PDA

View Full Version : Model....or Models ?



blindingdark
07-01-2009, 15:07
HI
Although I feel this may cause a bit of a stir, (though not my intention to do so) I am pretty fed up of this occuring again and again.

its seems that the term 'model' in the rules has different meaings, depending on how the rules seem to suit some people. Some claim it as the entire peice, be it mount and rider or chariot, steeds and crew etc. For example, there was a post recently about weather a potion of strength affects the mount as it states the 'models' strength is increased. There are a hundred other examples of this, and it seems that what defines a 'model' depends on what rules benefits people can claim from the wording.

Is someone, anyone, able to clear this up for me ?
When does the term model, apply only to a specific part, and when does the term model apply to an entire peice, however many seperate elements comprise it ? :confused:

Shorley there must be an answer to this, other than ''common sense'' which seems to vary greatly from person to person.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance :)

Bac5665
07-01-2009, 15:15
Through the power of inference based on GW's use, model seems to mean one thing purchased from the book. Each member of a unit is a model. The character and the mount are separate models.

I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I can't be sure, but I believe that implication strongly backs that conclusion up. I'll post more with my book in front of me.

blindingdark
07-01-2009, 15:29
In this case, what about chariots ? is a chariot bought as one unit entry, such as a DE chariot a single model, when one with a noble on it is not ?

so a rule affecting a ''model'' would affect the chariot, steeds and crew were it bought as a single purchase, where as it would not if it was bought for a noble.
This seems a little strange no ?

Bac5665
07-01-2009, 15:38
If there is a character on the chariot, he would be a seperate model from the chariot.

Heres a simple rule: a model is anything with wounds. A model is anything that can be targeted separately. These are general trends that I cannot think of a counterexample against. But there could be one.

I don't think thats too strange. If it helps, think of the noble as having more willpower to resist the effect that would effect lessor crew.

Dareus
07-01-2009, 15:39
I think Bacs definition is really good. I'd also say that there are 2 different models, when one of the parts of the miniature would stay on the table when the other just has been removed as casualty, just like a character and a monstrous mount.
I'm under the impression that the term "model" isn't really defined very clearly.... well at least ruleswise.

common sense is common sense when both participants can agree that the Dark Elf won't give his precious potion to a dragon in the midst of the battle, the Elven Mage or the dragon he is riding is safe from getting sick from that pestilence banner, just because they are two beings on one base.
Or the other way round....common :evilgrin:

blindingdark
07-01-2009, 15:45
so in the example above, the DE chariot would count as a ''model'' if bought as one purchase ? even though it is comprised of three different elements. The crew, steeds and chariot itself. so something that affects ''model'' would affect all three elements ?

Lord Dan
07-01-2009, 15:52
There's a extreme difference between "models", and "model's". Be sure you're not confusing the two before you start arguing to your deathbed.

blindingdark
07-01-2009, 15:55
There's a extreme difference between "models", and "model's". Be sure you're not confusing the two before you start arguing to your deathbed.

I see what your getting at, but I have no wish to start an argument, simply to understand the rules better.

is a model the one peice, or a single peice of something that comprises of more than one element ?

Lord Dan
07-01-2009, 16:09
It's one piece. Why, otherwise, would magic items state things like: "...which affects model's mount..." If the "model" included its mount, then surely this would be redudant.

It doesn't make sense for "model" to include "model and mount". Take just any magic weapon out of any army book and you'll see what I'm talking about.

For instance:
"Bearer's attacks hit automatically." Would you honestly argue that the vampire's dragon mount had the same rule?

Condottiere
07-01-2009, 16:58
I'd define a model as anything on a single base; it appears that the rule books disagree.

Bearer/wearer/user would be more obvious.

Ganymede
07-01-2009, 17:30
Another interesting example of the ambiguiy of the term 'model' can be seen at the intersection of the chariot and shooting rules.

Many chariots come with missile weapons for its crew; both goblin chariots and tiranoc chariots come with bows of some sort. The shooting rule indicates that each model can only make a single shooting attack in each shooting phase. If we are to take a chariot such as this as a single model, then we'd only be able to fire a single bow shot each turn, despite the fact that we might have up to four crew members with missile weapons.

Also of note is that blindingdark's definition of a model does not account for this specific situation, as the crew of a chariot are not bought seperately and are not removed independently.

