fluger Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 If I made a list that was two Battle Demi-company formations, would that be legal for ITC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 If I made a list that was two Battle Demi-company formations, would that be legal for ITC? Not currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Wasn't being sarcastic. I've certainly had opponents that insist on only using the physical rules. And it is true that the GW FAQs rarely answer questions asked. Opponents will insist on all sorts of things- I've had people insist that the "hitting vehicles in melee" table granted cover saves and that you couldn't shoot a Rapid Fire weapon if you moved. The GW FAQs are official rules statements by the company- if someone wants to ignore them then they can, but only in the same sense that they can ignore any rule in the game, as neither GW nor their opponent have the ability to compel them to follow the rules. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Opponents will insist on all sorts of things- I've had people insist that the "hitting vehicles in melee" table granted cover saves and that you couldn't shoot a Rapid Fire weapon if you moved. The GW FAQs are official rules statements by the company- if someone wants to ignore them then they can, but only in the same sense that they can ignore any rule in the game, as neither GW nor their opponent have the ability to compel them to follow the rules. Agree that opponents insist on all sorts of things, but I don't think that players which refuse to use supplements (like FAQs) are in the same boat as players that refuse to read the rules. Players which insisted on printed rules used to be much more present in the days prior to cell phone internet. This is probably still true in areas with horrible internet service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Gw FAQ is raw, and are not the same supplemental category as is farsight enclave is to tau codex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Gw FAQ is raw, and are not the same supplemental category as is farsight enclave is to tau codex I was thinking more of the word "supplement" not a specific product line. sup·ple·mentnoun noun: supplement; plural noun: supplements ˈsəpləmənt/ 1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it. The FAQ is a supplement to the BRB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I understand your context. I disagree it is too broad. FAQ is a clarification of the rulebooks. I don't need a definition, as I didn't say FAQ are not supplements. But to use your post. FAQ are supplements complete the rulebooks. Supplemental codices enhance the parent codex. They categorical different and FAQ is not optional, as it officially clarifies needed rules confusion. Wow this codex is thick with options with squads and formations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 They categorical different and FAQ is not optional, as it officially clarifies needed rules confusion. So an opponent cannot refuse to use material not present? It is reasonable to insist that rules which are found not in the rulebook, the codex, or any of the physical books within your store are actually non-optional rules that your opponent must follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Your opponent can refuse anything. Doesn't make him right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 So an opponent cannot refuse to use material not present? It is reasonable to insist that rules which are found not in the rulebook, the codex, or any of the physical books within your store are actually non-optional rules that your opponent must follow?Your argument again is broad and pointless to refute. How garage hammer player plays is not worth arguing about. Name a tournament that disallows the he FAQ or at very list doesn't have their own FAQ. Supplement codex, have been banned or reduce is usage. Arguing what a garage hammer player does as a broad valid point is pointless as a garage hammer player can do what ever the [big bad swear word] they want ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Your argument again is broad and pointless to refute. How garage hammer player plays is not worth arguing about. Name a tournament that disallows the he FAQ or at very list doesn't have their own FAQ. Supplement codex, have been banned or reduce is usage. Arguing what a garage hammer player does as a broad valid point is pointless as a garage hammer player can do what ever the [big bad swear word] they want ;) I think you are taking me more seriously than I am taking me. All I said is that some opponents of mine in the past have insisted on not using the FAQs. Then you guys jumped on me and insisted it would ludicrous to do this. So I went with it. I figured I needed to explain this as you seem to be getting upset and that is not my intention. PS: I am pretty sure than pretre and abuse puppy get this and are just having fun with me. I just am not sure if you are actually getting upset, as that is so not my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Anyway, if you aren't upset, so I can keep going. Give me a heads up, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Anyway, if you aren't upset, so I can keep going. Give me a heads up, okay?Maybe take less extreme and ultimately non defendable positions and we won't end up here? