8th Ed. Tik'Taq'to Does it matter if he joins a unit

[Scalenex]

So the BRB does not let characters join flying units. The Lizardmen army book does not explicitly state that Tik'Taq'To is an exception, but it does make an off-hand reference to a unit TTT has joined.

Also, Taking TTT lets you bestow Ambushers on a unit of Terradon riders, it does not say TTT has to join them. By a literal reading of the rules, even if TTT can join them, he doesn't have to join them.

I can see it being handy to have TTT and a unit of Terradons pop up in different places. That gives your opponent two units in his backfield to worry about. That and if a unit of Terradons gets too big not everyone gets to attack.

On the other hand, TTT bestows -1 to enemies shooting at "his unit" so I'd prefer to spread out that buff on a large unit. That and Coldblooded Ld7 will pass many more tests than Coldblooded 5.

Which wins out?

 

[Mr Phat]

Regardless of outcome,
Splitting TTT and terradons into two ambushing units will from now on be called

TTT N' T

 

[borkbork]

I personally dont really see the point on flying ambushers.

These guys have vanguard and a 20 inch move in the first turn. So they will be in the back field allready on turn 2. And can allready charge in turn 2.
The ambushers will arive at the earliest in turn 2, but can not charge (they can move and shoot though).

The advantages of the ambushers are
- 1 less drop (can also be a disadvantage in some cases)
- they can not be targeted until they come on the board, and by turn 2-3 your oponent may have more urgent targets to shoot than the terradons.

 

[n810]

they could be useful in battle for the pass scenarios.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I believe that no matter how you field TTT he overcosted for what he brings to the table so I voted accordingly. He would be better inside of his unit (which is how I would play the rules anyways), but even so he is not worth his points in my estimation.

However I was tempted to vote: "No, refuse to use a character with a name that stupid!".

 

[Lord Grok Of Xillaqua]

I believe that no matter how you field TTT he overcosted for what he brings to the table so I voted accordingly. He would be better inside of his unit (which is how I would play the rules anyways), but even so he is not worth his points in my estimation.

I agree, His points cost is the major reason I wouldn't field him in all but a themed/fluff based list against friends. Its a shame too cause I have the old metal model of him as a gift from a friend and its looks awesome in my case but never gets to come out to play.

 

[pendrake]

No because ______ ( I don't have a T'T'T model. I have some old metal Terradons. )




Edit: This was message # 300.

On the other hand, TTT bestows -1 to enemies shooting at "his unit" so I'd prefer to spread out that buff on a large unit. That and Coldblooded Ld7 will pass many more tests than Coldblooded 5

So put him in with a skink horde?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Its a shame too cause I have the old metal model of him as a gift from a friend and its looks awesome in my case but never gets to come out to play.

That's a shame. It always sucks when you have a great model that you can't field due to poor rules. That's the reason why I never purchased a Troglodon.


So does anyone actually interpret the rules in such a way that TTT is not allowed to join Terradons??

 

[SilverFaith]

That's a shame. It always sucks when you have a great model that you can't field due to poor rules. That's the reason why I never purchased a Troglodon.


So does anyone actually interpret the rules in such a way that TTT is not allowed to join Terradons??

RAW, he clearly cannot join terradons. There is no "but"'s here - No amount of discussion or rulesbending will help here.

Most people wont stop you, especially in friendly gaming circles, however - he is obviously intended to join units to anyone who reads the rule, bias or not. At least everyone i've shown it to, so far. I have yet to hear someone claim otherwise, at the very least.

 

[Pinktaco]

Do we really care? If he could've joined ripperdactyls it might've been something entirely else - especially with his no armour save attacks and Ld7 Coldblooded - but as it stands do any of us truly deeply care about this character joining a unit of terradons? They are not a combat unit an gaining +1 WS isn't worth it for his price tag. Might as well add another unit of terradons.

 

[Sleboda]

So does anyone actually interpret the rules in such a way that TTT is not allowed to join Terradons??

