40k:Noise marine v. Eldar Opinions?
BEltringha
noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
board. This forces me to place my force on either side of the woods if I want
clear firing arcs. He then places anti-grav platforms with scatter lasers
outside of my weapons range and proceeds to decimate my troops(over 60% of my
army comes from squads and daemons, about 20% from support ,the rest in a lord
and two aspiring champs with BM+bionic eyes).
My solution is to bring a Daemon possessed rhino with ablative,
electro-hull,warp amp, and combi- bolters and two rhinos. The possessed rhino
will attempt to get between any tank busting weapons and my rhinos and I will
use the rhinos to each transport a 3 man squad of noise marines with 1 SB(100
pt. squad) and led by the aspiring champion with BM and bionic eye. The
champion will be able to take out the D-cannon he brings with the scatter laser
before closing in, while the other champ will take out another target of
opportunity(farseer or avatar). I was also thinking of giving the rhinos
ablatives, reinforced armour, and electrohulls and a bulldozer blade on one of
them to ward off close combat attacks and any HW's that get around the DP rhino
screen. The three vehicles will also be formed into a single squadron. All the
while my other squads will be on overwatch waiting for any hawks to show
themselves. Does anyone have opinions on this tactic?, has anyone seen it
tried?,does anyone have any other tactics that may prove useful?(I almost
never bring termies, not very effective for the cost IMO)
tecnoprint
>
> I thought of a new tactic I might try against my Eldar opponent with my
> noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
> we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
> board. This forces me to place my force on either side of the woods if I want
> clear firing arcs. He then places anti-grav platforms with scatter lasers
> outside of my weapons range and proceeds to decimate my troops(over 60% of my
> army comes from squads and daemons, about 20% from support ,the rest in a lord
> and two aspiring champs with BM+bionic eyes).
Your tactics sound good, I can only say TRY THEM OUT then you'll know if
they work. Here however is a simple solution, have a marine with a
missile launcher put some ant-plant rounds into the trees and open up
your fire arcs. Also good for putting in the odd shot into those
anti-grav platforms.
Robert Sakaluk
Sydney
Oz
Tera
Sol
Nunya
potent choas squads out. That is Vet's. Try infiltrating a vet squad with a
Slaanesh champion to sudue his Farseer & then summon a couple of fiends or
Demonettes to tie him up while the rest of your army races across in the rhinos.
But make sure you have something to overwatch against jetbikes or Hawks. I may be
wrong since I'm fairly new to WH40K, but I'm not new to wargames.
BEltringha wrote:
> I thought of a new tactic I might try against my Eldar opponent with my
> noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
> we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
> board. This forces me to place my force on either side of the woods if I want
> clear firing arcs. He then places anti-grav platforms with scatter lasers
> outside of my weapons range and proceeds to decimate my troops(over 60% of my
> army comes from squads and daemons, about 20% from support ,the rest in a lord
> and two aspiring champs with BM+bionic eyes).
DaOrcboy
>noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and
>when
>we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
>board.
There are two questions I want to ask.
First of all, why are the Farces of Chaos setting up BEFORE the
Dandelion-Eaters? The Eldar (iirc) are Strategy Rating 4, while Chaos Marines
(Again, iirc) are Strategy Rating 5. That means that ELDAR set up first, THEN
the Marines.
Second of all, why oh why are you NOT taking advantage of the beautiful terrain
your opponent is placing for you? If he places a huge woodsy thing in the
middle of the board, start setting up LOTS of small things in BOTH deployment
zones. Then, when *you* set up *second* all you do is set up very very shallow
in your zone (close to the back edge of the board/table) behind the cover *you*
placed, covering the entire wooded area and with clear arcs of fire in a 12"
long "dead zone" between the woods and you. Then wait. If you go into
overwatch, he will come.
This, btw, solves your problem of his outranging you with scatter lasers.
Scatters lasers move very slowly by Eldar standards (all Eldar Heavy Weapons
not mounted on vehicles or harlequins or characters do), so you have just
equalized that little bit.
If you're very concerned about bringing out your demons early on, possess a
champion with a Greater Demon and rampage in the woods. He won't be able to
shoot YOU as long as you stay more than 2" from his side of the wooded area
that he (very stupidly) set up for your convenience, and meanwhile you can
cause terror just by proximity and force Leadership Tests and acquire more
wonderful, beautiful, delicious, juicy Summoning Points for Slaanesh.....
This tactic with the vehicles sounds just much too complicated and not much
fun, thus not very Slaaneshi at all......
-Orcboy!
Dirk Vormann
> Dandelion-Eaters? The Eldar (iirc) are Strategy Rating 4, while Chaos Marines
> (Again, iirc) are Strategy Rating 5. That means that ELDAR set up first, THEN
> the Marines.
The Farseer's strategy rating is 4, the Chaos Lord's is 5.
The Eldar army has a strategy rating of 4, the Chaos army one of 3.
DV
Post office does not deliver mail without postage. And sometimes, even
with.
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> I thought of a new tactic I might try against my Eldar opponent with my
> noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
> we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
> board.
Oh man! First, he sets up first. Don't put up with that crap that
ONLY ELDAR players seem to invent - that there are two strategy
ratings. There is only one, and we can debate that on a different
thread. Anyway, just show him the Codex where you Chaos Lord has a
'Strategy' rating of '5' and the rule on page 10 - "To determine which
player deploys his models first and who has the first turn, different
armies have what's called a strategy rating." If he still doesn't buy
this, tell him they're 'Space Marines' (check the army list heading in
the Codex) and Space Marines are a '5'.
Whatever....I'd love to debate this with any Eldar players....
Now for the Wood. There are two ways to deal with it. First,
infiltrate veterans into it and setup your army only on one half of the
table. That way you can concentrate your fire from the Noise Marines,
and use the woods to kick his butt. Get an Aspiring Champ in there and
summon daemons into his face!
The second way is to tell him you want to play with a different table
for once..
Clay
Insert silly tag line here..
BEltringha
>The Farseer's strategy rating is 4, the Chaos Lord's is 5.
>The Eldar army has a strategy rating of 4, the Chaos army one of 3.
Read page 10 of basic rulebook, section entitled "Deploying forBattle" and
page 11 "Starting and Ending". I have been playing with veteran gamers for over
a year now,I play Chaos, and I was the one that caught this rule! Not many
chaos players realize this rule exists. Another strike against the "invincible
chaos theory", we dice with Orks to see who sets up first!
This is why I came up with the new tactics. I just wanted to play an all
noisemarine army, I'm not a powergamer, but I still hate having half my army
trashed by the end of turn 2. I know what veterans can do , I know about
possessing aspiring champions, and I know an all termie army would also take
care of the problem(-1 save on sl). I should have made it more clear that what
I was looking for were any other tactics that would fit in with an all
noisemarine army.
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> >
> >The Farseer's strategy rating is 4, the Chaos Lord's is 5.
> >The Eldar army has a strategy rating of 4, the Chaos army one of 3.
>
> Read page 10 of basic rulebook, section entitled "Deploying forBattle" and
> page 11 "Starting and Ending". I have been playing with veteran gamers for over
> a year now,I play Chaos, and I was the one that caught this rule! Not many
> chaos players realize this rule exists. Another strike against the "invincible
> chaos theory", we dice with Orks to see who sets up first!
Wrong. There's only one Strategy rating.
Rulebook.
Page 10, first paragraph in the DEPLOYING FOR BATTLE section ends with
this:
"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
going first.
Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
score." This is the source of the misconception of their being two
different strategy ratings. So why does it exist? Simple...allies.
Read on.
The first paragraph on page 11 says a mixed force deploys according to
each army's strategy rating. The example is of a Space Marine and
Imperial Guard army fighting Eldar. The Guard setup first, then the
Eldar, and finally the Space Marines. But how do you determine which
side goes first? The Imperium side has forces from two different
strategy ratings. Easy - one force contains the overall commander, and
it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
first. If the commander belonged to the Space Marines, then you use
their rating of '5'. Go back and read the rule again and see how it
applies.
Supporting evidence.
There's a couple of Vehicle Cards that impact strategy ratings.
Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
Command Comm-Link - "When rolling to see which side goes first, a Space
Marine force that includes this vehicle may roll two D6 and add their
strategy rating to the best result." Here we are using the "Army"
strategy rating - not a separate commander rating. So there can only
be one rating.
Designers notes, page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a
sort of strategic initiative value that defines which side sets up
first and takes the first turn." That sounds like one rating to me.
And I finish by asking two questions, both based on the FLAWED and
INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
from the army.
1 - Why do the Orks DOUBLE their strategy rating for going first? Why
not just give the Warboss a Strategy Rating of '6'? The only answer is
that there is ONLY ONE RATING and a special rule for Orks was created!
2 - I defy anybody who believes in two separate Strategy Ratings to
tell me what the Strategy Rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness is.
The SOB Codex says (page 54) "If the Canoness is leading the army, it
has a strategy rating of 4." Okay, so what's HER rating? If there's
only one, it doesn't matter. If there's two ratings, what's her's?
Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'. However,
notice that a normal 'Chaos Cultist' army in the same codex uses a
Strategy rating of '3'.... The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
Marines, and they are still a '5'.
Clay, who has NEVER set up his Chaos Marines before an Eldar player....
Insert silly tag line here..
Oh yeah, I forgot this. White Dwarf #166, page 56, written by Andy
Chambers, says: "In the new Warhammer 40,000, you use a slightly
different procedure to determine who has the first turn. Each player
rolls a D6 and adds their army's strategy rating to the score...."
Game. Set. Match! All in one post! Aren't y'all proud of me?!
Kemnitzer,Trollman
> I thought of a new tactic I might try against my Eldar opponent with my
>noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
>we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
>board.
You're actual problem is that you are misreading the rules.
The Chaos Marine army is a marine army, and sets up at strategy level
5, AFTER the Eldar. Only the Chaos CULTIST army sets up first.
Frank
Chaos Marines are still marines, they have strategy rating five, they
have power armor which negates viral attacks, etc.
BEltringha
>Wrong. There's only one Strategy rating.
>
>
Page 10 "Deploying for Battle", "An army's strategy rating is based on how
mobile and flexible it is as well as its racial grasp of strategy and tactics"
It goes on to give examples on army deployment for allies indicating that the
overall commanders rating does not affect setup. It gives the specific example
of marines and I.G. , if the army and commanders rating are the same thing then
why does the I.G. have to set-up first if they are be commanded by a marine?
This indicates there is an army rating and a leader rating. It also states,"The
different race's strategy ratings are listed below". On the table it also gives
the the heading "Race/Army" heading. This clearly indicates that each army has
an "army" strategy rating as at no point is a commanders army rating mentioned
in the entire section! The reason Chaos marines have a lower rating is because
they don,t have access to thunderhawks, teleporters, and have very little in
the way of mobile forces(25% support).
Page 11 basic rulebook, "Starting and Ending". "Once everyones models have been
deployed both players roll a d6 and add the strategy rating of of their force's
commander to the score." It specifically uses the commanders strategy rating
and nowhere in the section uses army/race rating which is a seperate and
distinct term. Just because you have a good commander doesn't change the basic
organization of your army, but it does give the tactical initiative. The army
score is the operational/strategic rating of an army and the commanders rating
reflects his tactical ability.
>FLAWED and
>INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
>from the army.
Then why does it specifically say in codex Chaos that " If the Chaos Lord is
taken as the army commanderhe has a strategy rating of five." This indicates
that the commander has the strategy rating of five for starting and ending. But
nowhere in Codex Chaos does it mention an army/race rating which is used for
deployment as specified in the basic rulebook.
Lets my Dark Angel army includes Azrael as the commander (SR 6) and I have IG
allies. If there were only one strategy rating for armies and leaders then the
Marines and IG would set-up at the same time because Azrael is the commander.
However, the example in the rulebook states,"In a battle with a mixed force of
space marines and imperial guard fighting an eldar force the imperial guard
would be deployed first,then eldar and finally marines." Therefore, the
strategy rating of an army may be different from that of the commander, meaning
there are two distinct strategy ratings.
You can cite all of the circumstantial evidence that you want, but the example
on page 10 and the distinct way in which they list the rules under seperate
sections with distinct terminology means there is a commanders rating and an
army rating. Although it doesn't mean much Tyranid has posted and I have a
confirmation from the rulezboyz that Chaos has a strategy rating of 3 for
set-up and five for starting. Although I have not always agreed with their
rulings I have to concur on this one, it's clearly stated in the basic
rulebook, isn't contradicted in the Codex and fits the army list and fluff (25%
support and no teleporters / thunderhawks).
BEltringha
>have power armor which negates viral attacks, etc.
But they aren't as mobile and can't have as many vehicles(25% support) as
loyalists(or thunderhawks and teleporters). The army rating is their strategic
rating, the commanders rating is their tactical. Just because you have a good
commander doesn't change your army organization.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Hell yes! It's about time someone went to all the trouble to
read the book. I'm sick and tired of Eldar players trying to cheat
like that.
By the way, you're still wrong about Khorne Terminators. :)
But this is a very well reasoned and correct post:
Clay Smith wrote:
>BEltringha was wrong when she wrote:
>
>> Read page 10 of basic rulebook, section entitled "Deploying forBattle" and
>> page 11 "Starting and Ending". I have been playing with veteran gamers for over
>> a year now,I play Chaos, and I was the one that caught this rule! Not many
>> chaos players realize this rule exists. Another strike against the "invincible
>> chaos theory", we dice with Orks to see who sets up first!
>
>Wrong. There's only one Strategy rating.
>
>And I finish by asking two questions, both based on the FLAWED and
>INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
>from the army.
>
Kemnitzer,Trollman
So? The fact of the matter is that the Chaos MARINE army is a
MARINE army, and even if you follow the pointless little two strategy
rating rules, they are still a MARINE army, which grants them a
strategy rating of 5. Read the Chaos codex, there are three chaos
armies, only one is a MARINE army. However, everyone plays the MARINE
army, so everyone gets strategy rating 5.
Of course, the SoB codex is the <current> new order of things,
and you can just stop trying to make Chaos set up second as there is a
new way of doing things now (SoB codex) and an even newer way of doing
things soon (3rd edition).
Frank
Dirk Vormann
> >>have power armor which negates viral attacks, etc.
> >
> >But they aren't as mobile and can't have as many vehicles(25% support) as
> >loyalists(or thunderhawks and teleporters). The army rating is their strategic
> >rating, the commanders rating is their tactical. Just because you have a good
> >commander doesn't change your army organization.
>
> So? The fact of the matter is that the Chaos MARINE army is a
> MARINE army, and even if you follow the pointless little two strategy
> rating rules, they are still a MARINE army, which grants them a
> strategy rating of 5. Read the Chaos codex, there are three chaos
> armies, only one is a MARINE army. However, everyone plays the MARINE
> army, so everyone gets strategy rating 5.
So? The fact of the matter is that the CHAOS marine army is a
CHAOS army, and even if you follow the pointless little two strategy
rating rules, they are still a CHAOS army, which grants them a
strategy rating of 3. Read the Chaos codex, there are three CHAOS
armies, all of them are CHAOS armies. However, everyone plays the CHAOS
marine
army, so everyone gets strategy rating 3.
Dirk Vormann
> a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
> score." This is the source of the misconception of their being two
> different strategy ratings. So why does it exist? Simple...allies.
> Read on.
>
> The first paragraph on page 11 says a mixed force deploys according to
> each army's strategy rating. The example is of a Space Marine and
> Imperial Guard army fighting Eldar. The Guard setup first, then the
> Eldar, and finally the Space Marines. But how do you determine which
> side goes first? The Imperium side has forces from two different
> strategy ratings. Easy - one force contains the overall commander, and
> it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
> first. If the commander belonged to the Space Marines, then you use
> their rating of '5'. Go back and read the rule again and see how it
> applies.
Exactly! There are different strategy ratings used for deployment and
first turn in case of allies! If there were only one than the IG part of
a strategy rating 5 army would set up AFTER the Eldar.
> Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
> rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
No, this means 1 is added to one strategy rating, not both.
> Command Comm-Link - "When rolling to see which side goes first, a Space
> Marine force that includes this vehicle may roll two D6 and add their
> strategy rating to the best result." Here we are using the "Army"
> strategy rating - not a separate commander rating. So there can only
> be one rating.
If you use that card you have to use the "army" strategy rating for
first turn. That is a special feature of that particular vehicle card.
> And I finish by asking two questions, both based on the FLAWED and
> INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
> from the army.
>
> 1 - Why do the Orks DOUBLE their strategy rating for going first? Why
> not just give the Warboss a Strategy Rating of '6'? The only answer is
> that there is ONLY ONE RATING and a special rule for Orks was created!
The ork commander effectively has a strategy rating of 6. GW explained
that in an irritating way.
> 2 - I defy anybody who believes in two separate Strategy Ratings to
> tell me what the Strategy Rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness is.
> The SOB Codex says (page 54) "If the Canoness is leading the army, it
> has a strategy rating of 4." Okay, so what's HER rating? If there's
> only one, it doesn't matter. If there's two ratings, what's her's?
She does not have one.
Q: What do you add to the dice roll if no number is given?
A: zero
> Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
> Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'. However,
> notice that a normal 'Chaos Cultist' army in the same codex uses a
> Strategy rating of '3'.... The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
> Marines, and they are still a '5'.
The Chaos Space Marines are still CHAOS, and they are still a '3'.
utt.onramp.net
Dirk Vormann <DVor...@physcip.uni-duisburg.de> writes:
>
> > Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
> > rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
>
> No, this means 1 is added to one strategy rating, not both.
Where are you pulling that idea from?
>
> > 2 - I defy anybody who believes in two separate Strategy Ratings to
> > tell me what the Strategy Rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness is.
> > The SOB Codex says (page 54) "If the Canoness is leading the army, it
> > has a strategy rating of 4." Okay, so what's HER rating? If there's
> > only one, it doesn't matter. If there's two ratings, what's her's?
>
> She does not have one.
> Q: What do you add to the dice roll if no number is given?
> A: zero
Oh, I get it. You don't really believe the 'two strategy rating' thing
either!
Clay
utt.onramp.net
rit...@cruzio.com (Kemnitzer,Trollman) writes:
>
>
>
> Hell yes! It's about time someone went to all the trouble to
> read the book. I'm sick and tired of Eldar players trying to cheat
> like that.
Thank you...it's amazing what you can learn when you ignore the Eldar
and just use the rules....
>
> By the way, you're still wrong about Khorne Terminators. :)
> But this is a very well reasoned and correct post:
I guess we're just going to have to start over then.
See...Khorne Terminator Berserkers have an armor save of 3+ on
2d6....here's why....
BEltringha
>armies, only one is a MARINE army. However, everyone plays the MARINE
>army, so everyone gets strategy rating 5.
The Chaos Codex did not change the army rating, if you read the codex it
specifically states the army commanders rating only. Daemon World armies also
have a leader strategy of 5 but it doesn't change the basic rulebooks rule that
Chaos has an army rating of 3. The basic rulebook Lists Chaos as having an
army rating of 3, if you go to the Black Codex, under Chaos, it gives the
Chaos Lords strategy rating as 5. Under the old and the new rules chaos has an
army strategy rating of three and a leader rating of 5.
>they are still a MARINE army, which grants them a
>strategy rating of 5
The traitor legions are a completely different army organization than
post-heresy marine, because they had different roles. The heresy marines had
the role of conquest and had a relatively large beauracracy and logistics
organization. They did not have the support of Titans and I.G., they had to
carry the battle themselves. This is what limits their flexibility,mobility,
and gives them a lower army rating. Post-heresy marines have a completely
different organization. They are smaller,more mobile, and their role is that of
a rapid response/strike force.
>
> Of course, the SoB codex is the <current> new order of things,
As a Chaos player you should know that codexes only apply to that army,
that's why we have monstorous dreadnaughts and loyalists don't.
>an even newer way of doing
>things soon (3rd edition).
>
>
I play Chaos and I hope they do change it, but we're stuck with the current
rules for now.
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
>
> I play Chaos and I hope they do change it, but we're stuck with the current
> rules for now.
The rule is that their is one rating. There never has been a separate
one for setup and going first except for the special ones mentioned
(which goes even further to prove there's only one rating).
I've quoted legions of rules from the rulebook and White Dwarf that
clearly says there's only one strategy rating.
Some of you guys are inventing a rule that doesn't exist.
DaOrcboy
Besides, Orcboy plays Imperial Guard, and is now going into Tyranids. No
arguments with these two armies at all. None. Nada. Zip. Not even if Orcboy
uses Macharius.
If Orcboy ever feels need to go into another 40K army, he will use Necrons,
because there will be no silly arguments about Strategy Rating there, either.
Orcboy feels that despite ugly miniatures and clumsy rules and lack of psychic
abilities, avoiding whole complicated mess of arguments backed by two opposing
Johnnie Cochrans of WH40K rules lawyering will be worth the humiliation of
using Necrons.
