Murphy'sLawyer Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I was looking through the DA Codex and I noticed, as many others on other forums, that only Sammael has the Ravenwing rule even though you can take 3 HQ in the Ravenwing Strike Force. I assume this was a mistake that will get FAQ'ed but what to do until then? How are you guys dealing with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Playing that anyone who takes a bike automatically is inducted into the Ravenwing. I understand the rules as written, but I am not going to make my opponent play Sammael every time he want to drag his bike army out. I may be a small minority, but I see what they intended and will let my opponent play it that way. You rules lawyers can go about it how ever you want. -Chappy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalmer Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Hello there, /agree with ChappyDBC. I tell folks I'm playing about the silliness of the rule and say that an HQ choice can fit. Be it a chaplain, libby, whatever. Just like the last codex. Stay safe, don 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Clearly GW intended for multiple copies of Sammael to be taken. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy'sLawyer Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Clearly GW intended for multiple copies of Sammael to be taken. Now that I can do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yeah, I'm going with Chappy's interpretation as well. I won't push it if someone makes me play it strictly RAW, but that seems to be a reasonable assumption of intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yeah, I'm going with Chappy's interpretation as well. I won't push it if someone makes me play it strictly RAW, but that seems to be a reasonable assumption of intention. Or, GW is planning to release additional RW characters in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Or GW has a very poor understanding of the rules they write and often don't think through the implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PourSpelur Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Clearly GW intended for multiple copies of Sammael to be taken.This is Sam "A" el.This is Sam "B" el... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy'sLawyer Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I will definitely go with Chappy's interruption for now. Not only because it makes logical sense but also I trust his knowledge on anything DA related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Or GW has a very poor understanding of the rules they write and often don't think through the implications.Sadly, this is all too true. We can all (usually) see what they intend, but are usually left sitting around scratching our heads with the actual rules written.-Chappy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.