ld plus does work over the vox, due to the updates from the FAQ. Hope u guys had a gd weekend  |
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 25, 2008 13:41:21 GMT -5
Personnally I think that the Ld plus does work over the vox, due to the updates from the FAQ. that's what knight said the rulesboyz said too so I'm sold on that interpretation of the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 25, 2008 21:47:15 GMT -5
Ok, Like I said I am a man of my word. Spoke with the Rulez boyz.
Question #1 Is a Commissar an Officer.
Answer. A Commissar holds is a political official appointed through the Commissariat. Being such they are charged with the indoctrination and execution of the laws of the Emperor. A Commissar in his appointed duties will operate as an officer only if he has to execute another officer in the course of war.
Answer in short. A commissar while not a military officer will act as one if he executes a JSO or an HSO.
Question #2 How does the Master Vox work if there is no officer, but a Commissar is in charge of the unit.
Answer: A Master Vox unit will allow for the Officers leadership to be used by other squads. IF no officer is available then the Commissar as the acting officer of the unit will use their base leadership (no +1 to officer leadership) and that leadership is then broadcast to all units with a Vox.
in short. The commissar's leadership is used on a vox and it operates normally otherwise.
Question #3 What constitutes the infantry squad according to the special adviser rule?
Answer: Because the way the rule is written as a proper noun and because there is a specific squad called an Infantry squad the adviser rule would allow any adviser to be allocated as follows.
HSO
JSO
the squad under the JSO
Armor Fist etc...
An Independent commissar taken through doctrine can be assigned to any infantry unit. Any special rules that the unit has will be lost due to the independent character rule. If a commissar is assigned to a unit that falls within the adviser rule any special rules are picked up by the commissar (Infiltrate, Able to ride in transports, etc...)
SO, with that being discussed they rules boyz did admit that the ruling within the special adviser rule very well may be an editing error and that they themselves don't fully agree with it they, like the majority rule here believe GW will not make any changes until the 5th edition codex when we might see such a change. Until that time since there is a dedicated squad called an Infantry Squad they have to go with that answer as it is presented. It was also discussed what type of character a Commissar was and the answer was that the commissar is a character and if taken as a independent commissar then they are an independent character and subject to all the rules as such. IF the commissar is not taken as an independent then they are not subject to the IC rules.
They did go on to say that if the HSO and JSO have a commissar that it was not required that the squads under the the JSO have a commissar before they are given to the Armor Fist or Storm Troopers and that a player in these situations would be able to place a commissar with in them instead of the Infantry Squad first. In other words the HSO and JSO are pre-requisites, but the infantry squad could forgo one if you only wanted to use them in the Armor Fist, or Storm troopers first meaning that you could get away with 4 commissars in that situation if you had both an Armor fist and Storm Trooper squad. Again, they stressed that this may change with the coming 5th edition codex.
SO, now we have our answer.
Commissar is not an officer, but takes on the Officer role upon a field execution.
Master Vox works with a Commissar's leadership if he is acting Officer
How to correctly assign a non independent character commissar.
Bonus question character type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 26, 2008 5:00:28 GMT -5
wow well that's f**kin cool. nice work with callin' the rulesboys bud! commissars just gained a coolness point  it's always sucked that when they off the HSO the vox shuts down - very cool to know it doesn't! |
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 26, 2008 7:43:14 GMT -5
not only does the vox still works, but it appears to actually gets better.
The two medic squad is looking better and better as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatuous on Mar 26, 2008 10:03:23 GMT -5
Wow, excellent stuff, really wasn't expecting that (the taking over as officer bit). V cool, thanks for checking |
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 26, 2008 15:26:15 GMT -5
Yeah, just remember while the commissar takes over and ACTS as an officer the official ruling is that he holds a political office which allows him to act as an officer. Not a true Officer. But hey I'll take what I can get. I'll be begging to fail a morale roll now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 27, 2008 1:06:53 GMT -5
trying to convince opponents that he's not technically an officer but he can qualify as an officer is going to be tricky at best. I can see me defaulting to 'hey it's what the rulesboyz said, so take it up with them!' a lot on this if someone wants to argue it, cuz nowhere in the rules as written (raw) does it even refer to the commissar as a political officer, and that's what people typically lawyer off of.
|
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Mar 27, 2008 4:42:58 GMT -5
Erm doesn't the rules for medics say: One Veteran may be upgraded for x points to a medic?
|
|
|
|
Post by fatuous on Mar 27, 2008 7:01:41 GMT -5
Can we put this in a sticky as it seems to come up fairly regularly.
|
|
angelusmortis
Captain
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear. -Mark Twain
Posts: 210
|
Post by angelusmortis on Mar 27, 2008 10:39:05 GMT -5
Erm doesn't the rules for medics say: One Veteran may be upgraded for x points to a medic? Unfortunately, its much more vague. It says something along the lines of "Two Guardsmen can select one of the following" then goes on to say medic or standardbearer, but makes no restriction on each only being able to be taken once. So, technically 2 Standards, 2 Medics or 1 of each. |
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 27, 2008 15:11:07 GMT -5
I second the sticky on this. OR at least the most important bits of it.
I read that the same way angelusmortis. However, when someone first proposed it in front of me I did initially have the knee jerk reaction of no you can't do that. Then looking at the rules for a good brief moment I read it the same way that you can infact have two, but I probably wouldn't ever do it as I do not think it is the intention of the rules to have two. If I am in a tourny I might, but the benefit still goes to a having one of each in my mind.
