Copy Of Tyranid Codex In Hand

[kjolnir]

which GW have never made any bones about, they make models, the rules are 2ndary to that.

I understand that is their position, it's just a position that doesn't make sense to me. Any game where to players are pitted against each other and both are striving for victory over the other is inherently competitive, even if they aren't going for each others' throats. A well-constructed rule set benefits even the casually competitive as well as the hardcore player.

Why should the onus be on the TO to clean up the rule set? I don't agree with that idea at all. TOs lives can be made very miserable by poorly written rules, which I have witnessed firsthand.

[kjolnir]

you are misunderstanding: the same rule is being used—they don't stack. I don't care if you think precedents don't apply, but *EVERY* FAQ has ruled this way. Precedents are how GW runs their rules.

You need to back off. Maybe you're a white knight by nature, but your crusade to make people see it your way is getting too aggressive.

He didn't misunderstand anything. In fact, he had a CORRECT understanding of the RAW in the reference section of the codex. It's hardly his fault GW can't be bothered to make un-sloppy reference sections.

The fact is, the rule is written incorrectly in the reference section, and the actual rules paragraph in the body of the book where the rule for SitW is explained has put this issue to rest.

[daboarder]

Just a note on the "GW are a model company not a gaming company" argument

From the Games workshop stock listing

Games Workshop lets ferocious armies clash without the drawback of actual bloodshed. Founded in 1975, the company designs and manufactures model soldiers, game systems, and accessories for tabletop wargaming.

Can we put the stupid argument to bed now?

AS to nids, even sillier than the armylist with no synapse via deathleaper and OOE is the army with no warlord using a HQ tervigon. (its not a character)

[Tynskel]

You need to back off. Maybe you're a white knight by nature, but your crusade to make people see it your way is getting too aggressive.

He didn't misunderstand anything. In fact, he had a CORRECT understanding of the RAW in the reference section of the codex. It's hardly his fault GW can't be bothered to make un-sloppy reference sections.

The fact is, the rule is written incorrectly in the reference section, and the actual rules paragraph in the body of the book where the rule for SitW is explained has put this issue to rest.

Doesn't matter. Precedent solved this argument before it even started. Unless you have 2 *different* rules, nothing stacks, unless explicitly stated.

example 5th Edition Bugs: Hive commander +1 to reserves does not stack with another Hive commander. However, hive commander stacks with Swarmlord's +1 reserves. why? 2 different rules with same effects.

GW has always ruled this way.

Note that the *new* hive commander explicitly states more than 1 tyrant may have this rule.

[DarkLink]

This is on gw. They. Do. Not. Write. Quality. Rules. They write decent enough rules, but they seem to believe that despite the fact that they are selling these rules as a product, and using them as incentive to buy their other prodycts, they don't need to provide quality. That is a failure on them, and them alone. If gw wrote better rules in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I still enjoy 40k, and it has the benefit of being the system that is easiest to get a game just about anywhere. But that doesn't mean the fault is on the players or on the tos, and it doesn't mean gw gets a free pass.

[Tynskel]

This is on gw. They. Do. Not. Write. Quality. Rules. They write decent enough rules, but they seem to believe that despite the fact that they are selling these rules as a product, and using them as incentive to buy their other prodycts, they don't need to provide quality. That is a failure on them, and them alone. If gw wrote better rules in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I still enjoy 40k, and it has the benefit of being the system that is easiest to get a game just about anywhere. But that doesn't mean the fault is on the players or on the tos, and it doesn't mean gw gets a free pass.

I just disagree. They *do* write very good rules.
You try to write rules for 10+ armies and every army has 30+ units, and not have occasional confusion.


No other game system out there has as many armies and units. Nor would I ever want GW to reduce their army list size.

[daboarder]

sigh just NVM

[rogueaccount]

I just disagree. They *do* write very good rules.
You try to write rules for 10+ armies and every army has 30+ units, and not have occasional confusion.


No other game system out there has as many armies and units. Nor would I ever want GW to reduce their army list size.

Not that i really want to poke this bear, but doesnt Warmahordes have something close to the same scale of factions and units as 40k? Not my cup of tea, but the brief time I did play it seemed very tight and well written.


I'm giving this new dex a fair shake...but double FOC might be the way to go to prevent synapse loss from biting too hard and still have other elite options. Zoanthropes ahoy!

[Tynskel]

Not that i really want to poke this bear, but doesnt Warmahordes have something close to the same scale of factions and units as 40k? Not my cup of tea, but the brief time I did play it seemed very tight and well written.


I'm giving this new dex a fair shake...but double FOC might be the way to go to prevent synapse loss from biting too hard and still have other elite options. Zoanthropes ahoy!

Warmahordes sorta competes. However, one system totally squishes the other, so they are far from being fun played together. Even then, they still do not have nearly the number of units that GW does.

[Tynskel]

sigh just NVM

when you have played this game for 25 years, you start to pick up on how GW rules work and what they will FAQ...