-Orcboy!
BEltringha
>one for setup and going first except for the special ones mentioned
>(which goes even further to prove there's only one rating).
>
>I've quoted legions of rules from the rulebook and White Dwarf that
>clearly says there's only one strategy rating.
If it is so clear then why does the basic rulebook specifically give a race
strategy rating and then tell you to use a leaders stratehy rating? The basic
rulebook was published at the same time as the Black Codex, and they were
packaged together, the basic rulebook lists the Chaos army strategy rating as a
3, the Black Codex lists the Chaos Lord as having a strategy rating of 5. If
they are the same thing then why are there two terminologies with two distinct
and seperate numbers? There is nothing in codex Chaos that changes the ratings,
so they stand. I think the confusion arises because people refer to a "strategy
rating" because most armies have same rating for set-up and going first.
>except for the special ones mentioned
>(which goes even further to prove there's only one rating).
How so?, By your own reasoning you state there is only one strategy rating,
which is the army commanders. Therefore if I have an army commanded by a leader
with a strategy rating of five then the entire army has a rating of five.
Therefore, the eldar would set-up first then the marines and I.G. would set-up
together. Your logic just doesn't follow. The entire section is riddled with
terms like "race", "army",and "force" and not once is a leaders strategy rating
mentioned. Forces having ratings and Leaders have ratings, that's why they
call them by different names. The phrase"..they are still deployed according to
their individual strategy ratings" is not worded as a special rule, it is
stating that the basic rule still applies, even though there is one commander
each army has a rating which is used for setup and the leaders rating for
starting.
As for the volumes of rules that have been quoted I have yet to see one
which directly relates to Chaos. The Ork rule is listed under the heading
"Special rules", I can't comment on SOB cause I don't have the codex.. One
sentence in a WD ,which doesn't have the best editing, doesn't change the basic
mechanics of the game unless it was specified as a rules change. My point is
that all the evidence in the basic rulebook, black codex, and Chaos codex all
point to the fact that there are two strategy ratings. Yes, there is one
sentence in the deploying for battle section that implies a single rating but
the rest of the section contradicts that one sentence. Likewise, there are a
couple ambiguous comments but listed in other sources but they do not directly
apply to Chaos. The preponderance of the evidence is on the side of two
ratings.
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> Therefore, the eldar would set-up first then the marines and I.G. would set-up
> together. Your logic just doesn't follow.
Please read page 11 of the rulebook. It clearly states that you SETUP
using your force's strategy rating. However, you use the COMMANDER to
determine who goes first. This is only necessary when using allies.
How would you do it if you had to roll for the Guard and the Marines
separately? Doesn't make sense.
What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
(Quotes are good)
utt.onramp.net
daor...@aol.com (DaOrcboy) writes:
> abilities, avoiding whole complicated mess of arguments backed by two opposing
> Johnnie Cochrans of WH40K rules lawyering will be worth the humiliation of
> using Necrons.
If it doesn't fit, you must aquit!
Kemnitzer,Trollman
csmith-don't.include....@spammers.can.kiss.my.pasty.white.b
utt.onramp.net (Clay Smith) wrote:
>> By the way, you're still wrong about Khorne Terminators. :)
>> But this is a very well reasoned and correct post:
>
>I guess we're just going to have to start over then.
>
>See...Khorne Terminator Berserkers have an armor save of 3+ on
>2d6....here's why....
As I recall it's because te codex really doesn't come out and
say one way or the other, merely giving vague innuendo that one side
or the other might be correct. So, since GW apparently plays it 3+,
that's what it is.
Don't worry, I'm just giving you crap. :)
>
>Clay
>
>Insert silly tag line here..
Frank
utt.onramp.net
rit...@cruzio.com (Kemnitzer,Trollman) writes:
But that's what I said - it's 3+ on 2d6.....check it again!
BEltringha
>using your force's strategy rating.
Exactly, not your army commanders.
>However, you use the COMMANDER to
>determine who goes first.
Exactly, not your army's.
>
>How would you do it if you had to roll for the Guard and the Marines
>separately? Doesn't make sense.
Exactly, thats why there is an army strategy rating and a commander strategy
rating . Two ratings as I posted earlier. Page ten gives the Chaos army
strategy rating and you can find the Chaos Lords rating in the Black Codex or
Codex Chaos. Top of page 11,"The force with the lowest strategy rating must
deploy its models first. If several units from different armies are fighting
together as allies then they are still deployed according to their individual
strategy ratings." It then gives the example. Notice the words "are still
deployed" , meaning that you follow the normal procedure using the army
strategy ratings listed in the table on page 10. Which states that Chaos has a
3 army strategy rating. Page 11 "starting and ending" says," Once everybodys
models have been deployed both players roll a d6 and add the strategy rating of
their forces commander to the score." At no point does it say army strategy
rating, you use the commanders rating. Look in black codex or chaos codex and
it will be a five(unless its kharn). Therefore, there are two different
strategy ratings for Chaos, one for setup and one for starting.
>
>What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
>(Quotes are good)
>
>
As I said before, I don't have the codex so I can't reply directly. However,
since the race was not included in the original rules , and there is no rating
listed then one would have to use the commanders rating or give them a 0. The
second option is to consider it one of the many codex special rules that apply
only to that codex , like monstrous creatures in codex chaos and tyranids, and
leave it at that. The general point is that it doesn't change the fact that
Chaos has two ratings , and that's from the basic rulebook. The other armies
tend to have
equivelant army and commander ratings, unfortunately chaos doesn't . That is
why there is some ambiguos wording , which you pointed out, because there is a
tendency to lump the ratings together because most armies commander matches
their race rating. When you look at the basic rulebook and the black and chaos
codex the weight of the evidence comes down on the side of Chaos having two
strategy ratings.
P.S. Sorry to see you go clay, I've enjoyed the sparring matches.
BEltringha
>If it doesn't fit, you must aquit!
>
>
At the American Bar Association meeting this year Johny Cochrane represented
plaintiffs suing the makers of the Titanic. He had a new catch phrase, "If you
design and build a boat it must stay afloat!"
Olcglas
csmith-don't.include....@spammers.can.kiss.my.pasty.white.b writes:
>
>If it doesn't fit, you must aquit!
Not in *this* court. If it doesn't fit, you must file, drill, pin and epoxy.
Beneath, what angels are at work? What powers
Prepare the secret of the fatal hours?
See! the mists tremble, and the clouds are stirred:
When comes the calling word? - Lionel Johnson, 1867-1902
Jason VanNorman
>
>
> >What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
> >(Quotes are good)
> >
> since the race was not included in the original rules , and there is no rating
> listed then one would have to use the commanders rating or give them a 0.
Actually, GW was very clever about this part in the SoB codex: "If the
Canoness is leading the army, it has a strategy rating of 4." And each
potential leader has a similar rule. Since these armies aren't listed in
the rulebook, their strategy rating is listed in the codex, contingent
on which model leads the army. In fact, the only thing ambiguous is what
the commander's personal strategy rating is (for purposes of
initiative), but you really have to assume it's identical to the army's,
in this case.
--
Jason VanNorman
a.k.a Razor Jacksuit
"If I had known it was harmless, I would
have killed it myself."
Dirk Vormann
> > together. Your logic just doesn't follow.
>
> Please read page 11 of the rulebook. It clearly states that you SETUP
> using your force's strategy rating. However, you use the COMMANDER to
> determine who goes first. This is only necessary when using allies.
>
> separately? Doesn't make sense.
>
She doesn't have one so nothing can be added to the dice roll.
We also have to ask: what is the SoB army rating if there is no canoness
(perhaps they are used as allies)?
DV (120% serious)
Dirk Vormann
> > >
> However,
> > since the race was not included in the original rules , and there is no rating
> > listed then one would have to use the commanders rating or give them a 0.
>
> Actually, GW was very clever about this part in the SoB codex: "If the
> Canoness is leading the army, it has a strategy rating of 4." And each
> potential leader has a similar rule. Since these armies aren't listed in
> the rulebook, their strategy rating is listed in the codex, contingent
> on which model leads the army. In fact, the only thing ambiguous is what
> the commander's personal strategy rating is (for purposes of
> initiative), but you really have to assume it's identical to the army's,
> in this case.
Why do you have to assume it were identical? No number is given, so none
can be added to the roll.
You also get problems if SoB are used as allies and noone who gives the
army a strategy rating is present.
DV
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> >t clearly states that you SETUP
> >using your force's strategy rating.
>
> Exactly, not your army commanders.
>
> >However, you use the COMMANDER to
> >determine who goes first.
>
> Exactly, not your army's.
But there's only ONE rating! You setup the forces according to each
force's rating. Only one force can contain the commander and it's that
force's strategy rating that you use to see who goes first. It's just
worded in typical GW fashion.
>
>
>
> >
> >How would you do it if you had to roll for the Guard and the Marines
> >separately? Doesn't make sense.
>
> Exactly, thats why there is an army strategy rating and a commander strategy
> rating . Two ratings as I posted earlier.
Where in the rules does it say there is a separate rating for setup and
going first? A: Only in the exceptions! (Orks and Macharius)
>
> P.S. Sorry to see you go clay, I've enjoyed the sparring matches.
Yeah...well, I'm wondering which co-workers will have to suffer through
them now....
utt.onramp.net
Jason VanNorman <jack...@funtv.com> writes:
> BEltringha wrote:
> >
> >
> > >What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
> > >(Quotes are good)
> > >
> However,
> > since the race was not included in the original rules , and there is no rating
> > listed then one would have to use the commanders rating or give them a 0.
>
> Actually, GW was very clever about this part in the SoB codex: "If the
> Canoness is leading the army, it has a strategy rating of 4." And each
> potential leader has a similar rule. Since these armies aren't listed in
> the rulebook, their strategy rating is listed in the codex, contingent
> on which model leads the army. In fact, the only thing ambiguous is what
> the commander's personal strategy rating is (for purposes of
> initiative), but you really have to assume it's identical to the army's,
> in this case.
Well...I *KNOW* it's a '4' because there's only one rating. Reference
the myriad quotes I've given from the rules and White Dwarf that says
the strategy rating is used for both setup and going first. But the
'two ratings' idea falls apart when it hits the SOB codex because there
isn't a separate rating given....
utt.onramp.net
Dirk Vormann <DVor...@physcip.uni-duisburg.de> writes:
> > > Therefore, the eldar would set-up first then the marines and I.G. would set-up
> > > together. Your logic just doesn't follow.
> >
> > Please read page 11 of the rulebook. It clearly states that you SETUP
> > using your force's strategy rating. However, you use the COMMANDER to
> > determine who goes first. This is only necessary when using allies.
> >
> > How would you do it if you had to roll for the Guard and the Marines
> > separately? Doesn't make sense.
> >
> > What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
>
> She doesn't have one so nothing can be added to the dice roll.
>
> We also have to ask: what is the SoB army rating if there is no canoness
> (perhaps they are used as allies)?
There you go!
BEltringha
>force's rating. Only one force can contain the commander and it's that
>force's strategy rating that you use to see who goes first. It's just
>worded in typical GW fashion.
The whole thresd went off on a tangent , I said Chaos set-up before Eldar
(force rating of 3 vs. 4), as listed on page ten under the seting up section.
It then states that you use an army commanders rating to determine who goes
first on page 11 under the "starting and ending", which in the case of chaos is
a 5 , unless Kharn is in command, according to the black codex and the chaos
codex. They are two seperate sections and two seperate ratings, it just
happens that most armies have their commanders rating and army rating as the
same, which pretty much makes them equivelant.
>
>Where in the rules does it say there is a separate rating for setup and
>going first?
Look at the tavble on page 10 of the basic rulebook under "Deploying for
Battle", it gives the Race/Army strategy rating. Notice that Chaos is given a
three. Look at page 11 under "Starting and Ending", it states that you use the
"force commanders strategy rating" for going first. Look in the Black Codex
(published at same time of rules) or the Chaos Codex and it will list the Chaos
Lord as having a strategy rating of five. Two different numbers are used by
Chaos, a three for setup and a five for starting. Just because I have a good
tactical leader doesn't change my army organization.
Brian Schenck
> In article <199808042352...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
> beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
>
> > I thought of a new tactic I might try against my Eldar opponent with my
> > noise marine army. The problem has been that I set up before the Eldar and when
> > we place terrain he always puts a large wooded section in the middle of the
> > board.
>
> Oh man! First, he sets up first. Don't put up with that crap that
> ONLY ELDAR players seem to invent - that there are two strategy
> ratings. There is only one, and we can debate that on a different
> thread. Anyway, just show him the Codex where you Chaos Lord has a
> 'Strategy' rating of '5' and the rule on page 10 - "To determine which
> player deploys his models first and who has the first turn, different
> armies have what's called a strategy rating." If he still doesn't buy
> this, tell him they're 'Space Marines' (check the army list heading in
> the Codex) and Space Marines are a '5'.
>
> Whatever....I'd love to debate this with any Eldar players....
>
> Now for the Wood. There are two ways to deal with it. First,
> infiltrate veterans into it and setup your army only on one half of the
> table. That way you can concentrate your fire from the Noise Marines,
> and use the woods to kick his butt. Get an Aspiring Champ in there and
> summon daemons into his face!
>
> The second way is to tell him you want to play with a different table
> for once..
>
I thought you were leaving Clay :)
Anyhow, if you throw in the randomizing effects of a dice roll, it's even
more even in who may or may not set up first.
Strictly being analytical though... it seems your opponent is being cheesy
to the max. First thing, set up the board before you make any rolls at
all. Then, when you make the roll and you win, pick the side that works
best for you.
If you don't like the terrain setup, redo it so that you feel it is more
balanced. Hell, get a complete bystander (hint, younger sibling if
possible) to setup the board. I used to do that at the game shop I
frequented for a while, and the people loved my setups. Well, they hated
them, but they like the fact that their opponent did to.
If you have cover use it. It's not like the APGs can do pop-ups and stay
behind cover all day. And with their effective BS4, you should hit as
often as they do. And with Blastmasters and Sonic Cannons, you should
still be outdoing him.
Then again, I don't know the full details of your opponent's "tactics".
Hopefully he's not as bad as I think he might be.
Brian D. Schenck
mail to: shr...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shrike
"Poit! Zort! Narffff...." - From the collected sayings of Pinkey
BEltringha
>'two ratings' idea falls apart when it hits the SOB codex because there
>isn't a separate rating given....
>
>
All codexes have special rules for their specific armies. How does this relate
to Chaos? All of my examples directly relate to Chaos. Under set-up Chaos is
listed as a 3, under commanders rating it is a five under the black codex and
the chaos codex. It looks like there are two seperate values to me! It just
happens that most other army's army and leader ratings match, and that's why
people refer to it as a "strategy rating", but it doesn't hold true for Chaos.
I dare you to find Chaos specific entries that evidence a 5 strategy rating for
set-up, (what lawyers call something when it is "on point", evidence on point
is much more valuable then evidence that isn't)
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Under set-up, Marines, ALL OF THEM, are given a five. Unless
you use the Chaos Cult army in the Chaos codex you are a marine army.
Get over it, and setup last.
Frank
Even if you're right about the two strategy ratings, which you aren't,
you atill are wrong about Chaos Marines setting up first.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<jack...@funtv.com> wrote:
>BEltringha wrote:
>>
>>
>> >What's the Strategy rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness, please?
>> >(Quotes are good)
>> >
>However,
>> since the race was not included in the original rules , and there is no rating
>> listed then one would have to use the commanders rating or give them a 0.
>
> Actually, GW was very clever about this part in the SoB codex: "If the
>Canoness is leading the army, it has a strategy rating of 4." And each
>potential leader has a similar rule. Since these armies aren't listed in
>the rulebook, their strategy rating is listed in the codex, contingent
>on which model leads the army. In fact, the only thing ambiguous is what
>the commander's personal strategy rating is (for purposes of
>initiative), but you really have to assume it's identical to the army's,
>in this case.
Actually, I would suggest that people don't have seperate
initiative and set-up strategy ratings, but that's just because GW has
said that repeatedly in WD and in person.
> Jason VanNorman
> a.k.a Razor Jacksuit
Frank
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> I dare you to find Chaos specific entries that evidence a 5 strategy rating for
> set-up,
p88 - "If the Chaos Lord is taken as the army commander he has a
strategy rating of 5"
There you go. Since there's only one rating, setup with a 5!
Nathan T. Swetye
> you use the Chaos Cult army in the Chaos codex you are a marine army.
> Get over it, and setup last.
ok ok ok... as a Chaos zealot myself, I am very interested in this debate.
The chaos mailing list fought over it and never really came up with a
resolution. Material has been produced both ways regarding it. Everyone
can find information to support either side of the arguement. I guess
what I want to know is whether or not there has been a chaos battle
report within the past few years in a White Dwarf. If there has, check in
there to see who set up first, and at least you have some kind of
semi-official ruling (if its in White Dwarf, thats good enough for me. If
its just because a roolzboy said it was so, then it may still be bunk)
Im done now.
nathan swetye
--------------
"Because without fear of the Devil, there is no more need of God."
mailto:to...@tool.nu
http://www.tool.nu
BEltringha
>p88 - "If the Chaos Lord is taken as the army commander he has a
>strategy rating of 5"
>
>
For Starting and ending,,as per the rulebook. It specifically states chaos has
a 3 strategy rating under set-up.
>There you go. Since there's only one rating, setup with a 5!
>
>
Unless you have a different rulebook than I do it says chao has a strategy
rating of 3 under setup and for dtarting and ending a chaos lord has a 5, looks
like two different numbers to me.
BEltringha
> Under set-up, Marines, ALL OF THEM, are given a five. Unless
>you use the Chaos Cult army in the Chaos codex you are a marine army.
>Get over it, and setup last.
My rulebook says SPACE MARINES have a strategy rating of 5 for set-up. My
Chaos Codex say that Chaos space marines are just that CHAOS SPACE MARINES,
notice the word chaos in the title, your just playing semantics. Next you'll
argue Chaos Marines should be using the shaken rule because they are marines,
and jumpacks and.....Look at the Black Codex(written at the same time as the
rules) and it says Chaos Army List, and guess what chaos marines are included
in the list. The Codex Chaos says just that CODEX CHAOS. It isn't " Codex Chaos
and those non loyalist marines that aren't chaos".
l>Even if you're right about the two strategy ratings, which you aren't,
>you atill are wrong about Chaos Marines setting up first.
>
>
Where in the rules under set-up does it say Chaos has a strategy rating of five
? It says they have a three. What is a Chaos army commanders strategy rating?
It's a five , therefore they have a five for "Starting and Ending." Read the
rules in context and you will understand setting up is different than starting
and ending. They have different designations and usedifferent rules. Next thing
you know you'll be saying template weapons and blastmarker weapons are the same
thing.
Lets use the example given on page 11 of the Rulebook under "Deploying For
Battle", lets substitute Chaos Marines for the loyalists and substitute ork
allies for I.G. and lets fight the Eldar. Here it goes,"If several units from
different armies are fighting together as allies then they are still deployed
according to their individual strategy ratings", and I stress the words still
deployed , indicating the normal rules are followed. It goes on," in a battle
with mixed FORCES of" CHAOS space marines and ORKS" fighting an Eldar force"
the chaos space marines and orks would deployed first and then the Eldar. The
reason is because the Orks and Chaos have a strategy rating of 3 for set-up as
stated on the table. Nowhere in the entire section is a commanders rating
mentioned. Under starting and ending the Chaos lord would then roll a d6 and
add the strategy rating of their COMMANDER , not their force.
If you read the rules it is clear that different ratings are used. The
example clearly states that armies are set up according to the army strategy
rating , which is conveniently listed in a table, and that the army commanders
rating is used for starting. I don't know where you are getting that there is
only one rating for CHAOS , two are clearly given , one in deploying and one
for the commander ( BLACK CODEX and CHAOS CODEX). Nobody has explained why two
strategy ratings are given for chaos if there is only one
BEltringha
>initiative and set-up strategy ratings, but that's just because GW has
>said that repeatedly in WD
Where is the ruling in WD? I would hate to have wasted all this bandwidth if
they have made an official ruling.
>and in person.
You know that doesn't count, "Jervis told me that my Khorne termies got a 2+
unmod. on 3d6, really!"
BEltringha
>ok ok ok... as a Chaos zealot myself
I think this is part of the problem when trying to resolve rules conflicts.
People want every advantage for their army that they can get and it interferes
with objectivity. I play Chaos and yet I am arguing against Chaos having a 5
for set-up. The reason is that I believe this is the proper interpretation of
the rulebook. When I first read the passages I tried to come up with evidence
that it was a 5 for set-up and starting and ending. I thought about some of the
same things Clay has pointed out. But I believe the weight of the ecvidence
indicates that Chaos has a three for set-up and a 5 for starting., because that
is what the rules state. You can argue all you want but it clearly states that
Chaos has a three under "Deploying for Battle" and that "Starting and ending"
is a different rule, otherwise they would have been combined or at the very
leat they would have used commanders rating and army rating interchangeably.
