Now the wait and see for the final NOVA FAQ and the ability to finalize lists. The biggest unanswered question for me is what the ruling on Phil Kelly's "removed from play" codex entries are going to end up being. If they get upheld despite appearing to be merely the difference between writing styles, ... Well, I'm going to have to tweak my list a bit I guess.
October 23d for release
Well, I'm about to put this on preorder, but considering the way Dan worked up these two characters, even if Eisenhorn has truly gone off the deep end from radical to heretic, unless he has totally lost his ability to think, Eisenhorn would eat Ravenor for lunch. OTOH, what I expect is Ravenor bungling and Eisenhorn either saving him or using him to burn some Chaos cult or the other. Either way, Ravenor will be fairly clueless.
Sometimes you do have to interpret rules with no clue to what the design was to be because the way the rule is written is somewhat ambiguous. Now the first thing is to try and discern the intent and the second is decide what the possible interpretations are and check for exploits. Our example for today will be the No Retreat rule from 5th Edition.
For the next section, here is what looks like an example of how RAI gets claimed to be RAW. As far as I've been able to research this one, it is solid. It concerns the interpretation that there is a difference between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" when pulling a model from the table. Now it has long been said that this is RAW and nothing can change it, but I first encountered it early in my 40k career with regards to Necrons and WBB (yes, the old Necron codex) vs. Sweeping Advance. Pretty much, everyone cited the line in the 5th Ed rules (and backed it up with the 4th Ed rules, a.k.a. last edition hangover) where models in a unit caught by Sweeping Advance were "removed from play", therefore WBB didn't work. Is this true? Well, not if you read the 5th Ed Sweeping Advance rules in context.
With 6th Edition out there is a lot of time being spent on deciding what rules mean. Of course, the usual suspects are out crawling around interpreting away on the basis of defining what the meaning of the word "is" is. They claim the "holy" justification of RAW, make ritual manual gestures (hand waving) and solemnly intone "We are right because GW writes bad rules and therefore you have no defense against us, because we are always speaking of a rule GW has written badly." How can we tell the difference between people with a clue and internet rules charlatans? Well, there are a few ways to do this. First we have to cover how rules and their reading are covered.
RAW (Rules As Written)
RAD (Rules As Designed) -- NOTE: this replaces Rules As Intended because of the conflict with the next one.
RAI (Rules As Interpreted) -- NOTE: the implication here is for interpreting based on a guess or personal bias.
It will get long after the break and since I'm not writing something for academics those who have some knowledge of this subject might note a lack of rigor, but then I'm aiming this more to the majority I read on the Internet who don't get the context..
I might offend MVB again, but I don't dare put this on the NOVA forums. I'd already blown off any thought of allied lists and one reason was because I saw this coming. And Marshal Laeroth, if you publish this one I'll might bring an axe handle in my luggage to NOVA. You are on his blogroll.
Okay, this concerns the draft NOVA FAQ. (Yes, that link will probably break in the next week). Here is the relevant section:
>>The NOVA FAQ, 6th Edition v1.0 Page 4 1 August 2012
>>General Rules FAQ
>>>> Allied Independent Characters Embarking – Allied IC’s may not embark on Allied Transports under any circumstances
>>>> Clarification – Battle Brother IC’s – When an Independent Character joins a unit, it is counted as a part of the unit for all rules purposes. For example, if a Dark Eldar Archon joins an Eldar Harlequin unit, the unit is still considered an Eldar Unit (and so could be, for instance, Fortuned).
You have to understand that MVB and I have been going around and around on allied ICs embarking in allied transports the entire time. Long story, will probably be an example in a post I'm working on now, but for now, I simply want to rewrite this pair of rules from the NOVA FAQ to save space for printing. If it shows any flaws in someone's thought processes, I won't comment on that. I've had to decide that being pragmatic is useful, because I think every time I'm butting heads with Mike over a rule I'm being stoopid, because Mike is invariably ruling in a way that favors my NOVA list in one way or another. Anyway, time for the simplification of the FAQ:
>>The NOVA FAQ, 6th Edition v1.0(Algesan) Page 4 1 August 2012
>>General Rules FAQ
>>>> Clarification – Battle Brother IC’s – When an Independent Character joins a unit, it is counted as a part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the case of Allied ICs embarking on Allied Transports which is not allowed. For example, if a Dark Eldar Archon joins an Eldar Harlequin unit, the unit is still considered an Eldar Unit (and so could be, for instance, Fortuned).
