Jump to content

Older armies in modern 40k?


Guest

Recommended Posts

I've never even heard of it. Where's it from?

Does it really matter?

 

I mean, we've pretty much agreed that the concept of banning older rules is purely player created. We also agree that it is up to the players to agree on what is legal in a given game. And we all still agree that it's up to the TO to ban or limit problematic elements in their events.

 

It really can't go much further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't care for legality purposes, I'm just curious because it sounds cool, and like I said, I've never heard of it.

 

And yeah, GW's official stance is use whatever you want, make up your own Units and Rules, change any Rules you don't like, just take the Rulebook as a guideline. GW's official stance is utterly useless for resolving any Rules question or dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I just saw something pointed out on From the Fang that does make Gerantius unfieldable: He's not a Lord of War or any of the specific Knight types that the various Formations call for. Since the new Detachments all either require specific Knights, or have Lord of War slots instead of Imperial Knight slots, he doesn't fit in any of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While chaos 3.5 was awesome they were far too easy to screw up and play wrong. I pride myself on following the construction rules but even I cheated a few times with them! GW needed to replace that convoluted overly complicated monstrosity with something elegant. To bad they stripped out all the flavor with the complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Is autism an embarrassing or shameful condition? I've met Pax, and even played a game with him a few years ago and I was legitimately curious. I meant no offense.

 

Things of a personal nature are best left to PMs. Remember, while Pax might not be upset by your comment, there might be another gamer within the community that is hurt, or made to feel unwelcome by said posted comment. The key to keeping internet discussions civil, is to always remember that your posts should be:

  1. Clear
  2. Informative of your position, or argument
  3. Inclusive

 

Otherwise you risk sounding more like a troll, starting a flame war, or more dangerously.... making someone who has been lurking in the forums out of a desire to participate within our community, lose the desire to do so. 

 

Another way to think about it is this: manners, they cost you nothing. But can reap great rewards.  :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard enough remembering rules from the current edition of the game, and codex's. Imagine how confusing it would be to have to understand or more importantly misunderstand rules from outdated codex's.

In your garage, do whatever you want....

At the game store, it's polite, and more appropriate to use the most current version of the rules available for your game and army.

 

That said, it's generally assumed, and might even be implied in the BRB somewhere that codex trumps rulebook. If a codex is released, that would imply that it would Clown older codex's as well.

This game has enough rules as it is, no need to go confusing things further, but as I said....in a friendly game at home or even at the store, do what you want as long as your opponent doesn't care either way.

This would also apply to the illustrious and supremely awesome follow up questions that begs to follow...."Can I make up my own Chapter of Space Marines, make up my own rules, and pick and choose rules from 6 different codex's to apply to my creative and "fluff explained" set of super rules?"

 

No thanks, maybe in a specific situation or campaign....not for the norm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Is autism an embarrassing or shameful condition? I've met Pax, and even played a game with him a few years ago and I was legitimately curious. I meant no offense.

So, just wondering, was the question on topic? Like, does the thread benefit from me being, or not being autistic? If there is no benefit, then it is misdirection at best and attempted slander at worst.

 

The deal is that asking in a Personal Message (PM) implies you personally want to know the answer, while asking in a public thread implies an that you desire others to know the answer more than just yourself. It's like a lawyer asking questions of a witness on the stand, they ask them not to know the answer, but so the judge or jury can hear the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is your quote:

I have a real hard time trying to figure out your thinking sometimes Pax. I don't mean to be rude, and please don't be offended, but are you autistic? 

So first sentience is you basically say you don't understand. Second sentence you attempt to dismiss your lack of understanding as a result of my status. And you do this in a public posting, so as to provide clarity to others that my status is in question and that is why I post things you disagree with.

 

Even if this is not your intention, can you see where a person would come to this conclusion?

 

The "autism" bit doesn't really matter in this case, as the way you've worded it, any "grouping word" would create this conflict.

 

For example:

 

"I have a real hard time trying to figure out your thinking sometimes, Necrontyr. I don't mean to be rude, and please don't be offended, but are you Caucasian?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we move on?

Yeah, I'm dropping it,. When he posted the first time, I really did expect to get a PM or something, but it is clearly a topic he wants publicly known, or he just doesn't understand the public vs private concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if our understanding of a "current edition" of a codex rules to be the most current in print, I forget how I was going to phrase that.  It's 2am.  Rather, going back to squats.  We accept that they are no longer in the game.  If someone showed up with the last printed squat army list and tried to run it, we would tell them it is invalid.  The current core book doesn't say it is invalid, though.  

 

Damn social contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Codex: Squats was never printed. :)

Guess we know what column I'm putting Pretre in... ;)

If someone wants to play something funky because the obscure cannon causes .4 more wounds per point than the standard version and if you squint hard enough you can combine rules X, Y, & Z into a 1+ save than I'd probably not enjoy my game. If someone has old lead space Dwarf, Viking pirates with cyber-parrots and hover frigates I'll probably enjoy it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...