Condottiere
07-01-2009, 18:02
Come to think of it, neither the mounts.

TheDarkDaff
07-01-2009, 20:31
I love what you guys are trying to do here but you will run into a stumbling block when you realise GW don't have a glossary of terms that have set meanings so often use the same word to mean different things.

Model comes up in the BRB to mean
(a) the constituate parts of a model and
(b) the model in it's entirety (rider & mount = a model)

They use the terms interchangably throughout the BRB. Whether they mean to use difinition A or B is therefore a murky thing to try and decide and you really do have to rely on common sense (which isn't).

@Lord Dan - You will find most Magic items refer to "the bearer" (which is specifically just the Character) or "the character" rather than "the model".

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 20:45
people already know my position on this subject. and as NO ONE likes to cite pages in the rulebook. ill go ahead and commit this blasphemy.

p59 brb, "a monster and its rider or riders count as a single model in the same way as a cavalry model"

basically i agree with condotiere in that GW's definition of a model is something with one base. just like a cavalry model is a single model with two profile parts to it, same thing goes for a monster mount and chariot.

also, p62 "a chariot including its crew and creatures pulling it, are considered to be a single model in the same way as a cavalry or monster model"

this wording trumps whatever anyone "thinks" or "feels" or "that doesnt make sense" or whatever.
so in closing, yes the collar of khorne would give a dragon mount a 6+ wardsave. the potion of strength(until they give us a FAQ for DE or WoC) gives a dragon +3S.

MOST ward saves refer to the bearer, or the wearer. but there are some things that say "model" and people are just going to haveta deal with it.

Ganymede
07-01-2009, 21:26
people already know my position on this subject. and as NO ONE likes to cite pages in the rulebook. ill go ahead and commit this blasphemy.

p59 brb, "a monster and its rider or riders count as a single model in the same way as a cavalry model"

basically i agree with condotiere in that GW's definition of a model is something with one base. just like a cavalry model is a single model with two profile parts to it, same thing goes for a monster mount and chariot.

also, p62 "a chariot including its crew and creatures pulling it, are considered to be a single model in the same way as a cavalry or monster model"

this wording trumps whatever anyone "thinks" or "feels" or "that doesnt make sense" or whatever.
so in closing, yes the collar of khorne would give a dragon mount a 6+ wardsave. the potion of strength(until they give us a FAQ for DE or WoC) gives a dragon +3S.

MOST ward saves refer to the bearer, or the wearer. but there are some things that say "model" and people are just going to haveta deal with it.

So a goblin chariot with four crew can only fire a single shortbow shot per turn?

I'd have to say your position is contextually inorganic and philosophically worthless. It helps us answer questions, but it doesn't help us solve problems.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 21:29
my position IS the solution. if you disagree, quote me a page number, please.

Bac5665
07-01-2009, 21:39
I'll quote the rest of your quote: "...although different rules apply." That part of the quite renders the whole quote meaningless, since the different rules that apply are not concretely specified.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 21:49
you are correct. the rules for monstrous mounts and cavalry mounts are different. p59 also says that if a mount has 2 or more wounds, the follwing rules a used and then it lists the rules for how they are different "shooting at monstrous mounts, monstrous mounts in combat, excess wounds, and slain riders or mounts" how are these not concrete?

Gazak Blacktoof
07-01-2009, 22:17
Normally I'd treat a model as everything on one base, this is the definition the rule book gives for a model. I would use this under most circumstances including spells and other attacks or buffs that target the model.

Magic items are different, a sword is for the man weilding it and wont affect the beast he is riding, similarly his armour wont benefit it either. This might not fit with the rules but its common sense.

Allowances have to be made for chariots and and other composite models where ranged fire is concerned. Again what is "right" is obvious, each crew man can make attacks because that's the sensible thing to do.

Condottiere
07-01-2009, 22:27
I like the phrase composite model.

havoc626
07-01-2009, 22:31
I agree with the term 'model' refering to the single base, and not the individual unit stats. In most cases, this does make sense, but there are a few exeptions, such as the Golden Ankhra giving the Liche Priest and the guards of the CoS the ward save. Stuff like this is okay to play with, even if it does get annoying for the person against the item.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 22:36
i wouldnt play that the golden ankhra gives the casket and its crew a 4+ save because it is not a mount and therefore 4 seperate models. being a warmachine, and crew there is technically a casket, 2 guards, and a liche priest.

a king using the golden ankhra on a chariot is a different story, however.