I don't "interpret" them that way. I play the rules as they cleary are. No joining.

It would be an "interpretation" to play otherwise.

 

[borkbork]

Do we really care? ............. Might as well add another unit of terradons.

Make that almost 2 units of Terradons!! He is worth 4.85 Terradons. And yeah, the only beneficial rule he brings adding to the role of the terradons is the -1 shooting.....and a unit with a -2 to hit (afterall flying units also have the skirmish rule) can be quite powerfull (although that -2 does is totally useless vs magic missiles, or things like doomdivers).

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

So does anyone actually interpret the rules in such a way that TTT is not allowed to join Terradons??

RAW, he clearly cannot join terradons. There is no "but"'s here - No amount of discussion or rulesbending will help here.

I don't "interpret" them that way. I play the rules as they cleary are. No joining.

It would be an "interpretation" to play otherwise.

Not so fast... this is not quite nearly as clear as you guys make it out to be. I understand what the RAW states... HOWEVER the RAI is in direct contradiction to the RAW.

Now the normal argument against RAI, is that typically no one can "assume" what GW actually intended, thus most people play it as RAW > RAI. In this particular case the situation is completely different, we know for a fact that the army book was written so as to allow TTT to join a unit of terradons because of the rule...
"All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own. In addition, enemy units suffer an additional -1 To Hit penalty when shooting Tiktaq'to and his unit"

I can see no logical argument against this. It can be stated with 100% certainty (or as near to 100% as anything can truly be) that GW wrote the rules to allow Tiktaq'to to join terradons. In this case the RAI falls into the unusual situation where it is iron-clad and thus RAI > RAW. In my opinion, to say otherwise is deliberate rules-lawyering with the sole intention to cheat.

Personally if I came across someone who did not allow me to put TTT in a unit of Terradons there is only one of two ways I would respond...

1. If they did it in a polite way, then I'd pack up my Lizardmen and field my dirtiest cheesiest WoC list (unkillable flying circus of doom, skullcrushers, hellcannon, etc.)
2. If they were rude/obnoxious about it, I'd still pack up my Lizardmen, field my WoC army and physically bludgeon them with my (metal) Hellcannon!!! (joking of course, I simply would never play that opponent)

Anyone who disagrees is entitled to their opinion, as am I. But I'd love to hear a sound argument as to how a unit of terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit can use his weapon skill if the is not allowed to join a unit of terradons. Has this game really sunken to this level where rules are interpreted without even the slightest regard toward context and true meaning?

Please do not view any of my statements as a personal attack. They are not written with even the slightest intention to personally attack/harm anyone. My statements are a passionate logical argument against the ideas that have been presented. At the end of the day, you're free to play the rule how you see fit and I am permitted to do the same. In such a case though, we would be very obviously be incompatible warhammer players... which is okay too.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

Now the normal argument against RAI, is that typically no one can "assume" what GW actually intended, thus most people play it as RAW > RAI. In this particular case the situation is completely different, we know for a fact that the army book was written so as to allow TTT to join a unit of terradons because of the rule...
"All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own. In addition, enemy units suffer an additional -1 To Hit penalty when shooting Tiktaq'to and his unit"

I can see no logical argument against this. It can be stated with 100% certainty (or as near to 100% as anything can truly be) that GW wrote the rules to allow Tiktaq'to to join terradons. In this case the RAI falls into the unusual situation where it is iron-clad and thus RAI > RAW. In my opinion, to say otherwise is deliberate rules-lawyering with the sole intention to cheat.

You and I, sir, are on the same page here

I actually never thought about this problem, before people started talking about Tiktoq'to, not being able of joining a unit of flyers. I said to my self, surely, this is the main deal with the character, they simply forgot to mentioned it clearly (Something that isn't beyond GW). Anyone who wouldn't allow me to field him as such aren't really taken into account the meaning of those passages (in Nightbringers post).