They didn't therefore you must assume they are distinct and seperate even
though they embody simmilar concepts. It's kinda like "Blast Markers" and
"Templates", on the surface they appear to be the same, but if you read the
sections they are different. When you readcritically,particularly with rules
and statutes, you are taught that every word has meaning in interpreting the
context. That is why the terms "army commander" and "army" are so important ,
the fact they they were intentionally divided into seperate headings is also
important. They could easily have tacked onto the end of deploying for battle
the rules for starting and ending, but they were seperated intentionally. When
you pay attention to each individual word and the context in which they are
used it is clear that chaos sets up with a three and starts with the commanders
rating. Relying on individual terms with no relation to context will create
ambiguity. Most of the posts supporting the 5 rating for set-up have quoted
individual sentences with no relation to either section "deploying for battle"
and "Starting and Ending". I can take individual sentences from all over the
codexes to create ambiguity in rules. My point is that Chaos players want their
army to have a 5 for set-up and are willing to argue the point even when
presented with black and white rules to the contrary. I have seen this with all
armies not just chaos, let's just sit back and look at it from as neutral a
viewpoint as we can.
DaOrcboy
ambiguities. PErsonally, I think all the Brits and Auzzies and Nzealanders
know in their soul of souls that there's only a single strategy rating and have
no worries or problems getting to sleep at night wondering if the wording MAYBE
indicates two. This is probably why there IS an ambiguity like this, because
only Yanks would catch it (and argue over it). Correct me if I'm wrong,
Brit/Commonwealther English Speakers! But if this argument gets any more
vehement, I'm going to recommend that GW put out a Q&A that succinctly answers
this little debate, one way or another. (besides which, I think the only cases
in which this is a problem is:
(a) when Eldar fight Chaos.
(b) when SOB fight anyone, with and/or without their Canoness.)
-Orcboy!
Kemnitzer,Trollman
>>
>> Under set-up, Marines, ALL OF THEM, are given a five. Unless
>>you use the Chaos Cult army in the Chaos codex you are a marine army.
>>Get over it, and setup last.
>
> My rulebook says SPACE MARINES have a strategy rating of 5 for set-up. My
>Chaos Codex say that Chaos space marines are just that CHAOS SPACE MARINES,
>notice the word chaos in the title, your just playing semantics. Next you'll
>argue Chaos Marines should be using the shaken rule because they are marines,
>and jumpacks and.....Look at the Black Codex(written at the same time as the
>rules) and it says Chaos Army List, and guess what chaos marines are included
>in the list. The Codex Chaos says just that CODEX CHAOS. It isn't " Codex Chaos
>and those non loyalist marines that aren't chaos".
Yes, they are SPACE MARINES. Go look at your Ultramarines
codex, it says that they are ULTRAMARINES. It doesn't even say that
they are space marines. :)
However, the point is that the word is Space MArines, it's in
the army name, and therefore they are a space marine army. They don't
get jumppacks or the shaken rules, or the good looking armor, but they
are still a space marine army. Honestly. If you want to rules lawyer,
lawyer with ALL the rules, not just a few of them.
<snipped: incredibly flawed argument, but I was just responding to the
flawed argument up there, and the post would go on way too long if I
wanted to refute every single way in which this guy is wrong>
Frank
Kemnitzer,Trollman
Or when:
c> Squats take an ancestor lord
d> Any other army takes an ancestor lord as an ally
e> the Space Marines take a Recon Pack
f> Azrael or Marneus is taken for a marine army
g> Chaos marines fight regular marines
h> Kharn fights other chaos
i> Orks fight Chaos
j> Guard or Eldar take a SM attack bike with a recon pack
e & f only really apply against other marine armies.
Of course, since there is one single page of the basic rules
which sorta indicates two strategy ratings (unless read in the order
it was meant to be), and mountains and mountains of quotations
throughout the WDs, FAQs, and latest codex which flat out refers to
one strategy rating, I can only assume that we are dealing with Eldar
players who are cheating.
Note: I am not a chaos player, or a marine player. I am a
guard player, and the only time this effects me is when I take an
ancestor lord as an ally, or I were for some reason to take a SM
attack bike with a recon pack as an ally (boggle).
Frank
EyPyEaSh
don't have the Shaken rules...Eh. Okay...Chaos Marines DO NOT have the Shaken
rules because they are NOT the galaxy's elite..however, with a bit of house
ruling, I think that the Chaos Marines should actually be immune to
psychology...remember, they're around things that cause Terror all the time!!!
And as another note, Chaos don't get the same strategy rating. Again, they're
not the Galaxy's elite, and so their generals are not so well trained.
Also, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels all count as
Space Marines and therefore keep all the rules. If you'd look in the codex for
each, it says that they are a CHAPTER OF THE SPACE MARINES and so their rules
apply in addition to all other that the Space Marines would normally get.
Brian Schenck
I'd have to disagree. One of the reason the Space Marines are as
incredibly well equipped as they are is because they are stocked by the
Imperium. This gives them a huge advantage with both moving their forces
and landing them.
Chaos Space Marines however fight under the Chaos banner. And they have no
where near the same amount of transportation and resources that normal
Space Marines have. That means they fight at a disadvantage. They can't
get to the battle field as fast, and they certainly can't deploy as well
either.
Also given that they are under a Chaos army list, that pretty much puts
them where they are supposed to be, a Chaos army.
Otherwise, by that logic, an Eldar Pirate army would have a different
rating from a Aspect army, as would a Harlequin army.
Brian D. Schenck
mail to: shr...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shrike
"Poit! Zort! Narffff...." - From the collected sayings of Pinky
BEltringha
>lawyer with ALL the rules, not just a few of them.
At no time has anyone addressed the RULE given on page 10 that specifically
states Chaos has a strategy rating of 5 for set-up.
At no time has anyone addressed why the Chaos lord is given a 5 strategy
rating in the black codex and codex chaos for starting and ending. Both of
these are clearly stated in the RULES, that's what we play by right?
If there are mountains of FAQ's and rulings in white dwarf why haven't they
been posted? There was only one quote from WD given and it was one sentence,
not within the context of the article, it could've been an article previewing
the game. The last time I checked official rulings in WD were what changed the
mechanics of the game.
The SOB codex has been mentioned as a source for the one strategy rating. I
thought the basic rulebook contained the basic rules for the game? The codexes
give race specific rules for each army and modify the rules for that army. I
can't explain the SOB codex because I don't have it and if they were modifying
the rules wouldn't they have published it elsewhere? , back to WD again.
Finally, there is the argument that chaos space marines aren't chaos at all.
This is simple semantics, sure I could argue that Chaos is the word that
modifies space marine and go on with my own argument about semantics. Just like
you could make a semantics argument that Chaos dreadnaughts actually follow
the rules for space marine dreadnaughts because the word dreadnaught is in the
title. There is a rule that applies to chaos and chaos space marines are a
chaos army. If I play chaos do I tell them that I play marines? No, because if
you told them you would be playing marines they would expect loyalists, you
tell the you are playing chaos and the know they will be fcing chaos marines.
Everybody knows what chaos is and your trying to confuse the issue with ,"Chaos
marines aren't chaos".
>
><snipped: incredibly flawed argument, but I was just responding to the
>flawed argument up there, and the post would go on way too long if I
>wanted to refute every single way in which this guy is wrong>
>
>
Really, if I am so wrong about the rules then why not just post the White Dwarf
in which the official ruling is given along with the page number? How about one
of the mountains of Q and A's that say there is one strategy rating or that say
you use the commanders rating for set-up and first turn?
The reason this thread has thrived is that people post something to the
effect of the above and never challenge my arguments they post something to the
effect of "this is how it is and if you don't agree with me you don't know what
your talking about." I have always addressed my critics points and have agreed
that there is some ambiguity and that they have made points, but as I have said
before I believe in following the weight of the evidence. I have pointed out
specific rules and how they apply, my opponents have often raised points with
no evidence, such as the mountains of Q and A's and rulings, if you have the
evidence then post it. I acknowledge that people have different views on the
rules but if you are going to discuss them lets provide some rules specific
arguments from the Codex Chaos, Black Codex, Basic Rulebook, and White Dwarf.
These are the official sources of rules for the Chaos army.
If these sources would have been used from the beginning this thread wouldn't
have lasted this long, I can always agree to disagree, because I can see how
someone else can hold a different view as long as their evidence is good.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
> Finally, there is the argument that chaos space marines aren't chaos at all.
^^^^^^^^^noone EVER said this^^^^^^
Fight paper tigers all you want. You claim that you are replying to
the arguments of others. You manifestly are not. You are making up
arguments and then refuting them. That's easy, I'll do it right now:
"Beltringha keeps saying that we should have sex with underage
girls, I totally disagree. I think that there laws against this
practice for a very good reason."
...see? If you MAKE UP arguments that your opponents'
supposedly made, it's EASY to argue against those arguments, because
NOONE really made them.
Here's the ACTUAL argument, you can argue against this, but don't make
up extra bits to refute:
OK folkies, there is only one strategy rating. ONE. And it
applies to your army's setup and going first. Here's how it applies:
Let's take a codex legal Dark Angels army, with Imperial Guard
Allies, against a codex legal Chaos Space Marine Army with Cultist
allies at 2,000 points. Both of them go with the background, and
"feel" of the army.
Dark Angels army:
(I'll leave most of the wargear to your imagination, because I don't
want to work it all out to the last point)
Characters:
Master of the Raven Wing, in a land speeder
Epistolary, in a bike, with a force axe
Epistolary, with a jump pack and force sword
Tech Marine with a jump pack
Tech Marine in a bike
Squads:
1 Ravenwing Attack Bike with a Recon Pack
3 Raven Wing Attack Bikes
4 Raven wing Bikes
1 Scout Squad, with veteran sgt. w/ bioscanner
3 Raven wing Bikes
Support:
1 Command HQ, Guerillas, Flamers, Primaris Psyker (lvl 1)
1 Heavy Weapons Squad, Heavy Bolters, Deadeye
1 Tactical Squad
1 Leman Russ Tank
1 Blood Angels Landspeeder
3 Tarantulas
I won't go into the Chaos army, because it isn't important for
this discussion, save that it has some veteran Chaos Marines.
OK, the game begins, here is the order of it:
The Chaos player and the DA player roll a die each. Whoever rolls
higher gets to set up their allies second. This is because the Chaos
Cultists have a strategy rating of 3, and the Guard have a strategy
rating of 3 (2 + 1 for the Recon Pack). The Leman Russ does not set up
at all, as it is kept in reserve.
Next, after the two ally groups have been placed, the Chaos Marines
set up, except for their veterans, because the marines have a strategy
rating of 5, and the DAs have a strategy rating of 6 (5 plus 1 for the
recon pack).
Next, the DA marines set up.
Now, the Chaos veteran infiltrators set up.
Now, the scout squad sets up.
Now, the DA player fires an initial barrage from the POV of the
captain of the command HQ.
Now, both players roll a single D6 and add their respective
strategy ratings to that D6 (5 for the Chaos Marines, 6 for the Dark
Angels). The higher roll goes first.
That's it. That covers every single aspect of strategy rating,
that's how it works.
OK, for those of you who simply can't let go of page 10,
here's how it works:
If you use the alternate commanders rule, you must use the
appropriate strategy rating for that alternate commander.
It works like this, when you take an alternate commander in a
Chaos Space Marine army, that alternate commander is both CHAOS and
SPACE MARINE, so you have the choice of having a strategy rating of 3
or 5, needless to say you will CHOOSE 5. However, if you play a Demon
World army (which HAS to take an alternate commander, because Demon
Princes are special characters with more than 2 wounds, and thus not
allowed in tournament play), your bloodthirster has a strategy rating
of 3, because it is CHAOS and not a Space Marine.
For those of you who think that page ten somehow cancels out
ALL later decisions and quotations by the SoB codex and WD, and GW
personel in person: it's the OLDEST rule, and therefore the LEAST
applicable. Later rules and rulings supercede older rules and rulings.
For example, read the psyker rules in the same book, they don't apply
to ANYTHING anymore, so get off it.
Frank
BEltringha
>anything
Actually, read the rules for deployment, they give the reasons why different
armies have different strategy ratings, not fluff, rules.
pg. 10 basic rulebook, "An army's strategy rating is based on how mobile and
flexible it is as well as its racial grasp of strategy and tactics. For
Example, the IMPERIAL SPACE MARINES have the highest strategy rating because
they are very mobile and commanded by some of the finest military minds in the
IMPERIUM." There goes the theory that marines are marines. Read the Ultramarine
Codex and the Chaos Codex and tell me they're the same The space marines were
reorganized after the heresy to make them smaller and more mobile. The heresy
marines had to carry out campaigns single handidly, often what the I.G. has to
do. Therefore they are organized to carry out that goal," The Imperial Guard
are certainly better tacticians than Orks , but their lack of mobile forces and
large steam-roller type army organization mean that their strategy rating is
slightly lower. The different races strategy ratings are listed below. Chaos
3". Page 11 "Starting and Ending", " Once everybody's modelshave been deployed
both players roll a d6 and add the strategy rating of their FORCE'S COMMANDER
to the score. Two ratings for Chao, three for set-up and five for starting
because the chaos lord under both the black codex and chaos codex has a
strategy rating of five, hardly a coincidence?
I also think your post was directed at the wrong brian, I was the one that
posted last and said rules were more important than fluff. I included a
sentence of fluff in this post because it explains why the armies are given
different ratings, I used the rules to prove that Imperial space Marines have
the highest rating as per the rules, and that chaos marines are indeed chaos.
I am still waiting for the number and page number of the WD that will end this
thread, since there are mountains of rulings and Q and A's that prove you use
only one strategy rating for setup and starting for Chaos. Until proven
otherwise the basic rulebook indicates otherwise. You are still only arguing
semantics and fluff.
Brian Schenck
> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 10:34:59 -0400, Brian Schenck <shr...@wam.umd.edu>
> wrote:
> >> However, the point is that the word is Space Marines, it's in
> >> the army name, and therefore they are a space marine army. They don't
> >> get jumppacks or the shaken rules, or the good looking armor, but they
> >> are still a space marine army. Honestly. If you want to rules lawyer,
> >> lawyer with ALL the rules, not just a few of them.
>
> >I'd have to disagree. One of the reason the Space Marines are as
> >incredibly well equipped as they are is because they are stocked by the
> >Imperium. This gives them a huge advantage with both moving their forces
> >and landing them.
>
> So what? You're talking fluff here. It has nothing to do with
> anything. The Imperial Space Marines have massive advantages, but the
> Chaos Space Marines have others which are equally as large. They
> aren't a garison force, they travel by direct teleportation, and don't
> advertise their presence in the Imperial newspapers. Opening a
> dangerously unstable warp gate in the middle of the Mordian government
> seat is faster than going there by the highly safe and rapid
> transportation methods of the Imperium.
> If you want to talk fluff, talk fluff, but don't bring it into
> a rules discussion. I'm quoting someone there, who was it? Was it YOU
> Brian? Naw, couldn't be...
>
Alright, if you want to make this a flame war, which is apparently the
only type of arguement you can cope with, then you'll get no further
comments from me. You want to maintain an intelligent conversation, then
I'll continue to discuss the issue. It makes no difference to me, I'd just
rather not waste my time "discussing" an issue with someone who refuses to
acknowledge that they may be incorrect.
Okay, to start a rebuttal then, Chaos Space Marines fall under the Chaos
army list. In both the Black Codex and in their Codex. Meaning, that all
rules regarding a Chaos army also apply to a Chaos Space Marine army.
Unless a specific exception is noted. Meaning, that Chaos Space Marines
have a strategy rating of 3, and not one of 5. The 5 strategy rating is
specific mentioned for normal Space Marines. Otherwise there would be
another note that the 5 applied to Chaos Space Marines as well.
To answer your second paragraph, I've never made the arguement that you
can't use the fluff to back up an arguement. In fact, if the fluff
contains a bit of guidence on why a particular rule is the way it is, then
you should bring it in. If only to explain why you believe the way you do
about a particular ruling, or how to gain a little evidence on a
particular thought.
Now, I will agree that it isn't as good as the game mechanics, and it
certainly shouldn't be used to "make-up" rulees. But that's not what I'm
doing in either event.
> >Chaos Space Marines however fight under the Chaos banner. And they have no
> >where near the same amount of transportation and resources that normal
> >Space Marines have. That means they fight at a disadvantage. They can't
> >get to the battle field as fast, and they certainly can't deploy as well
> >either.
>
> But also have advantages, blah blah blah. They are a Space
> Marine army, live with it.
>
No, they are not. They may be Space Marines, but they fight under the
banner of Chaos. Therefor, they are a CHAOS army, regardless of the
composition.
In other words, find me a rule in the Chaos codex which states that Chaos
Space Marine armies are treated like normal Space Marine armies with
regard to strategy rating and what not.
> >Also given that they are under a Chaos army list, that pretty much puts
> >them where they are supposed to be, a Chaos army.
>
> ... under the marine list, which makes them Marines.
>
Incorrect, they are under the Chaos army list. Therefor they are not
normal Marines. That's why they are called Chaos Space Marines.
> >Otherwise, by that logic, an Eldar Pirate army would have a different
> >rating from a Aspect army, as would a Harlequin army.
>
> Only if there was a Harlequin Space Marine list, which was led
> by Harlequin Lords with a strategy rating of 5.
>
That's not the point I was making, and if you weren't too busy trying to
flame anyone trying to discuss something you'd notice that as well. Your
arguement, that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5, is based
on the fact that they have the words "Space Marine" in their title.
Following your logic, if I use a 100% Harlequin army, they have a strategy
rating of 0. Why? Because the word "Eldar" is not in their list.
> You are using arguments which don't follow, and are basically
> irrelevant. Either shape up, or shut up. If your argument doesn't make
> sense, just don't make it.
>
Actually, they are quite relevant, which is why I think you have a problem
with them. You're too busy trying to get your point across, that you can't
begin to form a reasonable responce to any post. Which is why you'll flame
me, the minute I disagree with you. To me, that's a show of immaturity as
well as an unreasonable position. Especially since I did little to
antagonize, and I most certainly did not flame your position at all.
Now, to give your arguement support, I've always played that the
Commanders strategy rating overruled the normal strategy rating for all
intents and purposes. So that a Commander with a 6, instead of a 5 or a 3
as normal for that army, would use that for both the purposes of setting
up and determining who goes first. Simply because I agree that there is
some sort of inconsistency in the Setup and Going first sections of the
main rule book.
Now, if you continue to choose to flame my posts, by all means continue.
After all, we wouldn't want to confuse you with a civilized individual
capable of rational conversation.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
wrote:
<snipped: griping, his and mine>
>Okay, to start a rebuttal then, Chaos Space Marines fall under the Chaos
>army list. In both the Black Codex and in their Codex.
But they don't in the Chaos codex, they fall under the Chaos
Space Marine army list. Since the black codex is made obsolete by
introduction of codex: Chaos (for them, not for the squats), Chaos
space marine therefore fall under the "Chaos Space Marine" list.
The black codex is obsolete, it's old, funky, and no longer
the rules.
> Meaning, that all
>rules regarding a Chaos army also apply to a Chaos Space Marine army.
>Unless a specific exception is noted. Meaning, that Chaos Space Marines
>have a strategy rating of 3, and not one of 5. The 5 strategy rating is
>specific mentioned for normal Space Marines. Otherwise there would be
>another note that the 5 applied to Chaos Space Marines as well.
Except that by this logic they now have a 5, since they are
now listed as a space marine army.
Of course, they are also listed as a chaos army, and could be
logically construed as having a strategy rating of 8 (since 8 is what
you have when you have 5 and 3). Noone in their right mind would let
you play that way, but no sane Chaos player is going to allow you to
limit their setup rating to 3 either.
>In other words, find me a rule in the Chaos codex which states that Chaos
>Space Marine armies are treated like normal Space Marine armies with
>regard to strategy rating and what not.
The place where their army list is called:
"Chaos Space Marines"
The place where their commander has a strategy rating of 5.
You see, these space marines, have a space marine army, and a
space marine commander who has a strategy rating of 5. This may seem
very complicated, but give it time. You see, there really isn't any
reason, given the above, for the modern codex CSM army to have a
strategy rating other than 5 under any circumstances which don't
involve Kharn the Betrayer and some special rules.
>> >Also given that they are under a Chaos army list, that pretty much puts
>> >them where they are supposed to be, a Chaos army.
>>
>> ... under the marine list, which makes them Marines.
>Incorrect, they are under the Chaos army list. Therefor they are not
>normal Marines. That's why they are called Chaos Space Marines.