TheDarkDaff
07-01-2009, 23:20
If you want some oddball ones from the Dark Elf Book then The Dragon Egg & Potion of Strength affect the model while the Guiding Eye only affects the Character. The Crimson Death and the Beastmasters Scourge also give "the model" an unalterable strength (hello S6 Coldone or Dark Steed). I wouldn't do this myself but it is technically RAW. That was my main reason for espousing Common Sense as the best approach.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 23:31
it says "the model wielding crimson death has S6"

im pretty sure the cold one neither wields the sword, NOR has two hand in which to operate the weapon.

currently RAW says that the egg is consumed and your manticore riding prince AND your mount both have the breathweapon and have T6. lets hope they FAQ it, right?

and yes, unfortunately the dark elf drinks a bit of potion, and shares it with his dragon.

i however wouldnt use these items like this, and i would expect most players wouldnt take liberty with this RAW.

Lord Dan
07-01-2009, 23:52
it says "the model wielding crimson death has S6"

im pretty sure the cold one neither wields the sword, NOR has two hand in which to operate the weapon.

currently RAW says that the egg is consumed and your manticore riding prince AND your mount both have the breathweapon and have T6. lets hope they FAQ it, right?

and yes, unfortunately the dark elf drinks a bit of potion, and shares it with his dragon.

i however wouldnt use these items like this, and i would expect most players wouldnt take liberty with this RAW.

I can't believe people see issues like this and think: "Well, that's RAW. I guess we have no choice." as though there were no other solution. Enjoy the game! Discuss the issue with your opponent, and come to a mutual conclusion about what makes sense! Have some soda and pizza!

If there is an problem with a system, why would you unflinchingly abide by it? Surely that can't be any fun for anyone involved.

theunwantedbeing
08-01-2009, 00:37
Model = specific part

Unless the whole thing is treated as a single model in specific cases....like for being shot at and taking psychology tests.

Ganymede
08-01-2009, 01:20
my position IS the solution. if you disagree, quote me a page number, please.

If you think your position is the solution, then you do not understand the problem.

The problem is GW's drastically inconsistent use of the term 'model'. The only way to build a bullwark of consistency from it is to use your mortar of absurdity.

You can state that model unequivocably refers to all components on a single base, but such a proclaimation is ultimately hollow. It is what the rules say under a clinical reading, but it is mired in absurdity and is accepted as reality by no one (other than you).

The bottom line is that your position is not a good solution. You do a disservice to every curious person who comes to this board seeking clarification. I mean, come on; when not a single tournament organizer in the world agrees with you, then what's the point? Most people don't even take the Bible to be 100% literal, let alone a GW publication.

Lord Dan
08-01-2009, 02:59
Most people don't even take the Bible to be 100% literal, let alone a GW publication.

I would hug you if that were possible over the internet.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 06:25
Although the rules do say many times that Monsterous mount and rider are one model, this opens up a lot of problems. Like who makes the toughness test for Plague Bearers? What if you get hit with the Whip of submisssion when only half of the models attacks have been made? If you have a weapon that has an effect that can kill the model instantly does it kill the entire model or just who you hit?

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 08:54
I am really glad that I am not alone in realizing this is quite an issue.
but still it seems there is no answer other than common sense that is conclusive.

its does seem that the term 'model' covers different definitions within the same book.
I have always played that a ''model'' is one specific element of the ''peice''. So a chariot crewman is a model, the steeds are another two models, the chariot is a model.

This seems to be the most logical conclusion, but does not solve the issue. for example, my DE chariot fails its stupidity test. The ''model'' can do nothing. This is refering to the entire peice, not one element.

so my origonal question still stands.
When does the term 'model' refer to the entire peice, and when does it not.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-01-2009, 09:12
When does the term 'model' refer to the entire peice, and when does it not.

I doubt anybody is so bored that they're going to list every instance where it is and isn't a problem.

If there's something specific you'd like an opinion on then I'm sure people will give you their's. This really is done on a case by case basis, but if you'd like something more generalised then I'll refer you to my other post on this thread.