Heh, again, sorry, I had to because it highlighted so perfectly what I think is wrong about the allied IC decision. It also gets the last post off the top.
EDIT: This is a rant to blow off steam. Remember that when you read it.
For now at least. I'm not touching the stuff until I see the FAQ and see how much I enjoy the screwing we are all going to receive. Yes, most of it will be fair or at least something that can be worked around, but this is turning into a damned money and time pit.
You know, I might just be a "scrub" and not worthy of competing on the top tables. It might be a pure talent issue, but it definitely is a time issue. I cannot go out and play multiple games of 40k most days of the week. Which means the more I have to change my list and play style, the less capable of having any shot at the top tables I'll be. Which means being biased towards the "scrub" tables anyway.
I'm not in this for the money (although it would be nice), I'm not in this for the glory (yes, that is nice too), I'm in this to test myself. I'm not in this to tie one or more limbs behind my back (or have them tied there for me by having to learn how to play a list on the fly because I cannot finalize the thing until two weeks or less before the tournament and maybe get two games with to playtest). All of which means that I don't give a flip if "even the guys in the 0-4 bracket have something to compete for". For most of the last 9-10 months, I've maintained fairly close to a 3-1 win/draw vs loss rate. Which means if I go 0-4, 1-3 or maybe even 2-2, I'll probably be polite, but hope you draw my name if you are in those brackets at NOVA for the first two rounds of the second set, because I'll probably walk to the table, shake your hand, congratulate you on your win, fill out the paperwork with you and then go do something else.
The problem is, I have put in a lot of my time, including time taken away from other things that might have needed it, to prepare for NOVA. As much as others? No, which is why I can figure I'm not going to go 8-0 and 6-2 would probably be great. However, it was the time I could budget and I gave all I could to it. Of course, as long as NOVA gets to brag about being the first 6th Ed GT (which nobody will care about in a few years anyway) rather than the last stand of 5th, then we should all sit around and sing Kum-By-Yah and give it our all for the cause, right?
Oh, there will be a pretty face put on it all no matter what, but I think if Mike thought last year's explosion was bad, then this year is going to be worse. Especially since I've already gotten hints of NOVA FAQ rulings which are not going to be in line with what I think GW will rule. True, I think most of the NOVA FAQ rulings will be spot on, but I've seen a couple of snap calls and use of flawed logic to make rulings that will make some builds a lot stronger. Oh wait, the NOVA terrain meta last year did the same thing didn't it?
So, I"m assembling a LRC for a little 5th Edition 1250 point partners game (Yes, 5th). In between gluing bits while I retire from the fumes I've been re-reading Helsreach for the umpteenth time. Now I'm not worried about the various nifty USRs or how badly our vows are going to get hammered or the fact that GW in 6th has painted themselves so far in the corner with 6th they only have two options with most of the middle denied them.
Well, the debate ended a while ago and I'm still happy with my straight Necron list I did up back in November. Finishing up some of my converting and base coating the new models. What am I bringing?
1x Overlord w/ WS, MSS in Command Barge (Gauss) (CB)
1x Overlord w/ WS, MSS, Orb, SPW on foot with Warriors
1x Immortalsx10 (Gauss) w/ Cryptek of Destruction (Solar Pulse) & Lord (WS, MSS, Orb)
1x Immortalsx10 (Tesla) w/ Cryptek of Destruction (Solar Pulse) & Lord (WS, MSS, Orb)
1x NWx20 w/ 2x Crypteks (2xVoltaic staff, 1x Electric field)
1x NWx5 in a Ghost Ark (GA)
1x Spyders w/ Gloom Prism
2x Annihilation Barge
2x Night Scythes (DT for Immortals, but usually empty.
What I'm starting to think of as a "defensive" flyer list.. I'm more here to do interdiction rather than gain air superiority.