....Or why the ultramarine are under the Ultramarines list.
All of the marine lists have theri own rules, equipment lists, and
yes, even names. But they are still all space marines. CSMs function
as Space Marines when confronted by the special wargear items which
care whether you are a space marine or not (virus grenades, for
example). The generic term is Space Marines, the chaos space marines
count as them for that, why would these space marines function
differently at other times?
>> >Otherwise, by that logic, an Eldar Pirate army would have a different
>> >rating from a Aspect army, as would a Harlequin army.
>> Only if there was a Harlequin Space Marine list, which was led
>> by Harlequin Lords with a strategy rating of 5.
>That's not the point I was making, and if you weren't too busy trying to
>flame anyone trying to discuss something you'd notice that as well. Your
>arguement, that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5, is based
>on the fact that they have the words "Space Marine" in their title.
>Following your logic, if I use a 100% Harlequin army, they have a strategy
>rating of 0. Why? Because the word "Eldar" is not in their list.
Not true, they for example call themselves Eldar in their
desciption and never call themselves "Orks". They also have a strategy
rating of 4 (Codex). But of course, since I am "flaming" you, while as
you are grossly misrepresnting my arguments, I must be the bad guy.
>Now, to give your arguement support, I've always played that the
>Commanders strategy rating overruled the normal strategy rating for all
>intents and purposes. So that a Commander with a 6, instead of a 5 or a 3
>as normal for that army, would use that for both the purposes of setting
>up and determining who goes first. Simply because I agree that there is
>some sort of inconsistency in the Setup and Going first sections of the
>main rule book.
What??? You misquoted me, and got all huffy, and you agree
with me? What's the point man!?!?
>Now, if you continue to choose to flame my posts, by all means continue.
>After all, we wouldn't want to confuse you with a civilized individual
>capable of rational conversation.
Oh yes, I just love flaming people. Especially when they come
out with an argument based upon a reconcilliation of your position
with the fluff, and a few blanket assumptions about the "conclusions"
of my argument (which as previously stated were wrong). That isn't a
valid debating tactic, that's an insult. And frankly, so is the above
paragraph.
>Brian D. Schenck
Frank
Dirk Vormann
> (b) when SOB fight anyone, with and/or without their Canoness.)
c) when orcs fight chaos
d) when marines fight chaos
Brian Schenck
> On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 22:04:39 -0400, Brian Schenck <shr...@wam.umd.edu>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped: griping, his and mine>
>
> >Okay, to start a rebuttal then, Chaos Space Marines fall under the Chaos
> >army list. In both the Black Codex and in their Codex.
>
> But they don't in the Chaos codex, they fall under the Chaos
> Space Marine army list. Since the black codex is made obsolete by
> introduction of codex: Chaos (for them, not for the squats), Chaos
> space marine therefore fall under the "Chaos Space Marine" list.
>
Yes, and Harlequins have their own separate listing in the Eldar Codex.
That does not mean they have no separate strategy rating, simply because
they are in another list. It simply means they are under the rules as
being an Eldar army.
Chaos Space Marine armies have their own list (I won't argue that), but in
a similar fashion, it falls under the Chaos army list. Meaning that they
still have all the related rules. Unfortunately including the Strategy
rating as well.
> The black codex is obsolete, it's old, funky, and no longer
> the rules.
>
True, but at one point it was, and in some ways it is much simpler to see
what was happening in that list than anywhere else.
> > Meaning, that all
> >rules regarding a Chaos army also apply to a Chaos Space Marine army.
> >Unless a specific exception is noted. Meaning, that Chaos Space Marines
> >have a strategy rating of 3, and not one of 5. The 5 strategy rating is
> >specific mentioned for normal Space Marines. Otherwise there would be
> >another note that the 5 applied to Chaos Space Marines as well.
>
> Except that by this logic they now have a 5, since they are
> now listed as a space marine army.
>
Unfortunately, that is also an incorrect assumption. Chaos Space Marines
still fall under the Chaos army list, in the Chaos codex, under the Chaos
rules. And Chaos armies (note: ALL chaos armies) have a strategy rating of
3.
> Of course, they are also listed as a chaos army, and could be
> logically construed as having a strategy rating of 8 (since 8 is what
> you have when you have 5 and 3). Noone in their right mind would let
> you play that way, but no sane Chaos player is going to allow you to
> limit their setup rating to 3 either.
>
Why not? If it is the rules, then it is the rules. In a similar fashon
that I can't say, "My Farseer can see the future, so I can setup first and
go first no matter what you roll".
> >In other words, find me a rule in the Chaos codex which states that Chaos
> >Space Marine armies are treated like normal Space Marine armies with
> >regard to strategy rating and what not.
>
> The place where their army list is called:
>
> "Chaos Space Marines"
>
> The place where their commander has a strategy rating of 5.
>
> You see, these space marines, have a space marine army, and a
> space marine commander who has a strategy rating of 5. This may seem
> very complicated, but give it time. You see, there really isn't any
> reason, given the above, for the modern codex CSM army to have a
> strategy rating other than 5 under any circumstances which don't
> involve Kharn the Betrayer and some special rules.
>
When they left the Imperium to join the Chaos, they lost all the benefits
associated with being an Imperial army, and became a Chaos army. Meaning
that they have a strategy rating of 3. That is without their commander
(since I'm fairly certain the commander has a Strategy rating of 5, as
listed in that entry). If their commander didn't have that entry, then
they would suffer from having a strategy rating of 3.
From what I can tell, your arguement is based off of the fluff that they
were Space Marines at one point, that they still have Space Marines in
their title, and they still have all of the associated trappings. I'm not
saying that is wrong, just that is what your arguement appears to be. I
merely think, that the rules regarding all Chaos forces superceed that.
> >> >Also given that they are under a Chaos army list, that pretty much puts
> >> >them where they are supposed to be, a Chaos army.
> >>
> >> ... under the marine list, which makes them Marines.
>
> >Incorrect, they are under the Chaos army list. Therefor they are not
> >normal Marines. That's why they are called Chaos Space Marines.
>
> ....Or why the ultramarine are under the Ultramarines list.
> All of the marine lists have theri own rules, equipment lists, and
> yes, even names. But they are still all space marines. CSMs function
> as Space Marines when confronted by the special wargear items which
> care whether you are a space marine or not (virus grenades, for
> example). The generic term is Space Marines, the chaos space marines
> count as them for that, why would these space marines function
> differently at other times?
>
Ultramarines and related marine forces are still full fledged Space
Marines. Consider each Marine chapter to be under a much large Adeptus
Astartes Codex. With each of these codices a smaller part of the whole.
And your arguement is based on a logic that follows that Chaos Space
Marines are treated like regular Space Marines in regards to certain
things, then it would follow the same for anything not specifically
mentioned. And I don't feel that it can possibly be the case. Chaos Space
Marines operate under a Chaos banner, and therefore would be stuck with
the strategy rating of 3 (unless their commander has a different rating).
> >> >Otherwise, by that logic, an Eldar Pirate army would have a different
> >> >rating from a Aspect army, as would a Harlequin army.
>
> >> Only if there was a Harlequin Space Marine list, which was led
> >> by Harlequin Lords with a strategy rating of 5.
>
> >That's not the point I was making, and if you weren't too busy trying to
> >flame anyone trying to discuss something you'd notice that as well. Your
> >arguement, that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5, is based
> >on the fact that they have the words "Space Marine" in their title.
> >Following your logic, if I use a 100% Harlequin army, they have a strategy
> >rating of 0. Why? Because the word "Eldar" is not in their list.
>
> Not true, they for example call themselves Eldar in their
> desciption and never call themselves "Orks". They also have a strategy
> rating of 4 (Codex). But of course, since I am "flaming" you, while as
> you are grossly misrepresnting my arguments, I must be the bad guy.
>
No, I'm not grossly misquoting them, I'm following your logic as set forth
by you. In fact, I've included your entire arguement for reference, so I
can go back and make sure I'm saying exactly what I mean to say. I can't
help it if thta is not what you intended.
And the part of the Harlequin list which I am talking about is the title.
Which, if I remember correctly, was something you said in a previous post
about Chaos Space Marines being regular Space Marines. Because of their
title.
> >Now, to give your arguement support, I've always played that the
> >Commanders strategy rating overruled the normal strategy rating for all
> >intents and purposes. So that a Commander with a 6, instead of a 5 or a 3
> >as normal for that army, would use that for both the purposes of setting
> >up and determining who goes first. Simply because I agree that there is
> >some sort of inconsistency in the Setup and Going first sections of the
> >main rule book.
>
> What??? You misquoted me, and got all huffy, and you agree
> with me? What's the point man!?!?
>
Settle down for a moment. I got huffy (interesting word) cause you
immediately flamed me without even being reasonable. Hell, we could have
easily come to this conclusion a long time ago, minus the flames, if we
discussed this in a reasonable fashion.
And the point is simly that you say Chaos Space Marines have a strategy
rating of 5, simply because they were once Space Marines. Or because some
fluff and words in the title say "Space Marines". When in fact they are
still a Chaos army, with a strategy rating of 3.
All I said was, the commander's strategy rating superceeds the regular
strategy rating. Which if you had said at one point was the basis for your
arguement, I would probably have never said a thing.
> >Now, if you continue to choose to flame my posts, by all means continue.
> >After all, we wouldn't want to confuse you with a civilized individual
> >capable of rational conversation.
>
> Oh yes, I just love flaming people. Especially when they come
> out with an argument based upon a reconcilliation of your position
> with the fluff, and a few blanket assumptions about the "conclusions"
> of my argument (which as previously stated were wrong). That isn't a
> valid debating tactic, that's an insult. And frankly, so is the above
> paragraph.
>
Yeah... so instead of saying "Hey wait a minute, you misquoted me, here's
what I really said", you jump all over my case and beat me with a large
flaming post. That sounds like a really nice thing to do. And yes, I meant
it as insulting, since you felt that was the way you should treat someone,
or at least that was the apparent conclusion I drew from your post.
I don't mind if you disagree with me, or if I disagree with you. Because
that's bound to happen, and it really only matters if we were playing
against one another. But, when you flame me, or anyone else for that
matter, then you apparently have a blantant disregard for that person and
what he or she may have to say. And that's really inconsiderate. And I
only choose to flame you (which is still no where close to be grossly
insulting) because you chose to do so first.
Now, if we can keep the post reasonable, and argue in a fairly consistent
fashion, and not jump all over a simple sentence, I doubt it will happen
again. Correct?
Brian D. Schenck
mail to: shr...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shrike
"Poit! Zort! Narffff...." - From the collected sayings of Pinky
Note: There is an anti-spam measure in use. Please remove "stopspam." from
my domain name in order to make personal replies...
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
>> The black codex is obsolete, it's old, funky, and no longer
>> the rules.
>>
>True, but at one point it was, and in some ways it is much simpler to see
>what was happening in that list than anywhere else.
Just as it is simpler to see that the Tyranids pay 20 points a
genestealer, the Imperium can get Thud Guns, etc.
DO NOT QUOTE THE BLACK CODEX for the following armies:
Any Imperial Marine List
Any Eldar List
Any Tyranid List (even the cult)
Any Chaos List
The Sisters of Battle
The REAL codices supercede ALL rules in the black codex.
Unless you are fielding Squats, or non-soritas Imperial Agents, the
black codex is defunct. The Chaos Marines are now Chaos marines,
nothing said about the generic chaos army in the black codex means
anything at all.
Everything pertaining to Chaos Space Marines was either
reprinted in the modern codex, or is NO LONGER THE CASE. Period, end
of story.
>> Except that by this logic they now have a 5, since they are
>> now listed as a space marine army.
>>
>Unfortunately, that is also an incorrect assumption. Chaos Space Marines
>still fall under the Chaos army list, in the Chaos codex, under the Chaos
>rules. And Chaos armies (note: ALL chaos armies) have a strategy rating of
>3.
And all Space Marine Armies have a strategy rating of 5
(except of course, that this material was published at the time of the
black codex and is equally out of date, but hey, let's run with it).
So the Chaos Space Marine army has:
A strategy rating of 3 (for being Chaos)
AND
A strategy rating of 5 (for being Space Marines)
3 and 5 are 8. Chaos Space Marines therefore have an 8
strategy rating.
They are a SM army, as listed in their codex (as opposed to
the Demon World and Cult armies which are not) meaning that they DO
get that 5, if you want to also give them a 3, then I won't play with
you, but that is your right.
>Why not? If it is the rules, then it is the rules. In a similar fashon
>that I can't say, "My Farseer can see the future, so I can setup first and
>go first no matter what you roll".
Becaus esetting up with a strategy rating of 8 is manifestly
cheating, but it IS the rules as printed. Unless you want a more sane
approach.
When two rules are in conflict, use the later rule (always,
this is standard GW policy, and I doubt anyone is going to say that
isn't the rules). So, they are given a strategy rating of 3 for being
Chaos, and a strategy rating of 5 for being Space Marines:
But they are given the strategy rating of 5 later, in fact,
they are Chaos Space Marines, so there is an entire spacebar press
between the utterance of the strategy rating of 3 and the strategy
rating 5 rule. Therefore the strategy rating 5 takes precedance.
>When they left the Imperium to join the Chaos, they lost all the benefits
>associated with being an Imperial army, and became a Chaos army. Meaning
>that they have a strategy rating of 3. That is without their commander
>(since I'm fairly certain the commander has a Strategy rating of 5, as
>listed in that entry). If their commander didn't have that entry, then
>they would suffer from having a strategy rating of 3.
This doesn't follow. They still have photo visors in their
helmets, they still have respirators and sealed armor. They have ALL
of the advantages of being Space Marines. While they do not get the
Imperial army benefits (without paying a few extra points), and cannot
get Imperial allies (except for the Chaos Guard, who aren't really
Imperial, but do use the Imperial list).
In fact the only benefit of being Space Marines that they do
not have is the "Shaken" morale state, which is not a "generic" bonus
to all Space Marines, but a special notation in the troop description
of each and every single Imperial Space Marine (just as Thousand Son
and Noise Marines are immune to all psychology and never break).
>From what I can tell, your arguement is based off of the fluff that they
>were Space Marines at one point, that they still have Space Marines in
>their title, and they still have all of the associated trappings. I'm not
>saying that is wrong, just that is what your arguement appears to be. I
>merely think, that the rules regarding all Chaos forces superceed that.
Except that those rules DON'T supercede it, they are older,
and therefore are superceded by MY text citings. You say that the
general 3 str rating appears in the basic rules, but so does the
general marine 5, and the marine tag appears in the codex. Just like
LIFO in card games, so is it with rules. The Chaos Marines are granted
marine status by their codex, anything said contrary to that in any
previously printed GW material is obsolete.
>And your arguement is based on a logic that follows that Chaos Space
>Marines are treated like regular Space Marines in regards to certain
>things, then it would follow the same for anything not specifically
>mentioned. And I don't feel that it can possibly be the case. Chaos Space
>Marines operate under a Chaos banner, and therefore would be stuck with
>the strategy rating of 3 (unless their commander has a different rating).
Why? Chaos Marines are marines in EVERY way not mentioned.
They are granted photo visors, sealed armor, etc. They do not have the
shaken rule because that is a bonus given to the army listings of
Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, Tactical Marines, and the
Terminator squads listed in Codex Ultramarines, Space Wolves, and
Angels of Death. If Shaken was instead listed as:
"Space Marines have a special morale category known as
SHAKEN..."
...in the basic rules, they would have that too. However,
Shaken and Rapid Fire are granted on a character by chracter, squad by
squad basis. The rapid fire rules are granted to Chaos Marines, the
shaken rules are not. Period. All other space marine rules are generic
to all space marines and all codices (exceptions: the Space Wolves'
codex lists enhanced senses, and the DAs' have the Deathwing and Raven
wing bonuses, and the Chaos Marines get marks on specific troop types,
but these bonuses are listed in the codices themselves).
>And the part of the Harlequin list which I am talking about is the title.
>Which, if I remember correctly, was something you said in a previous post
>about Chaos Space Marines being regular Space Marines. Because of their
>title.
And the fact that they are marines. They have the Chaos Marine
army, they are the Chaos Marines, and every single troop is a marine.
How are they not marines?
>All I said was, the commander's strategy rating superceeds the regular
>strategy rating. Which if you had said at one point was the basis for your
>arguement, I would probably have never said a thing.
That is my basic point. I was arguing with Beltringha who
could not be convinced of that, and thus came my secondary argument:
"Even if you're right, you're still wrong."
Because, under the "two strategy rating interpretation" you
still have to forcibly excise the fact that the Chaos Space Marines
are still Space Marines.
>> >Now, if you continue to choose to flame my posts, by all means continue.
>> >After all, we wouldn't want to confuse you with a civilized individual
>> >capable of rational conversation.
>>
>> Oh yes, I just love flaming people. Especially when they come
>> out with an argument based upon a reconcilliation of your position
>> with the fluff, and a few blanket assumptions about the "conclusions"
>> of my argument (which as previously stated were wrong). That isn't a
>> valid debating tactic, that's an insult. And frankly, so is the above
>> paragraph.
>>
>Yeah... so instead of saying "Hey wait a minute, you misquoted me, here's
>what I really said", you jump all over my case and beat me with a large
>flaming post. That sounds like a really nice thing to do. And yes, I meant
>it as insulting, since you felt that was the way you should treat someone,
>or at least that was the apparent conclusion I drew from your post.
When you open up with an invalid debating tactic, that is a
flame. This is the internet, and if someone's argument is irrelevant,
off topic, or inconsistant, it is the same as "Fuck You". Thus, by my
standards, you flamed first.
I don't want or need a "He started it" thread, those are
boring.
>Now, if we can keep the post reasonable, and argue in a fairly consistent
>fashion, and not jump all over a simple sentence, I doubt it will happen
>again. Correct?
Hah. This is the internet, it happens all the time.
>Brian D. Schenck
Frank
Brian Schenck
> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:53:53 -0400, Brian Schenck
> <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
>
> >> The black codex is obsolete, it's old, funky, and no longer
> >> the rules.
> >>
> >True, but at one point it was, and in some ways it is much simpler to see
> >what was happening in that list than anywhere else.
>
> Just as it is simpler to see that the Tyranids pay 20 points a
> genestealer, the Imperium can get Thud Guns, etc.
>
> DO NOT QUOTE THE BLACK CODEX for the following armies:
>
> Any Imperial Marine List
> Any Eldar List
> Any Tyranid List (even the cult)
> Any Chaos List
> The Sisters of Battle
>
Who said I was quoting the old rules? I simply said that at one point the
rules were very simple in the Black Codex. And you never had problems like
this.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm the only one who misquotes posts. My mistake.
> The REAL codices supercede ALL rules in the black codex.
> Unless you are fielding Squats, or non-soritas Imperial Agents, the
> black codex is defunct. The Chaos Marines are now Chaos marines,
> nothing said about the generic chaos army in the black codex means
> anything at all.
>
> Everything pertaining to Chaos Space Marines was either
> reprinted in the modern codex, or is NO LONGER THE CASE. Period, end
> of story.
>
That's absolutely correct. And I never disputed that. If anything, I
specifically point at, that at one point it was the rules. Very past
tense. However, that army list was very simple, and you could easily see
what was happening with it.
> >> Except that by this logic they now have a 5, since they are
> >> now listed as a space marine army.
> >>
> >Unfortunately, that is also an incorrect assumption. Chaos Space Marines
> >still fall under the Chaos army list, in the Chaos codex, under the Chaos
> >rules. And Chaos armies (note: ALL chaos armies) have a strategy rating of
> >3.
>
> And all Space Marine Armies have a strategy rating of 5
> (except of course, that this material was published at the time of the
> black codex and is equally out of date, but hey, let's run with it).
> So the Chaos Space Marine army has:
>
> A strategy rating of 3 (for being Chaos)
> AND
> A strategy rating of 5 (for being Space Marines)
>
> 3 and 5 are 8. Chaos Space Marines therefore have an 8
> strategy rating.
>
You know... I gotta hand it to you for your logic. An army can't have two
strategy ratings. It can only have one. And it's 3, because they are no
longer Space Marines. They were at one point, but no longer.
And when they were Space Marines, they army rating was a 3. The new
organization gives the current armies a rating of 5. Something the Chaos
Marines still miss out on.
Oh wait, I'm still misquoting you for suggesting that Chaos Space Marines
are Space Marines because of they wording of their title and the fluff...
> They are a SM army, as listed in their codex (as opposed to
> the Demon World and Cult armies which are not) meaning that they DO
> get that 5, if you want to also give them a 3, then I won't play with
> you, but that is your right.
>
They don't have a separate codex. They have one codex, in the same way
that a Genestealer Cult and a Tyranid army are in the same Codex. The same
way a Harlequin and Eldar list are in the same codex. Same codex, separate
lists. And that doesn't mean separate rules.