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Maybe take less extreme and ultimately non defendable positions and we won't end up here? ;) You say that, but I can keep going. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "defendable." I just like keeping these things in the realm of debate, not argument (I distinguish argument as including emotion, while debate is just taking sides in an objective disagreement without emotion added in). Or rather, debates are fun, arguments are upsetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I can, and sometimes do, argue/debate anything. Just because I can doesn't mean I always will or have to. Better to pick your battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 [insert popcorn pic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Paxmiles: often inscrutable; always entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Never do I get upset at the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Raw is weird and it says you must take 1 -2 core choices 1 auxiliary and up to 3 command. This supersedes the brb, so looks like you have a very different looking army make up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Raw is weird and it says you must take 1 -2 core choices 1 auxiliary and up to 3 command. This supersedes the brb, so looks like you have a very different looking army make up.That's only if you want the Gladius benefits (including full company). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Ravenguard list with Korvydae that I like: CADShadow Captain Korvydae: 15510 Assault Marines: 185 Jump Packs, 2 Flamers, Meltabombs10 Assault Marines: 185 Jump Packs, 2 Flamers, Meltabombs10 Space Marine Scouts: 134 + 50 4 Sniper Rifles, 5 CCW/BP, Missile Launcher Meltabombs Land Speeder Storm: Multimelta10 Space Marine Scouts: 130 + 50 4 Bolters, 5 CCW/BP, Missile Launcher Meltabombs Land Speeder Storm: Multimelta1 Venerable Dreadnought: 115+ 35 Multimelta Drop Pod10 Vanguard Veterans: 260 Jump Packs, 2 Power Axes, 2 Power Mauls 4 MeltabombsStorm Talon: 115 Skyhammer MLStorm Talon: 115 Skyhammer ML10th Company Formation: 5 Space Marine Scouts: 70 + 50 5 Shotguns, Meltabombs, Combi-Grav Land Speeder Storm: Multimelta5 Space Marine Scouts: 70 + 50 5 Shotguns, Meltabombs, Combi-Grav Land Speeder Storm: Multimelta10 Space Marine Scouts: 115 5 Bolters, 5 CCW/BP, Meltabombs10 Space Marine Scouts: 115 5 Bolters, 5 CCW/BP, Meltabombs1999 pts Not even remotely sniffing top tier, but I like how it would play Maelstrom and I like the early game threat of it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 assault marines are still kind of junk. It would give you a good first few turns, where you might be able to create a strong lead. It is arguable that a storm is better than a razor because of jink and mobility. But scouts are just so squishy. Would be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It is arguable that a storm is better than a razor because of jink and mobility. But scouts are just so squishy. Would be fun. In the fluff, PA marines can ride in the LS storms too. Storms, unless changed, are BS3 and have non-TL weapons, so they really have accuracy issues over the razors. That said, I do love the LS storms. I will also note that being opentopped means they tend to explode more often. Had a really bad game where I did more damage with exploding storms than with the rest of my army. It was a fair amount of damage, because my opponent had nothing but daemonettes so he really had to encircle those storms in assault to destroy them. Mind you, this was a previous edition where rending was ap2 in melee against vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marines-Battleforce-2015 So I know it's not really an amazing deal, but model selection wise, I think this is one of the better battleforces ever made for space marines. Just so many options can be built with these kits. Plus the set does meet the CAD requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 In the fluff, PA marines can ride in the LS storms too. Storms, unless changed, are BS3 and have non-TL weapons, so they really have accuracy issues over the razors. That said, I do love the LS storms. I will also note that being opentopped means they tend to explode more often. Had a really bad game where I did more damage with exploding storms than with the rest of my army. It was a fair amount of damage, because my opponent had nothing but daemonettes so he really had to encircle those storms in assault to destroy them. Mind you, this was a previous edition where rending was ap2 in melee against vehicles. Scouts have marine statlines and storms are BS 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts