PDA

View Full Version : Codex vs. Codex discrepancies



doctorahhnold
08-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Hey guys just wanted some opinions on this. In the space marine codex it has the land raider and land raider crusader and redeemer variants listed as assault vehicles...ie troops can assault when disembarking from one of these vehicles in the same turn. At the time the black templars codex was written there wasnt an assault classification on vehicles. Now mind you it doesnt say in the black templars codex that they CANT assault from the land raider it just doesnt have the assault vehicle rule there in print. What to do. I was playing someone that said NO it doesnt say assault vehicle in the templar codex so you cant assault with them on the same turn like other marine chapters! This makes 0 sense to me. The most assault heavy space marines cant assault out the same way other less assault heavy marines can? Just wanted to hear some opinions on this. thanks for the time guys

Nabterayl
08-12-2009, 07:16 PM
From a rules perspective your opponent, unfortunately, is right.

Does it "make sense?" It doesn't make sense to me from a fluff/simulation perspective. It does make sense to me from a game design perspective, since GW is bound and determined to assume its players are gentlemen who will work out issues like this amicably, rather than issuing rules "patches" every time they put out a new codex. And honestly, I find that dogged faith in their players kind of charming.

Would I let you assault out of your Black Templar Land Raider if you were playing me? Yes. If I wanted to play a really serious wargame I wouldn't pick 40K. Without the setting, 40K isn't worth playing to me. As far as I'm concerned, the current fluff-rules nexus on this issue is that Land Raiders are more conducive to assault than other vehicles, and when I play (as opposed to when I discuss what the rules say), I absolutely care about the fluff-rules nexus.

Do I think it's ungentlemanly to insist on the letter of the rules in a situation like this? Not necessarily. Everybody has their own line beyond which they're unwilling to bend the rules in favor of a good game, and your opponent got the rule right. If he wasn't a jerk about it given the circumstances at the time I wouldn't begrudge him his own line.

johnny_trash
08-12-2009, 07:29 PM
I suggest checking out a website called Dice Like Thunder, they present a system that balances nominally identical units in all Codeci. I.E. If it's called a Land Raider, it's the same thing in EVERY Codex, not just the newest. Works well :D

Lord Inquisitor
08-12-2009, 08:20 PM
If you take something from a codex it uses the EXACT rules from that codex and rule book. But they also follow the rule of FAQ's. Which the Grey Knight Land Raiders are FAQ'de for that and power of the machine spirit.

brgerkng
08-13-2009, 12:09 AM
Keep in mind that the Black Templar Codex was printed during 4th edition when the ability to assault out of a moving land raider was listed in the 4th edition rulebook, not in any particular codex. The ability isn't even listed under the 4th edition Space Marine codex. In my mind its not an issue of codex vs. codex but codex vs. rulebook.

A similar situation: During 4th edition "And they shall know no fear" was not described in the 4th edition marine codex but you were directed to look at the 4th edition main rulebook. ATSKNF was not listed in the 5th ed rulebook. So, for those few months between the 5th ed rulebook being released and the 5th ed Space Marine book being released did Space Marines lose ATSKNF since it was not described anywhere?

Granted that they did put ATSKNF in the FAQ on the GW website for the time being, but I assume you see my point.

And yes... I would let your guys assault out of a Black Templar land raider.