But hey, what the hell do I know right?
> >Why not? If it is the rules, then it is the rules. In a similar fashon
> >that I can't say, "My Farseer can see the future, so I can setup first and
> >go first no matter what you roll".
>
> Becaus esetting up with a strategy rating of 8 is manifestly
> cheating, but it IS the rules as printed. Unless you want a more sane
> approach.
> When two rules are in conflict, use the later rule (always,
> this is standard GW policy, and I doubt anyone is going to say that
> isn't the rules). So, they are given a strategy rating of 3 for being
> Chaos, and a strategy rating of 5 for being Space Marines:
>
And you don't add up strategy ratings. Or, was that in the rules that I've
looked over a few times in the last few days? Far as I know, you only use
one strategy rating at all times, either the army's or the commander's.
And in a Chaos Space Marines army w/o the Commander, it's a 3. With the
Commander, it's a 5.
> But they are given the strategy rating of 5 later, in fact,
> they are Chaos Space Marines, so there is an entire spacebar press
> between the utterance of the strategy rating of 3 and the strategy
> rating 5 rule. Therefore the strategy rating 5 takes precedance.
>
So, you admit that you are indeed arguing from the fluff? Hey, I got no
problem with that, except that it won't get you anywhere with most
opponents.
In other words, just because it says "Chaos Space Marines", doesn't also
mean they are "Space Marines". The name is the name, not just a piece of
another.
> >When they left the Imperium to join the Chaos, they lost all the benefits
> >associated with being an Imperial army, and became a Chaos army. Meaning
> >that they have a strategy rating of 3. That is without their commander
> >(since I'm fairly certain the commander has a Strategy rating of 5, as
> >listed in that entry). If their commander didn't have that entry, then
> >they would suffer from having a strategy rating of 3.
>
> This doesn't follow. They still have photo visors in their
> helmets, they still have respirators and sealed armor. They have ALL
> of the advantages of being Space Marines. While they do not get the
> Imperial army benefits (without paying a few extra points), and cannot
> get Imperial allies (except for the Chaos Guard, who aren't really
> Imperial, but do use the Imperial list).
>
Fine. The quote me a page reference that says the above that you take as
fact. I still have no problem with you playing with the 5 rating, except
that I know it is not the rules.
> In fact the only benefit of being Space Marines that they do
> not have is the "Shaken" morale state, which is not a "generic" bonus
> to all Space Marines, but a special notation in the troop description
> of each and every single Imperial Space Marine (just as Thousand Son
> and Noise Marines are immune to all psychology and never break).
>
So... that would mean that Chaos Space Marines are not exactly the same as
regular Space Marinees. Correct? And, it stands to reason that the
strategy rating rule would also not be the same. After all, wouldn't the
Chaos codex say that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5?
> >From what I can tell, your arguement is based off of the fluff that they
> >were Space Marines at one point, that they still have Space Marines in
> >their title, and they still have all of the associated trappings. I'm not
> >saying that is wrong, just that is what your arguement appears to be. I
> >merely think, that the rules regarding all Chaos forces superceed that.
>
> Except that those rules DON'T supercede it, they are older,
> and therefore are superceded by MY text citings. You say that the
> general 3 str rating appears in the basic rules, but so does the
> general marine 5, and the marine tag appears in the codex. Just like
> LIFO in card games, so is it with rules. The Chaos Marines are granted
> marine status by their codex, anything said contrary to that in any
> previously printed GW material is obsolete.
>
Then, where is the rule that says Chaos Space Marines have a strategy
rating of 5? The Marine status arguement is based off of fluff.
> >And your arguement is based on a logic that follows that Chaos Space
> >Marines are treated like regular Space Marines in regards to certain
> >things, then it would follow the same for anything not specifically
> >mentioned. And I don't feel that it can possibly be the case. Chaos Space
> >Marines operate under a Chaos banner, and therefore would be stuck with
> >the strategy rating of 3 (unless their commander has a different rating).
>
> Why? Chaos Marines are marines in EVERY way not mentioned.
> They are granted photo visors, sealed armor, etc. They do not have the
> shaken rule because that is a bonus given to the army listings of
> Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, Tactical Marines, and the
> Terminator squads listed in Codex Ultramarines, Space Wolves, and
> Angels of Death. If Shaken was instead listed as:
>
Yeah, and that is pointed out only once. In the overall list, under the
generic rules Space Marines. In the same way the Generic rules for Chaos
is pointed out in a single heading. And one of those involves the Chaos
strategy rating of 3. Hey, if the Chaos Codex said that the Chaos Space
Marines had a strategy rating of 5, then I'd be fine. But, it doesn't.
> "Space Marines have a special morale category known as
> SHAKEN..."
>
> ...in the basic rules, they would have that too. However,
> Shaken and Rapid Fire are granted on a character by chracter, squad by
> squad basis. The rapid fire rules are granted to Chaos Marines, the
> shaken rules are not. Period. All other space marine rules are generic
> to all space marines and all codices (exceptions: the Space Wolves'
> codex lists enhanced senses, and the DAs' have the Deathwing and Raven
> wing bonuses, and the Chaos Marines get marks on specific troop types,
> but these bonuses are listed in the codices themselves).
>
So... if a rule is not specifically mentioned, it is not applicable.
Correct? And, one of those happens to be the strategy rating. It isn't
specifically mentioned, so it's not applicable.
Note: That's all based on the arguement you present.
> >And the part of the Harlequin list which I am talking about is the title.
> >Which, if I remember correctly, was something you said in a previous post
> >about Chaos Space Marines being regular Space Marines. Because of their
> >title.
>
> And the fact that they are marines. They have the Chaos Marine
> army, they are the Chaos Marines, and every single troop is a marine.
> How are they not marines?
>
I never said they weren't Marines. Rather, that your arguement about the
Chaos Space Marines is based on a few words in the title, and some fluff
as well. That's not hard ruling, and it's certainly not very applicable in
some situations.
And when they were Marines, or part of the regular Marines, the
organization was different. Probably at the time when the original
organization gave them a rating of 3.
> >All I said was, the commander's strategy rating superceeds the regular
> >strategy rating. Which if you had said at one point was the basis for your
> >arguement, I would probably have never said a thing.
>
> That is my basic point. I was arguing with Beltringha who
> could not be convinced of that, and thus came my secondary argument:
>
> "Even if you're right, you're still wrong."
>
> Because, under the "two strategy rating interpretation" you
> still have to forcibly excise the fact that the Chaos Space Marines
> are still Space Marines.
>
I don't know so much about that. If a basic Marine army has a rating of 5,
and a basic Chaos marine army has a rating of 3, the it stands to reason
that the Commander has an influence over the army. For regular Marines,
they are organized in such a way that they can function the same with or
without their commander. Chaos Space Marines may not function as well
without a commander. It stands to be a reasonable arguement I think.
> >> >Now, if you continue to choose to flame my posts, by all means continue.
> >> >After all, we wouldn't want to confuse you with a civilized individual
> >> >capable of rational conversation.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, I just love flaming people. Especially when they come
> >> out with an argument based upon a reconcilliation of your position
> >> with the fluff, and a few blanket assumptions about the "conclusions"
> >> of my argument (which as previously stated were wrong). That isn't a
> >> valid debating tactic, that's an insult. And frankly, so is the above
> >> paragraph.
> >>
> >Yeah... so instead of saying "Hey wait a minute, you misquoted me, here's
> >what I really said", you jump all over my case and beat me with a large
> >flaming post. That sounds like a really nice thing to do. And yes, I meant
> >it as insulting, since you felt that was the way you should treat someone,
> >or at least that was the apparent conclusion I drew from your post.
>
> When you open up with an invalid debating tactic, that is a
> flame. This is the internet, and if someone's argument is irrelevant,
> off topic, or inconsistant, it is the same as "Fuck You". Thus, by my
> standards, you flamed first.
>
> I don't want or need a "He started it" thread, those are
> boring.
>
An invalid debating technique is saying that I disagree with you? And then
go on to explain why I disagree with you? Man... I need to get out more
often then.
Look, I disagreed with the exact wording of what you said. I never
insulted you, I never pissed on your post. I simply pointed on the parts I
disagreed with. And if I failed to understand them, then I would think
it's a fairly consistent gesture to correct mistakes.
However, reacting as you did, saying a lot of stuff completely off topic,
as well as derogatory to me, that was most definitely flaming. I would
like to suggest that you be slightly less considered with what might be
said, and more concerned with what is actually said. Cause, it causes less
problems.
> >Now, if we can keep the post reasonable, and argue in a fairly consistent
> >fashion, and not jump all over a simple sentence, I doubt it will happen
> >again. Correct?
>
> Hah. This is the internet, it happens all the time.
>
So I've noticed. So I've noticed.
KHARN66
YOUR TACTICS ARE GOOD BUT IN THE PAST I HAVE FOUND THAT NOISE MARINES ARE NOT
THAT EFFECTIVE AGAINST ANYONE. MY SUGGESTION IS TO GET A RHINO WITH
ABLATIVE,REINFORCED, AND SUPER CHARGED ENGINE. PUT A SQUAD OF 6 KHORNE
BERZERKERS , KHARN(DO NOT MAKE HIM LEADER OF THE SQUAD BECAUSE IF THAY BREAK HE
WILL TOO YOU DON'T WANT THAT) AND A CHAOS LORD WITH MARK OF KHORNE, NURGLE,
TERMINATOR ARMOR,DAEMON WEAPON, LIGHTING CLAW, CONVERSION FIELD,PRAISE OF
KHORNE, AND COLLAR OF KHORNE (PTS. 303) WELL WORTH IT. THE CHAOS LORD IS ALMOST
INVINCIBLE YOU GET 2 ARMOR SAVES AND A FIELD SAVE, PLUS PSYCHIC POWERS DO NOT
AFFECT HIM AT ALL. KHARN IS A KILLING MACHINE I USE HIM IN MY ARMY AND NO ONE
HAS KILLED HIM YET!!!! WITH HIM I HAVE TAKEN OUT FARSEEARS, WARLOCKS,
TERMINATOR RUNE PRIESTS AND ALOT MORE.IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS SUCCESSFUL HAVE
SOME THING ELSE ON THE FIELD THAT BRINGS TERROR TO YOUR OPPONENT SO HE WILL
CONCINTRATE ON THAT INSTEAD OF YOUR RHINO AND BEFORE HE KNOWS IT YOU'LL BE ALL
OVER HIM. MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS KHA...@AOL.COM
P.S. I AGREE ABOUT CHAOS TERMINATORS A WASTE OF POINTS!!!!
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>You know... I gotta hand it to you for your logic. An army can't have two
>strategy ratings. It can only have one. And it's 3, because they are no
>longer Space Marines. They were at one point, but no longer.
All your arguments seem to center on this point. Why are they
not Space Marines? Their unit descriptions, army descriptions, and
fluff rants describe them as Space Marines. They have primarch
geneseed in their veins, what evidence do you have that they aren't
Space Marines any more? Is there ANY text in Codex: Chaos that would
lend one to belive that the Chaos Space Marines, despite the name, are
not space marines?
>> But they are given the strategy rating of 5 later, in fact,
>> they are Chaos Space Marines, so there is an entire spacebar press
>> between the utterance of the strategy rating of 3 and the strategy
>> rating 5 rule. Therefore the strategy rating 5 takes precedance.
>>
>So, you admit that you are indeed arguing from the fluff? Hey, I got no
>problem with that, except that it won't get you anywhere with most
>opponents.
That isn't fluff. That's the rules. They are called Space
Marines. Where does it say that they are not Space Marines? I've got
some evidence that they are (their army names, their unit
descriptions, their unit names, their origin story, their character
descriptions, even the rules text inside the text body of the units),
do you have ANY evidence that they are not? You haven't produced any,
and if you're not going to you're wasting everyone's time.
>In other words, just because it says "Chaos Space Marines", doesn't also
>mean they are "Space Marines". The name is the name, not just a piece of
>another.
OK, what about the Ultramarines? Chaos Marines use a great
many marine rules, in fact, as far as the rules go, Chaos Marines use
ALL of the marine rules, except those which they are specifically
excluded from getting. Where in Codex: Chaos does it say that they are
not Space Marines?
>> In fact the only benefit of being Space Marines that they do
>> not have is the "Shaken" morale state, which is not a "generic" bonus
>> to all Space Marines, but a special notation in the troop description
>> of each and every single Imperial Space Marine (just as Thousand Son
>> and Noise Marines are immune to all psychology and never break).
>>
>So... that would mean that Chaos Space Marines are not exactly the same as
>regular Space Marinees. Correct? And, it stands to reason that the
>strategy rating rule would also not be the same. After all, wouldn't the
>Chaos codex say that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5?
So... you're saying that Space Wolves Marines are NOT exactly
like other marines because they have enhanced senses? Thus, they have
a ZERO strategy rating for setup because they aren't Marines and there
is no "Space Wolf" army strategy rating. Why does not being "exactly"
the same mean that they have to go back and list every single
similarity? By and large, the rules only indicate exceptions, never
norms.
For example: where does it SAY that Genestealers can run? I
think that for no reason at all genestealers should have to walk
around at 6" a turn. :)
>> However,
>> Shaken and Rapid Fire are granted on a character by chracter, squad by
>> squad basis. The rapid fire rules are granted to Chaos Marines, the
>> shaken rules are not. Period. All other space marine rules are generic
>> to all space marines and all codices (exceptions: the Space Wolves'
>> codex lists enhanced senses, and the DAs' have the Deathwing and Raven
>> wing bonuses, and the Chaos Marines get marks on specific troop types,
>> but these bonuses are listed in the codices themselves).
>>
>So... if a rule is not specifically mentioned, it is not applicable.
>Correct? And, one of those happens to be the strategy rating. It isn't
>specifically mentioned, so it's not applicable.
>
>Note: That's all based on the arguement you present.
No it isn't, and you know it. What I said, in fairly plain
English above, is that some abilities are granted to specific units
(Shaken, Rapid Fire, Franzy, Deathwing, Ravenwing), some abilities are
granted generically to armies in their codex (enhanced senses), and
some abilities are granted carte blanche to entire troop types (photo
visors, respirators, strategy rating 5).
So, since strategy rating 5 is given carte blanche to space
marine armies, it thus qualifies as being given to the Chaos Space
Marine Army, because until you can prove otherwise, they are Space
Marines, given mountains and mountains of being called Space Marines
thruout their own codex (interesting side note: the word Space Marine
is used more times in reference to the Chaos Marines in Codex: Chaos
than it is to the Space Wolves in Codex: Space Wolves, in part because
Codex: Chaos is a significantly longer volume).
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
>I never said they weren't Marines. Rather, that your arguement about the
>Chaos Space Marines is based on a few words in the title, and some fluff
>as well.
....you're conveniently forgetting the fact that every single
Chaos Space Marine unit uses the words "marine" or "space marine" in
its description. Or the fact that over 66% of its title is given over
to specifically naming the entire army as a space marine army, just to
put things in perspective.
>And when they were Marines, or part of the regular Marines, the
>organization was different. Probably at the time when the original
>organization gave them a rating of 3.
Where do you get this? You accuse me of using fluff or
non-rules, THIS IS A NON-RULE!!! There is no rule, ANYWHERE that says
that you get strategy rating 3 when wearing heresy era or crusader era
armor.
>> >All I said was, the commander's strategy rating superceeds the regular
>> >strategy rating. Which if you had said at one point was the basis for your
>> >arguement, I would probably have never said a thing.
>>
>> That is my basic point. I was arguing with Beltringha who
>> could not be convinced of that, and thus came my secondary argument:
>>
>> "Even if you're right, you're still wrong."
>>
>> Because, under the "two strategy rating interpretation" you
>> still have to forcibly excise the fact that the Chaos Space Marines
>> are still Space Marines.
>>
>I don't know so much about that. If a basic Marine army has a rating of 5,
>and a basic Chaos marine army has a rating of 3, the it stands to reason
>that the Commander has an influence over the army. For regular Marines,
>they are organized in such a way that they can function the same with or
>without their commander. Chaos Space Marines may not function as well
>without a commander. It stands to be a reasonable arguement I think.
Where do you get that? Daemons, Cultists etc. function poorly
without a commander, they get strategy rating 3 (rules), but Chaos
Space Marines are still marines, even if they are petty and evil. They
still set up at five without a commander.
>> When you open up with an invalid debating tactic, that is a
>> flame. This is the internet, and if someone's argument is irrelevant,
>> off topic, or inconsistant, it is the same as "Fuck You". Thus, by my
>> standards, you flamed first.
>>
>> I don't want or need a "He started it" thread, those are
>> boring.
>>
>An invalid debating technique is saying that I disagree with you? And then
>go on to explain why I disagree with you? Man... I need to get out more
>often then.
That too. :) No, an invalid debating tactic is to bring up
your Eldar Harlequin rants (strategy rating five for harlequins? Where
did you get that?). That's invalid, it is not a logical extension of
my arguments, it is an illogical extension of something which is
tangentially related to my arguments. That is clasic "invalid
debating", and it is insulting to watch.
>> >Now, if we can keep the post reasonable, and argue in a fairly consistent
>> >fashion, and not jump all over a simple sentence, I doubt it will happen
>> >again. Correct?
>>
>> Hah. This is the internet, it happens all the time.
>>
>So I've noticed. So I've noticed.
>
>Brian D. Schenck
Frank
Olcglas
(KHARN66) writes:
>GREETINGS FELLOW CHAOS PLAYER!
[snip]
CAPS FOR THE CAPS GOD!
Beneath, what angels are at work? What powers
Prepare the secret of the fatal hours?
See! the mists tremble, and the clouds are stirred:
When comes the calling word? - Lionel Johnson, 1867-1902
Brian Schenck
> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:00:27 -0400, Brian Schenck
> <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >You know... I gotta hand it to you for your logic. An army can't have two
> >strategy ratings. It can only have one. And it's 3, because they are no
> >longer Space Marines. They were at one point, but no longer.
>
> All your arguments seem to center on this point. Why are they
> not Space Marines? Their unit descriptions, army descriptions, and
> fluff rants describe them as Space Marines. They have primarch
> geneseed in their veins, what evidence do you have that they aren't
> Space Marines any more? Is there ANY text in Codex: Chaos that would
> lend one to belive that the Chaos Space Marines, despite the name, are
> not space marines?
>
Okay, maybe I am slightly off on saying they aren't Space Marines.
However, they are NOT the current incarnation of the Space Marines. And,
that definitely has nothing to do with their Primarchs or leader, it's
simply semantics.
But, that still has nothing to do with them having a strategy rating of 5
for being "Marines".
>
> >> But they are given the strategy rating of 5 later, in fact,
> >> they are Chaos Space Marines, so there is an entire spacebar press
> >> between the utterance of the strategy rating of 3 and the strategy
> >> rating 5 rule. Therefore the strategy rating 5 takes precedance.
> >>
> >So, you admit that you are indeed arguing from the fluff? Hey, I got no
> >problem with that, except that it won't get you anywhere with most
> >opponents.
>
> That isn't fluff. That's the rules. They are called Space
> Marines. Where does it say that they are not Space Marines? I've got
> some evidence that they are (their army names, their unit
> descriptions, their unit names, their origin story, their character
> descriptions, even the rules text inside the text body of the units),
> do you have ANY evidence that they are not? You haven't produced any,
> and if you're not going to you're wasting everyone's time.
>
No, they are called Chaos Space Marines. You can't isolate a few words
from their actual title to give them other abilities as well. That would
be rules lawyering, using a few brief words in order to gain an advantage.
A similar arguement would be the Tech-priest, Techmarine arguement.
If you want Chaos Space Marines to still be Space Marines, that's
perfectly fine. However, they were organized differently before the
Heresay, and as a result, they are not the same as the current incarnation
of Space Marines.
> >In other words, just because it says "Chaos Space Marines", doesn't also
> >mean they are "Space Marines". The name is the name, not just a piece of
> >another.
>
> OK, what about the Ultramarines? Chaos Marines use a great
> many marine rules, in fact, as far as the rules go, Chaos Marines use
> ALL of the marine rules, except those which they are specifically
> excluded from getting. Where in Codex: Chaos does it say that they are
> not Space Marines?
>
I know that it says they were Space Marines, organized before the Heresay.
And that they left the Imperium during that fighting. However, they are
not part of the new organization of the Space Marines, and aren't a true
Space Marine army any longer.
Hey, that's what happens when you leave the Emperor, he gets pissed off
and alters reality in order to get back at you.
> >> In fact the only benefit of being Space Marines that they do
> >> not have is the "Shaken" morale state, which is not a "generic" bonus
> >> to all Space Marines, but a special notation in the troop description
> >> of each and every single Imperial Space Marine (just as Thousand Son
> >> and Noise Marines are immune to all psychology and never break).
