Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
this may seem stupid but what does the X mean under the strength of a Sniper Rifle in the SM codex. Does it mean it has unlimited str.?
It means that the weapon has a S equal to the T of the target, thus it always wounds on a 4+
'But for corruption thou hast made Belial, an angel of hostility. All his dominions are in darkness, and his purpose is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits that are associated with him are but angels of destruction.
Excuse me but isen't there a lot of rules questions going on around this site now?
Ok no offence to anyone but... read the rulebook, it's all in there somewhere...
Oh... sorry then...
...assuming that these people actually own the rulebook or the respective codex.Originally posted by BobaHat@Jun 5 2003, 09:43
It's only illegal to ask for the rules themselves. It's not illegal to ask people to explain the rules...
If a rule can be clarified by pointing to a certain paragraph on a certain page in which it is well explained, then only the information where this explaination can be found should be posted. It's better to do this and later to react to eventual further questions about that than to piss off GW.
Hmm... Yeah I guess...
Still, I don't believe that GW can get annoyed by a topic like this one... Seems rather innocent to me...
That's probably correct...but we better don't risk it.
A while ago a spammer was banned from EO, he wrote a mail to GW's legal department in which he complied about EO. A few days later Purple Raine (EO's admin) got a quite angry letter from GW, and he had a lot of trouble to explain that it was just a vindicative bastard who tried to get revenge with that letter.
As long as it's not necessary to post a rule we better don't do it, just to be sure that GW can't complain.
In a way I agree with you but where do you suggest we draw the line then? Should we shut down the 'Rules' forum all together?
That's a difficult question. Generally, if a question can be solved by pointing at a page on which the requested rule can be found, then this should be done. Quotes should be posted only if there is a question about a certain interpretation of the rules, which requires lawyering about the precise choice of words by GW. If someone obviously doesn't own the codex or rulebook and he just tries to leech rules from the web in order to save money, then he of course shouldn't get an (from his point of view) useful answer at all.
"Could you please tell me the stats of unit XY?"
Answer: "No, sorry, that's copyrighted information and we may not post it. You can read these stats in Codex ABC, page 666, just have a look into it in your local store."
"Can i use the tyranid mutable genus tables in order to create gaunts with both wings and leaping?"
Answer: "No, as written in the mutable genus rules on page 39, gaunts can have only one movement biomorph."
On the other hand, if a close look at the rules is necessary, then such a thing would be tolerated by GW:
"In the skimmers moving fast rule, it says that "shots" will hit less important parts of a skimmer and therefore it can be only glances if it moved fast enough. Does this also apply against close combat attacks?"
Answer: "BBB page 89: <a quote which says that close combat included point blank shooting and grenade lobbing, in order to show that the word "shot" doesn't limit that rule to shooting>, and a few words as explaination"
In this case, the question couldn't be answered without quoting, because there is no specific rule which can be pointed at, it requires some interpretation of specific passages of other rules which need to be quoted in order to show what is used as an argument.