Fun list of RAW fun.

I agree with that @massaen. I also think that we can curate ourselves and if we set good precedent now on pages 1-3 then it won't crop up on page 20. I'd say about here is where we want to offload disagreements like this to the rules sub.

When I've actually decided that something like this is something I intend to do I'll bring it back up there. until then I'm willing to let it lie.

As an aside my khorne post is the most congenial.

Given what Jimsolo wants from the thread - I am bowing out. Have fun guys!

Nah, that's my bad. I jumped the gun. Respectful discussion about whether a rule is being interpreted correctly makes sense here.

Here's another, though: RAW, Corsair psykers choose their own powers, rather than roll.

Found another one today.

The rule Calcific Spears for the Ossefactor states that if a non-vehicle model is removed as a casualty due to an unsaved wound caused by this weapon the model's unit immediately suffers D6 additional hits that are randomly allocated and have the Ignores Cover special rule with the strength being equivalent to the dead model's toughness and resolved at AP-. I asserted during my game today that these additional hits count as being caused by the weapon since it says "additional hits", that is, in addition to the one already made, and thus any subsequent deaths also resulted in more Calcific Spears since they are effectively the same thing, just with modified strength and AP values. He couldn't argue that I wasn't right and thus went several more Terminators.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Found another one today.

The rule Calcific Spears for the Ossefactor states that if a non-vehicle model is removed as a casualty due to an unsaved wound caused by this weapon the model's unit immediately suffers D6 additional hits that are randomly allocated and have the Ignores Cover special rule with the strength being equivalent to the dead model's toughness and resolved at AP-. I asserted during my game today that these additional hits count as being caused by the weapon since it says "additional hits", that is, in addition to the one already made, and thus any subsequent deaths also resulted in more Calcific Spears since they are effectively the same thing, just with modified strength and AP values. He couldn't argue that I wasn't right and thus went several more Terminators.

I don't know if I would have rolled over on that one. There are multiple precedents which draw parallels to this situation, like you can't reroll rerolls, despite it saying you reroll 1s, and you rolled 1s on the reroll. I'm sure I could find several other precedents in this case if I looked through various weapons.

There are other weapons with similar effects, but usually they clarify one way or the other.

indeed. "Grand Alliance Chaos" has something I can't place off the top of my head that just keeps sprawling, with very specific stipulations so this is the sort of issue that I'd probably rule in TeenageAngst's favor on, and do everything in my power to get a coinflip to resolve were I their opponent.

@BetrayTheWorld the no-rerolling rerolls is an explicitly stated rule because in a rare moment of forethought GW knew that rerolls would begin compounding on themselves if they didn't make it clear you couldn't just keep throwing dice until you got the result you liked. This is just a chain reaction that would actually make sense in the fluff of the weapon.

In almost every instance of secondary wounds though, GW has either directly said from the start that they don't produce additional wounds from the initial extras, and when they haven't, they've FAQed it to be so.

I see the merit of the argument you're making. I'd agree that it may even be RAW. I don't think it's GW's intention, and I'd imagine people wouldn't be super happy with your interpretation of it. That said, there are plenty of worse scenarios that are RAW that I would play, but I probably wouldn't push for this one because I don't think the upside of it is really that high. When I get people's blood boiling with a rule, I prefer to do it with a ruling that pretty decidedly wins me the game.

And we should all agree to let this one go here in order to ensure civility from others later since this is the outlandish RAW thread afterall.

Agreed.

Loyalist Marines cannot use Summon psychic powers.

Jimsolo wrote:

Loyalist Marines cannot use Summon psychic powers.

What was this comment in response to? Or is it meant in relation to the thread topic in general? And why? Do they have sanctic listed now or something?

It was just another one in the list.

Space Marines are CTA allies with models that have Daemons as their faction. CTA allies cannot deploy within 12" of each other. Conjuration powers generate units that arrive via Deep Strike (units that arrive via Deep Strike are noted as 'deploying' when they arrive). Since none of the Conjuration powers have a range greater than 12", by RAW no one with a CTA alliance relationship with Daemons can use them.

HOWEVER, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not RAI, since shortly after Daemonology came out, the studio released a sample battle report showing it in action, with a Dark Angels Librarian summoning Daemons. So we know the intent is that Daemons are still summonable by Marines.

Is deep strike deployment though? I've always operated that Deep striking is movement albeit from 'deep strike reserves' to that location.

On p162 in the mini rulebook, it explicitly refers to arrival by Deep Strike as deployment. One assumes they intended for Conjuration to be an exception to the CTA rules.

Noted and confirmed. I wonder if that has any unintended ripples since most people assume that "deployment" only happens during it's pregame phase.

My experience has been that people treat this just like the "for all rules purposes" bit in the IC rule: when it's inconvenient for them, they just ignore it entirely.

Fun fact: it is and has always been legal, RAW, for an IC from faction A to attach to a unit of Faction B and then begin the game embarked on a transport belonging to Faction B.

That one I can not agree to being correct as RAW currently as there are 2 very specific RAW understandings of that quoted passage and I am far, FAR, too far down the orthodox branch to accept that argument. The issue is that "for all rules purposes" cuts in 2 very different directions and you can't simultaneously enforce both without breaking the game.