> >>
> >So... that would mean that Chaos Space Marines are not exactly the same as
> >regular Space Marinees. Correct? And, it stands to reason that the
> >strategy rating rule would also not be the same. After all, wouldn't the
> >Chaos codex say that Chaos Space Marines have a strategy rating of 5?
>
> So... you're saying that Space Wolves Marines are NOT exactly
> like other marines because they have enhanced senses? Thus, they have
> a ZERO strategy rating for setup because they aren't Marines and there
> is no "Space Wolf" army strategy rating. Why does not being "exactly"
> the same mean that they have to go back and list every single
> similarity? By and large, the rules only indicate exceptions, never
> norms.
>
You snipped a good deal of my arguement. In fact, you snipped the part
that happens to state that all of the current Marine codices are organized
under the Codex Adeptus Astartes. So, each Marine list is actually just a
subsection of a much larger Codex.
Chaos Space Marines are no longer part of that organization, and lose out
on the benefits of the reorganization.
> For example: where does it SAY that Genestealers can run? I
> think that for no reason at all genestealers should have to walk
> around at 6" a turn. :)
>
I won't even respond to this. Well, except to say I'm not surprised you
would say something like this.
> >> However,
> >> Shaken and Rapid Fire are granted on a character by chracter, squad by
> >> squad basis. The rapid fire rules are granted to Chaos Marines, the
> >> shaken rules are not. Period. All other space marine rules are generic
> >> to all space marines and all codices (exceptions: the Space Wolves'
> >> codex lists enhanced senses, and the DAs' have the Deathwing and Raven
> >> wing bonuses, and the Chaos Marines get marks on specific troop types,
> >> but these bonuses are listed in the codices themselves).
> >>
> >So... if a rule is not specifically mentioned, it is not applicable.
> >Correct? And, one of those happens to be the strategy rating. It isn't
> >specifically mentioned, so it's not applicable.
> >
> >Note: That's all based on the arguement you present.
>
> No it isn't, and you know it. What I said, in fairly plain
> English above, is that some abilities are granted to specific units
> (Shaken, Rapid Fire, Franzy, Deathwing, Ravenwing), some abilities are
> granted generically to armies in their codex (enhanced senses), and
> some abilities are granted carte blanche to entire troop types (photo
> visors, respirators, strategy rating 5).
>
Actually, how is that not what I said? In fact, you agree with me, that
abilities are granted on a specific basis, as well as a general basis.
But, the rules are there in order to be applicable.
So, when a rule is not there, it is not applicable any longer. Would that
be correct to say?
> So, since strategy rating 5 is given carte blanche to space
> marine armies, it thus qualifies as being given to the Chaos Space
> Marine Army, because until you can prove otherwise, they are Space
> Marines, given mountains and mountains of being called Space Marines
> thruout their own codex (interesting side note: the word Space Marine
> is used more times in reference to the Chaos Marines in Codex: Chaos
> than it is to the Space Wolves in Codex: Space Wolves, in part because
> Codex: Chaos is a significantly longer volume).
>
> The burden of proof is on you, not me.
>
You still have to show that a Chaos Space Marines army is treated, for all
intents and purposes, like a Space Marines army under the current rules
for Space Marines.
That's a rule, and it is not fluff. And you need to stop relying on fluff
to create a rule. So, please quote me a line, an actual rule, where it
says that a Chaos Space Marine army has a strategy rating of 5.
> >I never said they weren't Marines. Rather, that your arguement about the
> >Chaos Space Marines is based on a few words in the title, and some fluff
> >as well.
>
> ....you're conveniently forgetting the fact that every single
> Chaos Space Marine unit uses the words "marine" or "space marine" in
> its description. Or the fact that over 66% of its title is given over
> to specifically naming the entire army as a space marine army, just to
> put things in perspective.
>
Yeah, they are "Space Marines". Organized under the banner of Chaos. So,
they are Chaos Space Marines. Correct?
But, that's not the same as the Space Wolves, Angels of Death,
Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, etc... They are all Imperial Space Marine
armies.
Simply being a Space Marine or having a few words in a Codex does not make
them the same in every sense of the word.
> >And when they were Marines, or part of the regular Marines, the
> >organization was different. Probably at the time when the original
> >organization gave them a rating of 3.
>
> Where do you get this? You accuse me of using fluff or
> non-rules, THIS IS A NON-RULE!!! There is no rule, ANYWHERE that says
> that you get strategy rating 3 when wearing heresy era or crusader era
> armor.
>
And there is no rule anywhere that says that simply having a few words in
your title, or a few words in the codex, will give you the same abilities
of another army. The words "Space Marines" do not grant the strategy
rating of 5.
The rules do.
> >> >All I said was, the commander's strategy rating superceeds the regular
> >> >strategy rating. Which if you had said at one point was the basis for your
> >> >arguement, I would probably have never said a thing.
> >>
> >> That is my basic point. I was arguing with Beltringha who
> >> could not be convinced of that, and thus came my secondary argument:
> >>
> >> "Even if you're right, you're still wrong."
> >>
> >> Because, under the "two strategy rating interpretation" you
> >> still have to forcibly excise the fact that the Chaos Space Marines
> >> are still Space Marines.
> >>
> >I don't know so much about that. If a basic Marine army has a rating of 5,
> >and a basic Chaos marine army has a rating of 3, the it stands to reason
> >that the Commander has an influence over the army. For regular Marines,
> >they are organized in such a way that they can function the same with or
> >without their commander. Chaos Space Marines may not function as well
> >without a commander. It stands to be a reasonable arguement I think.
>
> Where do you get that? Daemons, Cultists etc. function poorly
> without a commander, they get strategy rating 3 (rules), but Chaos
> Space Marines are still marines, even if they are petty and evil. They
> still set up at five without a commander.
>
Nope. Your arguement is based on the two words that appear frequently
throught the Codex: Chaos. "Space" and "Marine". But, they are no longer
part of the Imperium, are they? And they lose out on all that stuff that
give Marines a strategy rating of 5.
However, that's the fluff arguement.
Going to the rules, Chaos Space Marines are in the Chaos Codex, and are
under the Chaos rules. One of them is that any Chaos army has a 3 strategy
rating. Unless the Chaos Space Marine list says otherwise, they to have a
3 strategy rating.
That's the rule arguement.
> >> When you open up with an invalid debating tactic, that is a
> >> flame. This is the internet, and if someone's argument is irrelevant,
> >> off topic, or inconsistant, it is the same as "Fuck You". Thus, by my
> >> standards, you flamed first.
> >>
> >> I don't want or need a "He started it" thread, those are
> >> boring.
> >>
> >An invalid debating technique is saying that I disagree with you? And then
> >go on to explain why I disagree with you? Man... I need to get out more
> >often then.
>
> That too. :) No, an invalid debating tactic is to bring up
> your Eldar Harlequin rants (strategy rating five for harlequins? Where
> did you get that?). That's invalid, it is not a logical extension of
> my arguments, it is an illogical extension of something which is
> tangentially related to my arguments. That is clasic "invalid
> debating", and it is insulting to watch.
>
I didn't give them a strategy 5 rating! You did, by saying that "Well if
they had a Marine Commander, and etc...". My arguement was based on the
principle thaaat you can use the words in your title to give them other
abilities not specifically granted. Especially since, by the wording of
their lists, a Harlequin Army, is not the same as an Eldar Army, and would
have a strategy rating of 0 without the Great Harlequin.
That's from the logic you used, concerning the words "Space Marine" in
"Chaos Space Marine", taken from a previous statement about having a few
words in their title. And, using that, since the word "Eldar" didn't
appear in the "Harlequin" title, then they couldn't be an "Eldar" army.
So, if I'm using overexagerrated example of your arguement, it's only to
show you that it will be invalid when taken to the extreme.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
>> > because they are no
>> >longer Space Marines. They were at one point, but no longer.
>>
>> All your arguments seem to center on this point. Why are they
>> not Space Marines? Their unit descriptions, army descriptions, and
>> fluff rants describe them as Space Marines. They have primarch
>> geneseed in their veins, what evidence do you have that they aren't
>> Space Marines any more? Is there ANY text in Codex: Chaos that would
>> lend one to belive that the Chaos Space Marines, despite the name, are
>> not space marines?
>>
>Okay, maybe I am slightly off on saying they aren't Space Marines.
>However, they are NOT the current incarnation of the Space Marines. And,
>that definitely has nothing to do with their Primarchs or leader, it's
>simply semantics.
>
>But, that still has nothing to do with them having a strategy rating of 5
>for being "Marines".
You are right, that has nothing to do with them having a five.
They are Space Marines, and all of the Space Marine rules apply to
them. ALL of them. Why? Because it DOES say that they are Space
Marines and DOESN'T say that they don't get the benefits of being
Space Marines.
I would point out that the Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Blood
Angels, and Space Wolves also DO NOT say that they get an army
strategy rating of 5. However, like the Chaos Marines, they are Space
Marines, and all of the Space Marine rules apply to them (including
having a strategy rating of 5 when used as allies or for bring in
battles or anywhere else that you don't have a commander).
>No, they are called Chaos Space Marines. You can't isolate a few words
>from their actual title to give them other abilities as well. That would
>be rules lawyering, using a few brief words in order to gain an advantage.
>A similar arguement would be the Tech-priest, Techmarine arguement.
Well, as for the Techpriest Techmarine argument, Codex: Angels
of Death says in plain English that a Techmarine "has become a
techpriest" before rejoining the chapter. Iron Priests, are quite
clearly NOT Techpriests, despite fulfilling every other role (The Iron
God isn't the Machine God, and they don't go to Mars).
However, that is not important. What is important is that you
are trying to claim that they do NOT get the benefits of their troop
type (space marines) without quoting ANY rules. To say that *I* am
rules lawyering because the rules back me up is.... petty and small.
>I know that it says they were Space Marines, organized before the Heresay.
>And that they left the Imperium during that fighting. However, they are
>not part of the new organization of the Space Marines, and aren't a true
>Space Marine army any longer.
It also says that they ARE space marines. Where does it say
that they are NOT Space Marines. If you aren't basing this on the
rules you are basing this on nothing.
>Hey, that's what happens when you leave the Emperor, he gets pissed off
>and alters reality in order to get back at you.
....he changes the rules so that Brian can set up his Eldar
after you set up your troops. In fact, he changes the rules so subtly
that the rules don't actually say anything along those lines, but we
have to play that way because Brian says so.
>You snipped a good deal of my arguement. In fact, you snipped the part
>that happens to state that all of the current Marine codices are organized
>under the Codex Adeptus Astartes. So, each Marine list is actually just a
>subsection of a much larger Codex.
...except the Space Wolves, who specifically are not. Oops, I
guess that they just don't get strategy rating 5 without a Wolf Lord.
Sucks for them. :)
>Chaos Space Marines are no longer part of that organization, and lose out
>on the benefits of the reorganization.
Your arguments have since left the "Chaos Space Marines are
not Space Marines" focus to the "Chaos Space Marines don't get the
benefits of being Space Marines" focus. SINCE WHEN? Where does it say
that Chaos Space Marines do not get these benefits? Don't make up
rules, go read Codex: Chaos and find some rules where it specifically
says that they don't geta strategy rating of 5 when the Chaos Lord
isn't around.
>So, when a rule is not there, it is not applicable any longer. Would that
>be correct to say?
Yes. Except that in this case the rules ARE there:
1> Space Marines get strategy rating 5 for their army
2> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines
That's it. Unless you can prove that 1 or 2 are false (which
you can't), I am right, and you are worng.
>> The burden of proof is on you, not me.
>>
>You still have to show that a Chaos Space Marines army is treated, for all
>intents and purposes, like a Space Marines army under the current rules
>for Space Marines.
The hell I do. It says that they are Space Marines, thus all
rules applying to "Space Marines" apply to them. You would make a
really bad lawyer. Like I said earlier, the burden of proof IS on you.
>Simply being a Space Marine or having a few words in a Codex does not make
>them the same in every sense of the word.
Actually, it does. Just as Tyranids are in every sense of the
word Tyranids. An object is either round or it is not. If it is round,
it is effected by all of the rules which deal with round objects
unless it says otherwise.
A Foo unit is effected by rules pertaining to Foo Units.
Period. Every single time. There is no time in which a Foo Unit is not
governed by the rules pertaining to Foo Units. If a unit is a Foo unit
but gives a specific exception to the rules in which it details an
instance in which a Foo Unit, then it functions as a Foo Unit except
in that instance.
Chaos Space Marines are a Space Marine Unit. The rules do not
give ANY exception directly related to strategy rating. Therefore, I
am right, and you are wrong.
Period.
>Brian D. Schenck
Frank
Dirk Vormann
OK
> 2> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines
This is the question it comes down to. Are "Chaos Space Marines" "Chaos
SPACE MARINES" or "CHAOS Space Marines"?
> That's it. Unless you can prove that 1 or 2 are false (which
> you can't), I am right, and you are worng.
2) still needs to be proven right.
> >You still have to show that a Chaos Space Marines army is treated, for all
> >intents and purposes, like a Space Marines army under the current rules
> >for Space Marines.
>
> The hell I do. It says that they are Space Marines, thus all
> rules applying to "Space Marines" apply to them. You would make a
> really bad lawyer. Like I said earlier, the burden of proof IS on you.
Could you please explain shaken and chaos marines then? (And please look
into the rulebook which describes that rule prior to answering!) Codex
Chaos does not explicitely say it doesn't apply.
> >Simply being a Space Marine or having a few words in a Codex does not make
> >them the same in every sense of the word.
>
> Actually, it does. Just as Tyranids are in every sense of the
> word Tyranids. An object is either round or it is not. If it is round,
> it is effected by all of the rules which deal with round objects
> unless it says otherwise.
So "SPACE MARINE Scouts" are Space Marines as well????
Or did I misinterpret that logic?
Brian Schenck
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:56:30 -0400, Brian Schenck
> <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Kemnitzer,Trollman wrote:
>
> >> > because they are no
> >> >longer Space Marines. They were at one point, but no longer.
> >>
> >> All your arguments seem to center on this point. Why are they
> >> not Space Marines? Their unit descriptions, army descriptions, and
> >> fluff rants describe them as Space Marines. They have primarch
> >> geneseed in their veins, what evidence do you have that they aren't
> >> Space Marines any more? Is there ANY text in Codex: Chaos that would
> >> lend one to belive that the Chaos Space Marines, despite the name, are
> >> not space marines?
> >>
> >Okay, maybe I am slightly off on saying they aren't Space Marines.
> >However, they are NOT the current incarnation of the Space Marines. And,
> >that definitely has nothing to do with their Primarchs or leader, it's
> >simply semantics.
> >
> >But, that still has nothing to do with them having a strategy rating of 5
> >for being "Marines".
>
> You are right, that has nothing to do with them having a five.
> They are Space Marines, and all of the Space Marine rules apply to
> them. ALL of them. Why? Because it DOES say that they are Space
> Marines and DOESN'T say that they don't get the benefits of being
> Space Marines.
>
So, Chaos Space Marines get the Shaken rule as well? Because of the two
words "Space Marines"? That they may take Imperial Allies, because of
those two words "Space Marines"?
> I would point out that the Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Blood
> Angels, and Space Wolves also DO NOT say that they get an army
> strategy rating of 5. However, like the Chaos Marines, they are Space
> Marines, and all of the Space Marine rules apply to them (including
> having a strategy rating of 5 when used as allies or for bring in
> battles or anywhere else that you don't have a commander).
>
Wait... you call them Chaos Marines? So, then they aren't Space Marines
when you call them Chaos Marines? Because, you left out the word Space.
Again, that's your logic. And I will point out, it's based on two words
and absolutely no rules.
> >No, they are called Chaos Space Marines. You can't isolate a few words
> >from their actual title to give them other abilities as well. That would
> >be rules lawyering, using a few brief words in order to gain an advantage.
> >A similar arguement would be the Tech-priest, Techmarine arguement.
>
> Well, as for the Techpriest Techmarine argument, Codex: Angels
> of Death says in plain English that a Techmarine "has become a
> techpriest" before rejoining the chapter. Iron Priests, are quite
> clearly NOT Techpriests, despite fulfilling every other role (The Iron
> God isn't the Machine God, and they don't go to Mars).
>
> However, that is not important. What is important is that you
> are trying to claim that they do NOT get the benefits of their troop
> type (space marines) without quoting ANY rules. To say that *I* am
> rules lawyering because the rules back me up is.... petty and small.
>
What rule is that? I got one really good one for you "Chaos armies =
Strategy rating of 3". Chaos Space Marine armies are under the Chaos army
banner, and would have a strategy rating of 3.
Again. I'll agree with you that the commander's rating replaces the basic
army rating. But I will argue that there are no rules specifically
mentioning that Chaos Space Marines are treated like Imperial Space
Marines.
And, you actually haven't quoted a rule at all. You've quoted fluff.
> >I know that it says they were Space Marines, organized before the Heresay.
> >And that they left the Imperium during that fighting. However, they are
> >not part of the new organization of the Space Marines, and aren't a true
> >Space Marine army any longer.
>
> It also says that they ARE space marines. Where does it say
> that they are NOT Space Marines. If you aren't basing this on the
> rules you are basing this on nothing.
>
Oh... so since I'm not basing anything on the rules, then I'm wrong? That
makes you wrong to, since you are basing your entire arguement off of the
words "Space Marine", and the fluff in the Chaos Codex.
Hey, that's your logic working again, not mine.
> >Hey, that's what happens when you leave the Emperor, he gets pissed off
> >and alters reality in order to get back at you.
>
> ....he changes the rules so that Brian can set up his Eldar
> after you set up your troops. In fact, he changes the rules so subtly
> that the rules don't actually say anything along those lines, but we
> have to play that way because Brian says so.
>
Yeah... sure. I love it when I say something that you can read, but I
never actually wrote.
Yeah, and you never misquote anything.
> >You snipped a good deal of my arguement. In fact, you snipped the part
> >that happens to state that all of the current Marine codices are organized
> >under the Codex Adeptus Astartes. So, each Marine list is actually just a
> >subsection of a much larger Codex.
>
> ...except the Space Wolves, who specifically are not. Oops, I
> guess that they just don't get strategy rating 5 without a Wolf Lord.
> Sucks for them. :)
>
Funny... they are still part of the Imperial Space Marines organization.
They just choice to organize themselves in some slightly different
fashions.
Hey, that's straight from the fluff too!
> >Chaos Space Marines are no longer part of that organization, and lose out
> >on the benefits of the reorganization.
>
> Your arguments have since left the "Chaos Space Marines are
> not Space Marines" focus to the "Chaos Space Marines don't get the
> benefits of being Space Marines" focus. SINCE WHEN? Where does it say
> that Chaos Space Marines do not get these benefits? Don't make up
> rules, go read Codex: Chaos and find some rules where it specifically
> says that they don't geta strategy rating of 5 when the Chaos Lord
> isn't around.
>
Find me the rules that says that a Chaos Space Marine army is the same,
for all intents and purposes, as a regular Marines army.
It isn't there. The Chaos Space Marines are a Chaos army, in the same
respect that a Harlequin army is an Eldar army, and a Genestealer Cult
army is a Tyranid army.
> >So, when a rule is not there, it is not applicable any longer. Would that
> >be correct to say?
>
> Yes. Except that in this case the rules ARE there:
>
> 1> Space Marines get strategy rating 5 for their army
> 2> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines
>
> That's it. Unless you can prove that 1 or 2 are false (which
> you can't), I am right, and you are worng.
>
Actually, I can. Chaos Space Marines are a Chaos army. In certain
respects, they bear a striking similarity to a regular Imperial Space
Marine army (as noted by the presense of Terminator Armour, the Rapid Fire
rule, and one or two others specifically mentioned). Where a rule is not
specifically mentioned, then they are not the same.
So, I'll again ask, where is the rule that Chaos Marines receive the same
benefit in strategy rating?
> >> The burden of proof is on you, not me.
> >>
> >You still have to show that a Chaos Space Marines army is treated, for all
> >intents and purposes, like a Space Marines army under the current rules
> >for Space Marines.
>
> The hell I do. It says that they are Space Marines, thus all
> rules applying to "Space Marines" apply to them. You would make a
> really bad lawyer. Like I said earlier, the burden of proof IS on you.
>
Bullcrap. Hell, I've been through Business Law and some logic courses as
well. So, I actually learned a few things.
Your entire arguement centers around two words. No rules, only fluff and
some minor similarities.
I don't have to prove anything. Since you don't have an actual rule to
quote, you have no case for anything at all.
> >Simply being a Space Marine or having a few words in a Codex does not make
> >them the same in every sense of the word.
>
> Actually, it does. Just as Tyranids are in every sense of the
> word Tyranids. An object is either round or it is not. If it is round,
> it is effected by all of the rules which deal with round objects
> unless it says otherwise.