The best solution is still to talk it over with your opponent. In the end the only voices that really count are those of the people playing the game.

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 09:25
The best solution is still to talk it over with your opponent. In the end the only voices that really count are those of the people playing the game.

I would agree this is the best way to progress the game, but it is not a solution. ;)

that, is my reason for asking in the first place. I play a the GT each year, so I wanted to discuss this with you guys (and gals..maybe) rather than bringing up the issue there, when im enjoying my weekend.

I dont want a complete list of whens and nots , but some general guidelines that doesnt rely on ''common sense'' cos if there's one thing thats true bout common sense, its that its not. I may think something is obvious and common sense, but my opponent may not agree if they cannot see the same logic.

GW must have had something in mind when using this term.
asking my opponent does not resolve the issue in anyway, it mearly hides it untill my next game, or the next thread that appears here with soemone trying to pull a dodgy combo, simply because the wording states ''model''.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-01-2009, 09:53
Two points here.

+++++++++

Talking to your opponent does resolve the issue. Who else cares how you play your games other than you and your opponent?

I'm not sure what you want from this thread other than a way to "progress the game".

The Warseer moderators aren't going to come round and make sure your opponent abides by a Warseer consensus (if one is ever reached).


+++++++++

If this is for the GT then what any of us say has no bearing on what rules you will actually use.

Talk to the Tournament Organiser.

Their tournament, their rules.

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 10:11
Talking to your opponent does resolve the issue. Who else cares how you play your games other than you and your opponent?

It only resolves the issue for that game, and that game only. who else cares ? Anyone that wants to understand and play by the rules. my question is trying to find out what that rule is.


I'm not sure what you want from this thread other than a way to "progress the game".

I want peoples opinions on problem at hand, that is all.


The Warseer moderators aren't going to come round and make sure your opponent abides by a Warseer consensus (if one is ever reached).

LOL, I am quite aware of this, the thread is for my own benefit, and anyone else who has the same problem with understanding the definition. If thats me being thick, then feel free not to post answers to my questions, but i am mearly trying to understand better, what the term is referancing.


If this is for the GT then what any of us say has no bearing on what rules you will actually use.
Talk to the Tournament Organiser.
Their tournament, their rules.

I am after opinion as stated above, not GW's official ruling. I can get that at the time (October), but as im sure ill be playing games beofre then, and becasue its pops up every other day on warseer, i wanted to know how others defined the term model.

as i said above, feel free not to answer my questions, but i am just trying to understand something better, and hopefully, the thread will help others do the same.

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 10:13
Realistically, the GW version is a model = miniature = commodity.

TheDarkDaff
08-01-2009, 10:29
I am after opinion as stated above, not GW's official ruling. I can get that at the time (October), but as im sure ill be playing games beofre then, and becasue its pops up every other day on warseer, i wanted to know how others defined the term model.

as i said above, feel free not to answer my questions, but i am just trying to understand something better, and hopefully, the thread will help others do the same.

Just to point out what ever the GT decides to put out as the rules still isn't GW official ruling. If you want that it has to come from an FAQ or errata put up on the website. The GT rulings are really just house rules for that tournament and have been flatly contradicted by the design team in FAQ's a number of times.

Just to give my opinion on the subject again. The term "model" is used interchangably throughout the BRB. Both definitions are technically correct so it is squarely up to you and your opponent (or tournament organiser) which of the definitions you use.

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2009, 10:48
HI
its seems that the term 'model' in the rules has different meaings, depending on how the rules seem to suit some people. Some claim it as the entire peice, be it mount and rider or chariot, steeds and crew etc. For example, there was a post recently about weather a potion of strength affects the mount as it states the 'models' strength is increased. There are a hundred other examples of this, and it seems that what defines a 'model' depends on what rules benefits people can claim from the wording.


A hundred examples - hyperbole. :p



If there is a character on the chariot, he would be a seperate model from the chariot.
.

Chariot rules states that the chariot as a whole is 1 model.


i wouldnt play that the golden ankhra gives the casket and its crew a 4+ save because it is not a mount and therefore 4 seperate models. being a warmachine, and crew there is technically a casket, 2 guards, and a liche priest.

a king using the golden ankhra on a chariot is a different story, however.