Remember also. According to the rules nothing will allow you to get more than one re-roll of anything. The one limitation that I see others try to stretch from time to time. Guard players have to remain ever vigilant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 27, 2008 21:27:02 GMT -5
I'm going to make a thread of 'questions answered by GW rulesboyz.' if you have spoken with a rulesboy and have something to contribute from a conversation you've had with them, then please feel free to add it to the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 28, 2008 10:04:24 GMT -5
trying to convince opponents that he's not technically an officer but he can qualify as an officer is going to be tricky at best. I can see me defaulting to 'hey it's what the rulesboyz said, so take it up with them!' a lot on this if someone wants to argue it, cuz nowhere in the rules as written (raw) does it even refer to the commissar as a political officer, and that's what people typically lawyer off of. I hear you on that. I would also like to point out that there have been a number of times in the past where one person would call up the rulez boyz and get a ruling and then several months later someone else get another. As to the political office standing I can only guess that this is coming from past rules editions and the chain of command that GW set up back in second ed. Who reports to who, and who has authority over whom mixed with the definition of the word itself. Not sure more of what to say on it though. Apparently fluff does go into their decisions regardless of what is being written at the current codex. |
|
|
|
Post by Turtleboy(AWOL) on Mar 28, 2008 17:16:47 GMT -5
I think my stance will be to simply say 'this is what the rulesboyz said' then if my opponent continues to disagree, then just diceoff. angelusmortis posted a nice link in the 'GW Rulesboyz Rulings' thread that was essentially an 'argument resolution flowchart.' after gw rulesboyz rulings it basically just says 'toss a die and there's your correct answer' so yeah
|
|
|
|
Post by knight (M.I.A) on Mar 29, 2008 14:50:10 GMT -5
The standard is restricted to one by the text of the standard itself, but I agree with the medic then, even if I'm not sure right now about the wording in my codex. Perhaps the translators did a good job and corrected it to one medic and one standard (which would actually be the most logical version)
|
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Mar 29, 2008 21:59:07 GMT -5
knight that is a problem with anyone from across the pond going from one codex translation to another. Usually in a tournament they resort to the host countries codex. (I.E. American/ English speaking countries use the English codex, Germany uses the German). They also do not allow us to use German FAQs in our tournaments, but are used by us players to see how when they finally get around to making ours how it might read (e.g. Orc codex FAQ in German none yet in English)
|
|
|
|
Post by 9th Company on Apr 2, 2008 4:44:05 GMT -5
Regarding the question is a Commissar an Officer, page 101 of the 40k rulebook says
"Commissars are hight ranking officers of the Departmento Munitorum and form part of the strategic command of the Imperial Guard"
To me this is all the evidence I need to argue that a Commissar can in fact use the Vox once he executes the officer in command.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2008 5:55:14 GMT -5
Wow ... it's just like Rikki Lake! I really liked the resolution - everyone wins, Commissars rock. On a wider point I agree with the Turtleboy approach, since digging out fluff (however favourable) to defend positions is flimsy at best.
We shouldn't forget that most writers (including the GW fluff writers) are striving to entertain, excite and impress with their writing, they are also just desparately trying to get us hot under the collar about the latest sales pitch. While they usually keep one eye on the wider universe, artistic licence gives them a carte blanc veto to ignore GW probabilities and ride roughshod over GW rules, as Eisenhorn "could" or "might" be able to achieve that, and so of course he does...
Therefore, I would request that we have a requirement for not just a "here's the answer" thread, but a new category of "Rules: Questions and Answers" alongside the Infantry, tactics etc categorys.
This would give us a specific "one stop shop" for all rules related questions, like:
o IG:Codex says servitors don't count towards the wargear total (50) for an enginseer, but the FAQ does - which is right?
o Why doesn't an enormous chainsword on a Sentinel ignore armour saves (requires hardened fighters) - It's bigger than the priests? (You've not stopped me yet TurtleBoy!)
o Why aren't autocannon AP3?
o Why aren't Hellhound actually fast, as they appear in the fast attack section?
o Why are imperial guard outclassed by all other races, and yet STILL so popular?
And the most important...
o When will Tyranids appear in Dawn of War??
|
|
|
|
Post by ssgtdude (M.I.A) on Apr 3, 2008 21:28:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the rule in the BBB 9th Company. Knew there was hard evidence somewhere for us all.
Suneokun to answer your questions as I know them...
One at a time.
o IG:Codex says servitors don't count towards the wargear total (50) for an enginseer, but the FAQ does - which is right?
The FAQ is the latest rules interpretation you use that ruling.
o Why doesn't an enormous chainsword on a Sentinel ignore armour saves (requires hardened fighters) - It's bigger than the priests? (You've not stopped me yet TurtleBoy!)
The priests are imbued with the belief in the emperor. The Sentinel is a vehicle. It is the Belief in the power of the emperor that allows for it to be able to ignore saves.. Not only that bigger doesn't always mean better. The Priests Eviserator is also made to a higher quality then what one would make for a vehicle.
o Why aren't autocannon AP3?
Because the rules say they aren't
o Why aren't Hellhound actually fast, as they appear in the fast attack section?
I believe they are included here because of the range of fire. While they may only move 6" a turn they can really reach out and touch someone.
o Why are imperial guard outclassed by all other races, and yet STILL so popular?
The Challenge to show others that even outclassed, out AP'd, and on the short end of a stick that the guard will stand their ground and make a great fight for the opponent.
And the most important...
o When will Tyranids appear in Dawn of War??
Next expansion???
|
|
|
|
Post by fatuous on Apr 4, 2008 3:32:56 GMT -5
Rumour I heard reg tyranids was the graphics looked poor in DOW so most likely they will wait for DOW2 and they release the nids.
NB not that DOW graphics are poor, cos they rock, but th enids didn't look right.
|
|