>
> A Foo unit is effected by rules pertaining to Foo Units.
> Period. Every single time. There is no time in which a Foo Unit is not
> governed by the rules pertaining to Foo Units. If a unit is a Foo unit
> but gives a specific exception to the rules in which it details an
> instance in which a Foo Unit, then it functions as a Foo Unit except
> in that instance.
>
Unless a Foo unit is in a separate army list, with separate rules
regarding who it works.
> Chaos Space Marines are a Space Marine Unit. The rules do not
> give ANY exception directly related to strategy rating. Therefore, I
> am right, and you are wrong.
>
You're right. The rules don't give any exception regarding strategy rating
at all. Since Chaos Marines are a Chaos army, they have a strategy rating
of 3. Unless there is specifically an exception noted, they don't have a 5
at all.
But hey, play the way you want, if your opponent lets you that is. I've
got no problem with that at all. I just have a problem with your "logic"
and your "arguement". Since, I don't think you really understand them
yourself.
Dirk Vormann
> >> they are Chaos Space Marines, so there is an entire spacebar press
> >> between the utterance of the strategy rating of 3 and the strategy
> >> rating 5 rule. Therefore the strategy rating 5 takes precedance.
> >>
> >So, you admit that you are indeed arguing from the fluff? Hey, I got no
> >problem with that, except that it won't get you anywhere with most
> >opponents.
>
> That isn't fluff. That's the rules. They are called Space
> Marines. Where does it say that they are not Space Marines? I've got
So you say the shaken rules apply as they are space marines? Or did I
misinterpret your logic?
> some evidence that they are (their army names, their unit
> descriptions, their unit names, their origin story, their character
> descriptions, even the rules text inside the text body of the units),
> do you have ANY evidence that they are not? You haven't produced any,
> and if you're not going to you're wasting everyone's time.
>
> >In other words, just because it says "Chaos Space Marines", doesn't also
> >mean they are "Space Marines". The name is the name, not just a piece of
> >another.
>
> OK, what about the Ultramarines? Chaos Marines use a great
> many marine rules, in fact, as far as the rules go, Chaos Marines use
> ALL of the marine rules, except those which they are specifically
> excluded from getting. Where in Codex: Chaos does it say that they are
> not Space Marines?
Even "Space Marine Scouts" are not Space Marines; so the string "Space
Marine" in the name does not make someone a "Space Marine".
Kemnitzer,Trollman
<DVor...@physcip.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
>> 1> Space Marines get strategy rating 5 for their army
>
>OK
>
>> 2> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines
>
>This is the question it comes down to. Are "Chaos Space Marines" "Chaos
>SPACE MARINES" or "CHAOS Space Marines"?
That is the question.
>> That's it. Unless you can prove that 1 or 2 are false (which
>> you can't), I am right, and you are worng.
>
>2) still needs to be proven right.
OK, let's go directly to pg. 84+ of Codex: Chaos. Under the
"Chaos Space Marine" list. It lists every troop type as a "Chaos Space
Marine" and several of them as "Space Marines" (except for the
Daemons, but noone is arguing that they are space marines. BTW, it is
my contention that you have to set up your Nurgle infestation before
the Eldar, but that is another rant altogether).
It never, in this list, refers to a Chaos Space Marine as
Chaos without also refering to them as Space Marines. HOWEVER:
Pg. 85 refers to your army as a "Space Marine Army", not a
Chaos Space Marine army, just a space marine army. Now, this could
easily be construed as a faulty use of cut and paste, but it does
indicate that they are cut and pasting from the Space Marine army
lists, and that they are indeed a space marine army list.
However, here are the ways it could be argued (CHAOS SMs, or C
SPACE MARINES):
Narrowest Leagel Precadent: This would go with them being
Space Marines. The entire codex is chaos, but that list is singalled
out as being a space marine army. That is the narrowest legal
precadent.
The latest printed rule: While being printed only milimeters
later, the Chaos Space Marine list is listed as being Space Marines
LATER than it is mentioned as a Chaos list.
The Noun: Yes, from an English Language perspective, Chaos is
used as an adjective in this case, as is Space, while MARINE is the
noun. Thusly, they are a Marine army list exactly as are the
Ultramarines.
Now, in what way are they NOT Space Marines?
Frank
BEltringha
whether Chaos Space Marines use the Space Marine or Chaos listing. On page 10,
"For Example, the IMPERIAL SPACE MARINES have the highest strategy
military minds in the IMPERIUM." Imperial Space Marines have the highest rating
and therefore Chaos Space Marines cannot have the same rating otherwise they
would be equal and Imperial Space Marines would no longer have the highest
rating. Chaos Codex only becomes relevant if they change the rules in the basic
rulebook, which must be done affirmatively, otherwise the basic rulebook stands
and Chaos has a 3 fordeployment and 5 for starting(due to the commanders
rating). apparently this has been contradicted in WD rulimgs and Q and A's but
people making this argument have never posted a ruling or q and a . Therefore,
the basic rulebook still stands until proven otherwise by WD.
Kent & Kat
>army rating.
Could you please give the exact book or WD and page that
this ruling is on?
Thanks
Brian Schenck
> >Again. I'll agree with you that the commander's rating replaces the >basic
> >army rating.
>
> Could you please give the exact book or WD and page that
> this ruling is on?
>
Thanks Kenny for making an appearance. Now, since you are only alloted one
per century... go away.
As for an official rule, there isn't one. However, it's a way I play, it's
a way that Frank plays, and we both agree to that as a rule.
As far as the actual rules regarding setup and strategy, they are on pages
10 and 11 of the Basic Rulebook.
Brian Schenck
> >Could you please give the exact book or WD and page that
> >this ruling is on?
> >
> I'll second that one, I've been asking for almost a week and nobody has posted
> it. Sure would help to end this thread , if it exists?
>
What, that the Commander's Strategy rating replaces the army strategy
rating? That's simple enough, there isn't an actual rule. However, some
people play it as a house rule, simply because to those people it makes
sense that it should work that way. Another way of doing that, is you
still use the Army rating if you do not have a full fledged army
commander, using Tournement rules.
Hey, other people drop strategy ratings all together and just roll to see
who goes first. And it works for them.
To be completely reasonable though, this entire thread is about what makes
sense to people. I have nothing against Frank using a strategy rating of 5
for his Chaos Marines. I just do not recognize it as an official rule,
only a house rule. That doesn't make it illegitimate, it merely makes it
unofficial. That's also why I was arguing with him over it, because he was
coming to a point that it was indeed official.
However, I apologize for wasting some bandwidth, and even for some of the
flames that occured.
Brian Schenck
> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:41:40 +0200, Dirk Vormann
> <DVor...@physcip.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
>
> >> 1> Space Marines get strategy rating 5 for their army
> >
> >OK
> >
> >> 2> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines
> >
> >This is the question it comes down to. Are "Chaos Space Marines" "Chaos
> >SPACE MARINES" or "CHAOS Space Marines"?
>
> That is the question.
>
I don't see why they can't be both honestly. In the same sense that
Imperial Space Marines are both "IMPERIAL Space Marines" and "Imperial
SPACE MARINES". It's not so much as the fact that they are Space Marines,
but rather were they are getting their support.
> >> That's it. Unless you can prove that 1 or 2 are false (which
> >> you can't), I am right, and you are worng.
> >
> >2) still needs to be proven right.
>
> OK, let's go directly to pg. 84+ of Codex: Chaos. Under the
> "Chaos Space Marine" list. It lists every troop type as a "Chaos Space
> Marine" and several of them as "Space Marines" (except for the
> Daemons, but noone is arguing that they are space marines. BTW, it is
> my contention that you have to set up your Nurgle infestation before
> the Eldar, but that is another rant altogether).
>
True, but Space Marines in the other Codices are also referred to as
Imperial Space Marines. Which would bring up a very pointed distinction
between the two. Normal Marines are a Imperial army, Chaos Space Marines
are a Chaos army. As noted by their presence in the Chaos Codex.
> It never, in this list, refers to a Chaos Space Marine as
> Chaos without also refering to them as Space Marines. HOWEVER:
>
> Pg. 85 refers to your army as a "Space Marine Army", not a
> Chaos Space Marine army, just a space marine army. Now, this could
> easily be construed as a faulty use of cut and paste, but it does
> indicate that they are cut and pasting from the Space Marine army
> lists, and that they are indeed a space marine army list.
>
Although, I would think it is still understood that at all times they are
still a Chaos Space Marine army.
But, with faulty cut and pastes, I wonder why in the hell my Vibro-cannons
need targeters.
> However, here are the ways it could be argued (CHAOS SMs, or C
> SPACE MARINES):
>
> Narrowest Leagel Precadent: This would go with them being
> Space Marines. The entire codex is chaos, but that list is singalled
> out as being a space marine army. That is the narrowest legal
> precadent.
>
It's singled out as being a Chaos Space Marine army though, not an
Imperial Space Marine army. There is a distinction, and enough that it
should matter.
> The latest printed rule: While being printed only milimeters
> later, the Chaos Space Marine list is listed as being Space Marines
> LATER than it is mentioned as a Chaos list.
>
That's definitely being a bit much. The printed rule is regarding the
entire document as a whole, not the separate parts of the list.
> The Noun: Yes, from an English Language perspective, Chaos is
> used as an adjective in this case, as is Space, while MARINE is the
> noun. Thusly, they are a Marine army list exactly as are the
> Ultramarines.
>
In the same aspect that Imperial is a noun in regards to Imperial Space
Marine armies. And as Dirk pointed out, the main rule book is very
specific about Imperial Space Marines as having the highest strategy
rating. And since Chaos Space Marines aren't Imperial Space Marines, even
though both are Space Marines, they do not have a strategy rating of 5.
> Now, in what way are they NOT Space Marines?
>
They don't need to "not" be Space Marines, as they are definitely not
Imperial Space Marines. And that's enough of a distinction in the rules.
BEltringha
>Could you please give the exact book or WD and page that
>this ruling is on?
>
Melein
If you are, and you are arguing why Chaos should set up with a SR of 3 and
start with a SR of 5, you just have to think about it in terms of fluff. The
only other way to think about it is in terms of GW says so, and we all know
that their thinking is slightly skewif (not that mine might'nt be).
Well here goes, Chaos, has degenerated into running around the galaxy making
quick raids, constructing monuments, and worshipping their gods.
Now, if you were one of these people, would you care much about how you get
there? The army commander's SR comes into play because the commander is
obviously more experienced, so he knows that worshipping his god in the open
where you can get shot at is not neccessarily a good idea, and that in order
to get into the building with the much needed supplies (although I thought
that a chaos dude's idea of a good lunch would consist of a rotting carcass,
and that the fluids to go with that would be fermented body fluids), it is
easier to make sure that there are no guys covering the front entrance and
go through the door, rather than making a new one at the rear of the
building, whereas a common Khorne berzerker would just run forward crying
BFTBG, some how avoid getting shot up, make it to the building (if he's
bright enough he'll realize that it easier to use a door than a window),
only to round the corner facing a tank / bunch of heavy wpns / several
hundred guardsmen.
Now the commander would just tell the KB to wait till those Chaos HVY WPN
squads take out the enemy, and then he could go in there.
DO you understand? Or did I just confuse you even more (in which case that
was too easy 8^} ).
Hooragldis
BEltringha
>rating? That's simple enough, there isn't an actual rule
That's the point of contention, some people were posting that there was an
official rule that there was one rating. They posted that it was clarified in
WD rulings and Q and A. They never posted where they were located but argued
that they existed and were official. I have no problem with people playing the
way that they want, it is their game after all. My problem was when they posted
that my reading of the rule was wrong(3 for set-up and 5 for going first),
without posting one rule to that effect. I posted several sections of rules
that validated my position. When I started the thread all I wanted were some
opinions about my new tactics for dealing with a certain tactical problem, of
the dozens of posts only a couple have actually adressed my question. Clay
posted some valid arguments based on some ambiguos sentences, I then responded
with my own well reasoned arguments for my position, and it should have been
left with that and the rest of the postings should have dealt with the original
purpose of the thread. Unfortunately, it devolved into a flamewar which led to
personal attacks, posts which i never respond too because they are below a
response. Why don't we just let this thread die here, if the 3rd. edition is
well written it will be a moot point in the next few months.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
I've asked GW personel, and they play this way. Furthermore,
the SoB codex makes this rather clear.
But the argument was whether Chaos Space Marines get the 5
when setting up without a Chaos Lord (say with a Psyker as their
leader, or as allies in a cult army). A fine point, but an important
one (if you play the cult).
Frank
Brian Schenck
Well, I should've mentioned this yesterday myself, since I asked the damn
question to one of the guys in the store. All Chaos armies have a 3
strategy rating for purposes of setting up. That's their base rating. Now,
if you have a commander with a better rating than that, it replaces it,
and you use the other rating.
From the conversation I had, it's not the Space Marine wording that takes
precidence, rather it was the Chaos wording. Since even Chaos Space
Marines are a Chaos army, even being Space Marines. And GW made the
strategy list to reference the other army lists, as they were written in
the Black Codex. And since the outline is still fairly consistent with the
Codices, then the strategy rating still works in that manner.
Oh well, in any event, that's about as official as it is ever going to
get. And I'm sure that the new edition would NEVER have a problem like
this...
utt.onramp.net
(Pulls out can of Gasoline)
NO PLACE in any Rulebook or Codex is there a rule that says there are
two separate Strategy ratings. However, I have already quoted many,
many places that say the same rating is used for both setup and going
first.
So it's pretty much arguing for fun from this point on!
Clay
Insert silly tag line here..
Joe Schulte
: I'm loving this argument! Way to go guys...keep it running...
: Clay
Um, Clay? Weren't you like leaving or something?
BEltringha
>
>
Nobody can leave! Nobody!!
utt.onramp.net
ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) writes:
>
> Um, Clay? Weren't you like leaving or something?
>
>
Yeah...Sept. 1st. But like everything else the facts are ignored...
Maybe we should argue about it! Yeah, what a topic!
Ryan P Arndt
> NO PLACE in any Rulebook or Codex is there a rule that says there are
> two separate Strategy ratings. However, I have already quoted many,
> many places that say the same rating is used for both setup and going
> first.
Could you please quote these places, because there are definately direct
quotes which say the opposite.
The top of p11 of the Rulebook says "The force with the lowest strategy
rating must deploy first...according to their individual startegy
ratings." That is, the SR of the force is used for deployment. Under the
heading "Starting and Ending" (p11), it says "roll a d6 and add the
strategy rating of their force's commander."
--
Ryan P Arndt
Na*i H*ll Sm**f
*Read the FAQ at http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
*Read the FPT at http://www.trail.com/~moebius/links.html
*Boycott Games Workshop Products
*Play Warzone and Chronopia
Dirk Vormann
> > two separate Strategy ratings. However, I have already quoted many,
> > many places that say the same rating is used for both setup and going
> > first.
>
> Could you please quote these places, because there are definately direct
> quotes which say the opposite.
>
> The top of p11 of the Rulebook says "The force with the lowest strategy
> rating must deploy first...according to their individual startegy
> ratings." That is, the SR of the force is used for deployment. Under the
> heading "Starting and Ending" (p11), it says "roll a d6 and add the
> strategy rating of their force's commander."
That is what the rulebook says. There are different ratings for
deployment and first turn. Problems arise because the codices seem to
ignore this. But then, the rulebook was written by different people than
the codices...
Ryan P Arndt
> That is what the rulebook says. There are different ratings for
> deployment and first turn. Problems arise because the codices seem to
> ignore this. But then, the rulebook was written by different people than
> the codices...
I wouldn't say the codices ignore it, just that it isn't necessary to put
it in the codex when it's already in the rulebook. The only exceptions to
this I can think of are Sisters of Battle (which I haven't looked inside
the book, and don't want to) and Genestealers (which 99% of gamers would
say to use the Tyrranid S.R.)
utt.onramp.net
Ryan P Arndt <earn...@curtin.edu.au> writes:
> Clay Smith wrote:
>
> > NO PLACE in any Rulebook or Codex is there a rule that says there are
> > two separate Strategy ratings. However, I have already quoted many,
> > many places that say the same rating is used for both setup and going
> > first.
>
> Could you please quote these places, because there are definately direct
> quotes which say the opposite.
I already did Ryan. I posted many, many quotes from the Rulebook,
Codexes, Strategy Cards, Vehicle Cards and White Dwarf. I just don't
feel like doing it again. Maybe somebody saved a copy of the message
and can repost it.
Clay
Yes, I *AM* leaving the newsgroup on September 1st.
For the record.
For the rest of you.... (_!_)
Brian Schenck
> > > NO PLACE in any Rulebook or Codex is there a rule that says there are
> > > two separate Strategy ratings. However, I have already quoted many,
> > > many places that say the same rating is used for both setup and going
> > > first.
> >
> > Could you please quote these places, because there are definately direct
> > quotes which say the opposite.
> >
> > The top of p11 of the Rulebook says "The force with the lowest strategy
> > rating must deploy first...according to their individual startegy
> > ratings." That is, the SR of the force is used for deployment. Under the
> > heading "Starting and Ending" (p11), it says "roll a d6 and add the
> > strategy rating of their force's commander."
>
> That is what the rulebook says. There are different ratings for
> deployment and first turn. Problems arise because the codices seem to
> ignore this. But then, the rulebook was written by different people than
> the codices...
>
Most people just ignore the army rating if they have a Commander with a
better rating. And they use both ratings for setup and going first.
Of course, if you don't have a Commander, then you use the army rating in
both situations. And in some ways, that makes a lot more sense.
Brian D. Schenck
mail to: shr...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shrike
"Poit! Zort! Narffff...." - From the collected sayings of Pinky
Join the fight against SPAM! Visit http://www.cauce.org and lend your
support!
Dirk Vormann
> > That is what the rulebook says. There are different ratings for
> > deployment and first turn. Problems arise because the codices seem to
> > ignore this. But then, the rulebook was written by different people than
> > the codices...
>
> it in the codex when it's already in the rulebook. The only exceptions to
> this I can think of are Sisters of Battle (which I haven't looked inside
> the book, and don't want to) and Genestealers (which 99% of gamers would
> say to use the Tyrranid S.R.)
That isn't what I meant. I was talking about Orks doubling army rating
before adding commander rating to d6 roll and other such stuff. People
who wrote codices ignored the existence of two strategy ratings,
although the rulebook ois explicit.
utt.onramp.net
And I've left out the 'Brilliant Strategy' card and the reference in
40K Battles....(Both support the one rating fact)
There's only one Strategy rating.
Rulebook.
Page 10, first paragraph in the DEPLOYING FOR BATTLE section ends with
this:
"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
going first.
Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
score." This is the source of the misconception of their being two
different strategy ratings. So why does it exist? Simple...allies.
Read on.
The first paragraph on page 11 says a mixed force deploys according to
each army's strategy rating. The example is of a Space Marine and
Imperial Guard army fighting Eldar. The Guard setup first, then the
Eldar, and finally the Space Marines. But how do you determine which
side goes first? The Imperium side has forces from two different
strategy ratings. Easy - one force contains the overall commander, and
it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
first. If the commander belonged to the Space Marines, then you use
their rating of '5'. Go back and read the rule again and see how it
applies.
Supporting evidence.
There's a couple of Vehicle Cards that impact strategy ratings.
Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
Command Comm-Link - "When rolling to see which side goes first, a Space
Marine force that includes this vehicle may roll two D6 and add their
strategy rating to the best result." Here we are using the "Army"
strategy rating - not a separate commander rating. So there can only
be one rating.
Designers notes, page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a
sort of strategic initiative value that defines which side sets up
first and takes the first turn." That sounds like one rating to me.
And I finish by asking two questions, both based on the FLAWED and
INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
from the army.
1 - Why do the Orks DOUBLE their strategy rating for going first? Why
not just give the Warboss a Strategy Rating of '6'? The only answer is
that there is ONLY ONE RATING and a special rule for Orks was created!
2 - I defy anybody who believes in two separate Strategy Ratings to
tell me what the Strategy Rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness is.
The SOB Codex says (page 54) "If the Canoness is leading the army, it
has a strategy rating of 4." Okay, so what's HER rating? If there's
only one, it doesn't matter. If there's two ratings, what's her's?
Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'. However,
notice that a normal 'Chaos Cultist' army in the same codex uses a
Strategy rating of '3'.... The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
Marines, and they are still a '5'.
Clay, who has NEVER set up his Chaos Marines before an Eldar player....
Insert silly tag line here..
Oh yeah, I forgot this. White Dwarf #166, page 56, written by Andy
Chambers, says: "In the new Warhammer 40,000, you use a slightly
different procedure to determine who has the first turn. Each player
rolls a D6 and adds their army's strategy rating to the score...."
Game. Set. Match! All in one post! Aren't y'all proud of me?!
BEltringha
>first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
>
>That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
>going first.