Maybe. It is a loophole and not addressed by the TK FAQ but it's better to be consistent rather than exploitative and use FAQs of other books ** as a guideline.



its does seem that the term 'model' covers different definitions within the same book.
I have always played that a ''model'' is one specific element of the ''peice''. So a chariot crewman is a model, the steeds are another two models, the chariot is a model.
.

a ''model'' is one specific element of the ''piece''. So a chariot crewman is a model, - This is definitely wrong - pg 62 BRB.

The term model is used quite stringently in the BRB and its meaning should not be modified.

Some problems have arisen in various army books:
A) Magic items - The best guideline here was provided in the new army FAQs which introduced a clear distinction between 'bearer' (or wearer) and 'model'.
Although this distinction has not been made for some magic items, I think GW is definitely heading in that direction.

B) The Daemons FAQ - "a model composed of different parts" - is consistent with the BRB. A new term has been introduced - parts of a model and this is how 'difficult' models like the Steg. will have to be viewed - a model with several parts or components.

Condotierri's suggestion of linking model to base is sound in principle except it contradicts 2 written rules that some models do not or should not have bases

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 10:56
Condotierri's suggestion of linking model to base is sound in principle except it contradicts 2 written rules that some models do not or should not have basesKindly note I've had my moniker legally modified.:cool:

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 11:03
A hundred examples - hyperbole

perhaps an exageration, mainly due to me not wanting to list ten examples of the problem , but i can if you require it.


Chariot rules states that the chariot as a whole is 1 model

so.. if a character is mounted on it, is it still one model ? so something affecting the model will affect all of the peice ?


The term model is used quite stringently in the BRB and its meaning should not be modified.

i have no intention of modifying it, i just want to know what it is refering to. so the BRB states that a chariot is one model, does it state this for other multi part units, or just the chariot ?

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2009, 11:32
1) Mounted characters - mounted on a chariot, monster or steed is 1 model. Specifically mentioned in Monster Mount rules, Cavalry rules, chariot rules (indirectly).

Shooting effects are specifically outlined for Monster mounts and chariots. Cavalry has no distribution.

Magic rules specifically state that its hits are distributed like shooting.
Other magic which do not incur hits will affect the whole model.

2) Pg 71 - The chariot and all its parts is regarded as 1 model.
Army books also specify whether an entity is a model or part of one e.g. Other odd models - Screaming Bell, Steam Tank, Stegadon, Shieldbearers (IIRC) are all 1 model.

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2009, 11:35
Kindly note I've had my moniker legally modified.:cool:

Moniker?:D

Not suggesting that your suggestion shouldn't have been made - it is at least a start to a future solution. :)

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 11:46
Yeah, I've started to become ultra wary in the field of definitions, since so much can be misinterpreted, generally in a rulebook, and specifically I mean in ours.

I can't understand why the writing for the rules aren't scrutinized extra, before printing.

A model could also refer to a war-machine and crew, and there we could really have four distinct profiles, possibly five: war-machine, crew, champion, mount, character.

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 11:55
1) Mounted characters - mounted on a chariot, monster or steed is 1 model. Specifically mentioned in Monster Mount rules, Cavalry rules, chariot rules (indirectly).

so my noble on a DE chariot with a potion of strength, gets strength 7 for himself, his cold ones and strength 6 crewman for a turn ? is that the position you are taking ?
because it is problems like this that my question stems from. By the statement above, this would be correct.

if an entry states it is treated as one model, such as in some of the examples given, then there is not a problem. Its when this statement is not made that the problem arrises.

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2009, 13:33
A model could also refer to a war-machine and crew, and there we could really have four distinct profiles, possibly five: war-machine, crew, champion, mount, character.

Warmachine rules are not quite clear but the last statement in its composition rules does strongly suggest that it comprises of several models.


so my noble on a DE chariot with a potion of strength, gets strength 7 for himself, his cold ones and strength 6 crewman for a turn ? is that the position you are taking ?
because it is problems like this that my question stems from. By the statement above, this would be correct.

if an entry states it is treated as one model, such as in some of the examples given, then there is not a problem. Its when this statement is not made that the problem arrises.