You are using one sentence and ignoring the rest of the section. The rest of
the section gives the strategy ratings for each army,3 for chaos, which it
specifically states are only used for set-up. Pg.10," The different races'
strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest strategy rating
must deploy its models first."
>
>Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
>a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
>score."
Notice that it says "force's commander " not "race/army" which is used for
set-up. Two seperate rules sections with two seperate terminologies. The fact
that you have allies is irrelevant, as per the rules you use Race/Army rating
for deployment and force commanders rating for starting and ending.
>and
>it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
>first.
Not what the rules say. They specifically state its the forces commanders
rating.
>
>Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
>Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'.
Chaos Lord also had a strategy rating of five under the Black Codex, still
doesn't change the fact that Chaos sets-up with a 3.
>The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
>Marines, and they are still a '5'.
If you read the rule under set-up it specifically states that Imperial Space
marines have the highest strategy rating(5) because they are commanded by some
of the finest minds in the imperium. Note Imperial Space Marines and Imperium.
>
>Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook.
O.K., where does it change the set-up rules?, because the only reference in
mine is to the commanders rating which is a 5. Codexes have to affirmatively
modify the rules, and the Chaos Codex doesn't. The chaos lord has the same
strategy rating under both the black codex and Codex Chaos, no rules change.
I haven't replied to every point because I really don't have the time to post
everything that I have posted in previous threads, I just tried to add a couple
things. The point is that when you argue that Chaos sets up with a 5 you are
trying to prove a negative. The rules affirmatively give chaos a 3 for set-up
and a 5 for going first(commanders rating). There is no way to prove that chaos
sets-up with a 5 unless there is a WD ruling or Q and A that states that it is
indeed the case. Everything else is a sentence here and a sentence there and a
codex entry here a sentence from a white dwarf there. The evidence is much
stronger that Chaos sets-up with a 3 and uses 5 for going first, because that
is what the rules specify. I agree there is ambiguity and room for argument but
the weight of the evidence is on the affirmative assertion that Chaos uses a 3
for set-up. As a chaos player I tried to find an argument for the 5 but it was
clear to me that 3 was the appropriat rating for set-up, based on the rules in
their context. I really wish this thread would die because it has really served
no purpose as the same arguments are being repeated ad nauseam, therefore I
will no longer contribute to its unholy existance.
Kemnitzer,Trollman
>>"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
>>first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
>>
>>That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
>>going first.
>
> You are using one sentence and ignoring the rest of the section. The rest of
>the section gives the strategy ratings for each army,3 for chaos, which it
>specifically states are only used for set-up. Pg.10," The different races'
>strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest strategy rating
>must deploy its models first."
No he isn't. According to the rules, those army ratings are
given as examples. However, if you have a codex which says something
different (which, if you are Chaos, you DO), you use the codex listed
rating instead.
>>Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
>>Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'.
>
> Chaos Lord also had a strategy rating of five under the Black Codex, still
>doesn't change the fact that Chaos sets-up with a 3.
Evidence? Oh yeah, you have no evidence, I keep forgetting.
>>The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
>>Marines, and they are still a '5'.
>
> If you read the rule under set-up it specifically states that Imperial Space
>marines have the highest strategy rating(5) because they are commanded by some
>of the finest minds in the imperium. Note Imperial Space Marines and Imperium.
Don't start this argument, it seems that you weren't paying
attention the last time. The actual CHART only says Space Marines, and
Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines. Period. End of story. Don't
argue the fluff part.
Frank
BEltringha
> No he isn't. According to the rules, those army ratings are
>given as examples
Where does it say the strategy ratings are listed as examples? pg. 10," The
different races' strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest
strategy rating must deploy its models first." The rules clearly state these
values are used for set-up. Nowhere does it say they are examples. Although,
the section does include an example of how the table is used(pg. 11).
>However, if you have a codex which says something
>different (which, if you are Chaos, you DO), you use the codex listed
>rating instead.
Quote the section that says you use the commanders rating for deployment.
Refer to the section above in ehich I quote the rules for set-up.
>
> Evidence? Oh yeah, you have no evidence, I keep forgetting.
>
>
Other than the rules, maybe you should read them. Even if there is only one
strategy rating it doesn't change the fact that the rules say Chaos sets up
with a 3(specific vs general rule), pg. 10," The different races' strategy
ratings are listed below, Chaos 3, The force with the lowest strategy rating
must deploy its models first."
Under the old Black Codex the Chaos Lord , which was the only army commander
allowed for a chaos army, has a strategy rating of 5. If Chaos used a 5 for
set-up then the table on page 10 would give them a 5, but it gives them a 3 for
set-up. The new codex doesn't change the set-up rules or the Chaos Lords
strategy rating, therefore the rules as written stand. If the set-up rules or
Chaos Lords strategy rating have changed since the black codex please feel free
to quote the rule change, maybe I own a different codex.
To put in simple terms, assuming there is only one rating, think of the rule
in the rulebook as a rule similar to the Orks in their codex. The Orks use a 3
for set-up( as per the chart), and a 6 for starting,as per the rule in their
codex. The Chaos army works in a similar fashion, a 3 for set-up and the
commanders rating(5) for starting and ending. You can have your cake and eat it
too. Nowhere in Chaos Codex is the deploying for battle rules changed, look at
the Ork Codex, when the rule is changed it is obvious. The Ork codex makes it
quite clear how the basic rules are modified. Saying the Chaos Lord has a 5
under the codex is irrelevant, it was the same under the Black Codex, it
doesn't change the rules and mechanics of the game.
> Don't start this argument, it seems that you weren't paying
>attention the last time. The actual CHART only says Space Marines, and
>Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines. Period. End of story. Don't
>argue the fluff part.
No fluff here, Pg. 10, "Deploying for Battle" states" For Example, the
IMPERIAL SPACE MARINES have the HIGHEST strategy rating because they are very
mobile and are commanded by some of the finest military minds in the IMPERIUM."
Straight from the rules, Imperial Space Marines have the Highest rating. Go
find a dictionary and read the definition of highest, they are the only ones
with a five. Please refrain from arguing this point in the future as it is
clearly stated in the rules, but I guess you wouldn't know that would you? I
think it's funny how you argue that the chart is just a non binding example and
then go on to use it to support your argument. We're still waiting for the
mountains of WD rulings and Q and A's , which according to you, say chaos
deploys with a 5. If you want to be taken seriously in a rules argument please
try and quote some in the future instead of making unfounded statements with no
references.
Brian Schenck
> > If you read the rule under set-up it specifically states that Imperial Space
> >marines have the highest strategy rating(5) because they are commanded by some
> >of the finest minds in the imperium. Note Imperial Space Marines and Imperium.
>
> Don't start this argument, it seems that you weren't paying
> attention the last time. The actual CHART only says Space Marines, and
> Chaos Space Marines are Space Marines. Period. End of story. Don't
> argue the fluff part.
>
It's amazing how persistent you are.
However, regardless of what the chart says (note it has all Chaos armies
as 3), the rules state Imperial Space Marines explicitly. So, the
established rule is that Imperial Space Marines are one thing, Chaos Space
Marines are another. Those are the only two kinds of Space Marines ever
stated at any point in any codex.
Since Chaos Space Marines are still a Chaos Army, regardless of they
nature of Space Marines, they would still have a strategy rating of 3. For
being a Chaos army.
Imperial Space Marines have the highest strategy rating (denoted by the
main rule book, and NEVER contradicted in any other codex) of 5. Since
Chaos Space Marines can not be, nor ever will be, Imperial Space Marines,
they can not have a strategy rating of 5.
Hence, they have a rating of 3.
Unless of course, you can quote a rule in the Chaos Codex (other than
fluff) which states otherwise.
utt.onramp.net
beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
> >"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
> >first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
> >
> >That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
> >going first.
>
> You are using one sentence and ignoring the rest of the section. The rest of
> the section gives the strategy ratings for each army,3 for chaos, which it
> specifically states are only used for set-up. Pg.10," The different races'
> strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest strategy rating
> must deploy its models first."
In NO WAY does that rule indicate the strategy rating is used ONLY for
setup. It just says it is used for setup. Check my quote above and
you'll see that it is also used to determine who goes first.
You're going to lose this argument.
>
>
> >
> >Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
> >a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
> >score."
>
> Notice that it says "force's commander " not "race/army" which is used for
> set-up. Two seperate rules sections with two seperate terminologies. The fact
> that you have allies is irrelevant, as per the rules you use Race/Army rating
> for deployment and force commanders rating for starting and ending.
>
> >and
> >it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
> >first.
>
> Not what the rules say. They specifically state its the forces commanders
> rating.
Right. Because if you're using allies, you cannot have the two forces
going at separate times. Use the COMMANDER'S rating. This rule does
not say there are TWO ratings, just that you use the rating of the
COMMANDER. You're inventing a rule.
Clay
utt.onramp.net
Brian Schenck <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
> Since Chaos Space Marines are still a Chaos Army, regardless of they
> nature of Space Marines, they would still have a strategy rating of 3. For
> being a Chaos army.
It does not matter if they count as CHAOS or SPACE MARINE! The Chaos
Lord is a '5'. If you use him, the setup with a 5 and use a 5 for
going first. There's only one rating.
The rulebook specifically says the same rating is used for both! How
many times do I have to quote it?
Page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a sort of strategic
initiative value that defines which side sets up first and takes the
first turn."
Clay
utt.onramp.net
only one strategy rating and it is used for both setup and initiative.
"Brilliant Strategy" Strategy Card. "A cunning and entirely original
plan gives you an opportunity to steal the initiative from your foe.
Play this card before deployment takes place. Roll a D6 and add the
score to your force's strategy rating for the rest of the game."
How can you possibly "steal the initiative" if the modified setup
rating isn't ALSO used for going first?
Ork Codex page 49 - "WAAARGH! Orks have a strategy rating of 3 when it
comes to deciding who sets up first, as described on page 10 of the
Warhammer rulebook. However, the wild and unpredictable nature of an
Ork attack means that quite often the Orks will launch their attack
very suddenly, catching their opponents completely unaware. To
represent this, the Orks *double* their strategy to 6 when rolling to
see who has the first turn, so they are very likely to get the first
turn of the game even against Space Marines."
This is rock-solid proof that there is only one strategy rating, and it
is used for both setup and initiative. Instead of giving the Ork
Warboss as Strategy Rating of '6', which would have acheived the same
thing IF there were two separate ratings, they included this special
rule.
Notice how the Orks double their strategy. It doesn't say squat about
the commander.
Since I've saved the message, I'll just repost the rest of my huge
amount of proof that there's only one strategy rating.
Wrong. There's only one Strategy rating.
Rulebook.
Page 10, first paragraph in the DEPLOYING FOR BATTLE section ends with
this:
"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
going first.
Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
score." This is the source of the misconception of their being two
different strategy ratings. So why does it exist? Simple...allies.
Read on.
The first paragraph on page 11 says a mixed force deploys according to
each army's strategy rating. The example is of a Space Marine and
Imperial Guard army fighting Eldar. The Guard setup first, then the
Eldar, and finally the Space Marines. But how do you determine which
side goes first? The Imperium side has forces from two different
strategy ratings. Easy - one force contains the overall commander, and
it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
first. If the commander belonged to the Space Marines, then you use
their rating of '5'. Go back and read the rule again and see how it
applies.
Supporting evidence.
There's a couple of Vehicle Cards that impact strategy ratings.
Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
Command Comm-Link - "When rolling to see which side goes first, a Space
Marine force that includes this vehicle may roll two D6 and add their
strategy rating to the best result." Here we are using the "Army"
strategy rating - not a separate commander rating. So there can only
be one rating.
Designers notes, page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a
sort of strategic initiative value that defines which side sets up
first and takes the first turn." That sounds like one rating to me.
And I finish by asking two questions, both based on the FLAWED and
INCORRECT assumption that commanders have a separate Strategy Rating
from the army.
1 - Why do the Orks DOUBLE their strategy rating for going first? Why
not just give the Warboss a Strategy Rating of '6'? The only answer is
that there is ONLY ONE RATING and a special rule for Orks was created!
2 - I defy anybody who believes in two separate Strategy Ratings to
tell me what the Strategy Rating of a Sister of Battle Canoness is.
The SOB Codex says (page 54) "If the Canoness is leading the army, it
has a strategy rating of 4." Okay, so what's HER rating? If there's
only one, it doesn't matter. If there's two ratings, what's her's?
Remember that the Codex takes precedent over the rulebook. So the
Chaos Codex says a Chaos Lord has a strategy rating of '5'. However,
notice that a normal 'Chaos Cultist' army in the same codex uses a
Strategy rating of '3'.... The Chaos Space Marines are still Space
Marines, and they are still a '5'.
Clay, who has NEVER set up his Chaos Marines before an Eldar player....
Insert silly tag line here..
Oh yeah, I forgot this. White Dwarf #166, page 56, written by Andy
Chambers, says: "In the new Warhammer 40,000, you use a slightly
different procedure to determine who has the first turn. Each player
rolls a D6 and adds their army's strategy rating to the score...."
Game. Set. Match! All in one post! Aren't y'all proud of me?!
Yes, I *AM* leaving the newsgroup on September 1st.
Brian Schenck
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.98081...@rac8.wam.umd.edu>
> Brian Schenck <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
> > Since Chaos Space Marines are still a Chaos Army, regardless of they
> > nature of Space Marines, they would still have a strategy rating of 3. For
> > being a Chaos army.
>
> It does not matter if they count as CHAOS or SPACE MARINE! The Chaos
> Lord is a '5'. If you use him, the setup with a 5 and use a 5 for
> going first. There's only one rating.
>
> The rulebook specifically says the same rating is used for both! How
> many times do I have to quote it?
>
> Page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a sort of strategic
> initiative value that defines which side sets up first and takes the
> first turn."
>
That, however, does not contradict what was said. If anything, it merely
proves that there could be more than one rating.
The strategy rating defines who goes first and who sets up first. However,
this statement from page 94 does not say there is a single rating.
In essence, the army rating represents the resources that an army has to
deploy its forces. The commander's rating represents the ability to
outmaneuver the enemy.
Unless you can cite a rule which state than the army commander's rating is
substituted for the army rating, then there is not official rule to this
effect.
However, it makes for a great unofficial house rule.
Brian Schenck
> In article <199808190157...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> beltr...@aol.com (BEltringha) writes:
>
> > >"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
> > >first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
> > >
> > >That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
> > >going first.
> >
> > You are using one sentence and ignoring the rest of the section. The rest of
> > the section gives the strategy ratings for each army,3 for chaos, which it
> > specifically states are only used for set-up. Pg.10," The different races'
> > strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest strategy rating
> > must deploy its models first."
>
> In NO WAY does that rule indicate the strategy rating is used ONLY for
> setup. It just says it is used for setup. Check my quote above and
> you'll see that it is also used to determine who goes first.
>
> You're going to lose this argument.
>
Incorrect. Unless you can cite a specific rule, which states that the army
commander's rating replaces the army rating for setup, then the arguement
is null and void.
It is simply a matter of interpretation, and that is another matter.
> Right. Because if you're using allies, you cannot have the two forces
> going at separate times. Use the COMMANDER'S rating. This rule does
> not say there are TWO ratings, just that you use the rating of the
> COMMANDER. You're inventing a rule.
>
Really? Where did you cite a rule where the army commander's rating
overrides the basic rating for the army?
That's right, there isn't one. An interpretation maybe, but not hard rule.
Even the rules for setup explicitly state that allies use their army
rating, not the commander rating. As seen in the example of Space Marines
and IG versus Eldar. If you used the commander's rating, since you can
only ever have one commander for an entire force (as per the rules
regarding allies), then IG and Marines would have setup at the same time.
And unless a codex is published later on that states otherwise, in a very
direct and obvious manner (SoB codex, Ork Codex), the army rating is used
for setup. The commander rating for going first.
If there is indeed one strategy rating, as you claim Clay, then it would
be the generic army rating given by the main rules. This is seen in the
Ork Codex, where the strategy rating is doubled for Orks in order to see
who goes first. Not for who setups first (no exception, means no rule) but
only who goes first.
utt.onramp.net
Brian Schenck <shr...@stopspam.wam.umd.edu> writes:
> On 19 Aug 1998 csmith-don't.include....@spammers.can.kiss.my.pasty.white.b wrote:
> >
> > The rulebook specifically says the same rating is used for both! How
> > many times do I have to quote it?
> >
> > Page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a sort of strategic
> > initiative value that defines which side sets up first and takes the
> > first turn."
> >
> That, however, does not contradict what was said. If anything, it merely
> proves that there could be more than one rating.
>
> The strategy rating defines who goes first and who sets up first. However,
> this statement from page 94 does not say there is a single rating.
Yes it does. It specifically says both that there is *A* strategy
rating and the it is used for both setup and going first!
And, just for fun, here's the whole list of stuff again....
I found two more things to quote PROVING without question that there is
only one strategy rating and it is used for both setup and initiative.
"Brilliant Strategy" Strategy Card. "A cunning and entirely original
plan gives you an opportunity to steal the initiative from your foe.
Play this card before deployment takes place. Roll a D6 and add the
score to your force's strategy rating for the rest of the game."
How can you possibly "steal the initiative" if the modified setup
rating isn't ALSO used for going first?
Ork Codex page 49 - "WAAARGH! Orks have a strategy rating of 3 when it
comes to deciding who sets up first, as described on page 10 of the
Warhammer rulebook. However, the wild and unpredictable nature of an
Ork attack means that quite often the Orks will launch their attack
very suddenly, catching their opponents completely unaware. To
represent this, the Orks *double* their strategy to 6 when rolling to
see who has the first turn, so they are very likely to get the first
turn of the game even against Space Marines."
This is rock-solid proof that there is only one strategy rating, and it
is used for both setup and initiative. Instead of giving the Ork
Warboss as Strategy Rating of '6', which would have acheived the same
thing IF there were two separate ratings, they included this special
rule.
Notice how the Orks double their strategy. It doesn't say squat about
the commander.
There's only one Strategy rating.
Rulebook.
Page 10, first paragraph in the DEPLOYING FOR BATTLE section ends with
this:
"To determine which player deploys his models first and who has the
first turn, different armies have what's called a 'strategy rating.'"
That clearly indicates that there is one rating used for both setup and
going first.
Page 11: "Once everybody's models have been deployed both players roll
a D6 and add the strategy rating of their force's commander to the
score." This is the source of the misconception of their being two
different strategy ratings. So why does it exist? Simple...allies.
Read on.
The first paragraph on page 11 says a mixed force deploys according to
each army's strategy rating. The example is of a Space Marine and
Imperial Guard army fighting Eldar. The Guard setup first, then the
Eldar, and finally the Space Marines. But how do you determine which
side goes first? The Imperium side has forces from two different
strategy ratings. Easy - one force contains the overall commander, and
it's HIS FORCE'S strategy rating that is used to determine who goes
first. If the commander belonged to the Space Marines, then you use
their rating of '5'. Go back and read the rule again and see how it
applies.
Supporting evidence.
There's a couple of Vehicle Cards that impact strategy ratings.
Recon Pack - "The Space Marine player may add 1 to his strategy
rating." This is very clear evidence that there is only one rating.
Command Comm-Link - "When rolling to see which side goes first, a Space
Marine force that includes this vehicle may roll two D6 and add their
strategy rating to the best result." Here we are using the "Army"
strategy rating - not a separate commander rating. So there can only
be one rating.
Designers notes, page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a
sort of strategic initiative value that defines which side sets up
BEltringha
>Page 94: "Every army now has a Strategy Rating - a sort of strategic
>initiative value that defines which side sets up first and takes the
>first turn."
>
>
O.K. you have one sentence implying a single rating. However, Page 10," The
different races' strategy ratings are listed below. The force with the lowest
strategy rating must deploy its models first." Two contiguos sentences say
chaos uses a 3. I can even explain the rule assuming a single rating. You used
the Ork codex entry to prove that there is one strategy rating by saying that
the codex changes the Ork commanders rating to a 6, a special rule. The basic
rulebook is explicitly stating a special rule for Chaos, a 3 for set-up and 5
for starting just like the Orks have a special rule. It doesn't matter if there
is one or two strategy ratings because the rules explicitly states that Chaos
sets up with a 3.
>It does not matter if they count as CHAOS or SPACE MARINE! The Chaos
>Lord is a '5'. If you use him, the setup with a 5 and use a 5 for
>going first. There's only one rating.
>
>
The rules specifically state that Chaos sets up with a 3, your confusing
general and explicit rules which change the basic rule. Nowhere does it say you
use the Chaos lords strategy rating instead of the table for set-up. Explicit
army rules trump basic rules. It is like arguing that Orks setup and start with
rating of 3, if you use the army commanders rating for set-up, however there is
an explicit rule that says they use a 6 for starting which modifies the basic
rule. Chaos works in the same way.