As mentioned in my first post, the magic items problems with models is best resolved in the same way as the current FAQs - all magic items are given to a "bearer" and affects the bearer only.
DE FAQ is not out yet but hopefully it will conform with the implied generalisations of the other FAQs.

Substituting bearer/wearer for model for *all* magic items is also necessary for the following reason:
The bearer must necessarily *possess* the magic item and not the model (otherwise if the bearer is slain then the mount could still benefit from the magic item).

For DE - the word model is used too often - Potion of strength, Hydra's teeth etc.
Lets hope GW addresses this in the DE FAQ.

blindingdark
08-01-2009, 14:15
Substituting bearer/wearer for model for *all* magic items is also necessary for the following reason:
The bearer must necessarily *possess* the magic item and not the model (otherwise if the bearer is slain then the mount could still benefit from the magic item).

I do happen to agree with this, however people can argue that even though the rider (for example) carries the magic item in question, that does not mean the benefits do not carry to the mount, after all, we are talking about magic ! perhaps a sword carried by a rider transferes its energies into the creature its riding, perhaps the talisman he is wearing does the same.

people can, and have argued this point, hence the problem.
can you say that a fictional magic item does not transfer its power to the creature / mount / chariot aswell as the rider, when the description is worded as such ? nobody can. so people who want to power game in this way can do, which does not sit well with me at all.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 14:33
If you think your position is the solution, then you do not understand the problem.

The problem is GW's drastically inconsistent use of the term 'model'. The only way to build a bullwark of consistency from it is to use your mortar of absurdity.

You can state that model unequivocably refers to all components on a single base, but such a proclaimation is ultimately hollow. It is what the rules say under a clinical reading, but it is mired in absurdity and is accepted as reality by no one (other than you).

The bottom line is that your position is not a good solution. You do a disservice to every curious person who comes to this board seeking clarification. I mean, come on; when not a single tournament organizer in the world agrees with you, then what's the point? Most people don't even take the Bible to be 100% literal, let alone a GW publication.

of course GW is drastically inconsistant. they say in the rulebook that they cant make a rule to cover any and all situations. HOWEVER they should be held accountable since FAQs could be EASILY amended(the PDF files) to keep their game current. afterall we do spend a lot of money on this hobby.

i think you called me absurd/crazy like 4 times there. nice job. :)

@blinding i agree with the post above me, and i would never assume that potion of strength gives my dragon +3S. however i have played with some rather "special" people who like to use broken things to get an unfair advantage. and technically they are correct by RAW, but not correct by RAI

Ganymede
08-01-2009, 15:22
of course GW is drastically inconsistant. they say in the rulebook that they cant make a rule to cover any and all situations. HOWEVER they should be held accountable since FAQs could be EASILY amended(the PDF files) to keep their game current. afterall we do spend a lot of money on this hobby.

So you've taken this untenable position in order to teach GW a lesson? Wouldn't you be better served by writing them a letter or something?

I see your point here, but I think such a philosophy is bringing little good to this particular board.





i think you called me absurd/crazy like 4 times there. nice job. :)

Then you got my point. Sweet.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 15:29
So you've taken this untenable position in order to teach GW a lesson? Wouldn't you be better served by writing them a letter or something?

I see your point here, but I think such a philosophy is bringing little good to this particular board.


.

i havent taken any position except for the rules as written. and unfortunatly that is what we are all trying to play, by the same rules?

and i havent invested actual time into talking with GW people since i was like 23 and talked to andy chambers for 5 minutes and he clued me in as to how little GW cares/would like to care for its customers.

EDIT: oh and that isnt withstanding when i met phil kelly last year who was a toolshed. graham mcneil=great guy though. of course im a huge fan of his though, so blah.

Ganymede
08-01-2009, 15:38
i havent taken any position except for the rules as written. and unfortunatly that is what we are all trying to play, by the same rules?

Not necessarily. RAW was born from a misguided zeal within GW for easily obtained consistency. It is a philosophy they are rapidly abandoning as quickly as they implemented it. In fact, RAW as a rules philosophy is nothing more than a lazy replacement on GW's part for genuinely consistent rules.

We want to play by a satisfying and rational rule set; that is not necessarily the same as playing by the same rules.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 17:05
point taken.

then argue what a lord on dragon is based on what the rules say.
one model? two models in base to base? or is there a grey area that the two people playing the game are going to have to decide?