As Nightbringer said, it's really just an oppinion and if you disagree that is completely rational thinking. I personally would find it odd, if anyone wouldn't allow me to field an over expensive unit with little to no tricks other than less likely to be shot at and slightly better Ws. I mean he isn't that good, so why bother about this single issue?

 

[Sleboda]

Not so fast... this is not quite nearly as clear as you guys make it out to be. I understand what the RAW states... HOWEVER the RAI is in direct contradiction to the RAW.

Now the normal argument against RAI, is that typically no one can "assume" what GW actually intended, thus most people play it as RAW > RAI. In this particular case the situation is completely different, we know for a fact that the army book was written so as to allow TTT to join a unit of terradons because of the rule...
"All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own. In addition, enemy units suffer an additional -1 To Hit penalty when shooting Tiktaq'to and his unit"

I can see no logical argument against this. It can be stated with 100% certainty (or as near to 100% as anything can truly be) that GW wrote the rules to allow Tiktaq'to to join terradons.

No, it cannot. This is the problem with RAI, as I will explain here. Folks can either trust me on this or not. I can't help with that. All I can do is share my experience and leave it to the reader to believe it or not. Here goes.

As some of you may know, I worked for GW years ago. During the development of 6th edition, I had the honor and thrill of being a tester. We would get drafts of the BRB and army books to test and give feedback. Rules would come and go over the drafts. Sometimes changes went back and forth between drafts, and sometime we would get a note after we got our drafts saying something like "the points for X have changed to YYYpts" or "Don't use 40mm bases for that unit in your test games - play with 25mm instead" or "that rule is being dropped, so don't use it."

Here's the kicker. Sometimes, things we were told to change actually made it to print by mistake. There was a famous one about fast cavalry where the rules and the summary did match, in the same book.

The point is that we don't know if GW even meant for TTT to have this rule. It could be that GW forgot to add in the part that would provide the explicit exception allowing him to join, but it could also be (with just as much likelihood) that they forgot to remove the joining rule before it went to print.

All we actually, truly know is that TTT has a rule that cannot come into play according to all the actual printed rules. To assume we know what was "intended" is to be a bit full of ourselves and to make assumptions that we really ought not.

 

[Trociu]

No, it cannot. This is the problem with RAI, as I will explain here. Folks can either trust me on this or not. I can't help with that. All I can do is share my experience and leave it to the reader to believe it or not. Here goes.

As some of you may know, I worked for GW years ago. During the development of 6th edition, I had the honor and thrill of being a tester. We would get drafts of the BRB and army books to test and give feedback. Rules would come and go over the drafts. Sometimes changes went back and forth between drafts, and sometime we would get a note after we got our drafts saying something like "the points for X have changed to YYYpts" or "Don't use 40mm bases for that unit in your test games - play with 25mm instead" or "that rule is being dropped, so don't use it."

Here's the kicker. Sometimes, things we were told to change actually made it to print by mistake. There was a famous one about fast cavalry where the rules and the summary did match, in the same book.

The point is that we don't know if GW even meant for TTT to have this rule. It could be that GW forgot to add in the part that would provide the explicit exception allowing him to join, but it could also be (with just as much likelihood) that they forgot to remove the joining rule before it went to print.

All we actually, truly know is that TTT has a rule that cannot come into play according to all the actual printed rules. To assume we know what was "intended" is to be a bit full of ourselves and to make assumptions that we really ought not.

That's true. But if it works like you said then we can't be sure of anything. Amount of FAQs is so damn small, and amount of bugged rules is so damn high that we can almost assume that Warhammer doesn't have rules at all

With TTT you have two ways to read this rule. RAW - which makes this rule totally useless, and so called RAI which makes this rule playable. I think in this situation you should choose RAI.

In fact RAW for TTT is also RAI because there is something wrong with the wording and everyone sees that. By saying "let's play it as it is written" you decide to ignore part of the rule just because it misses something.

After reading Bugmans rules I thought: maybe TTTs unit was intended to be the one with ambushers rule?

 

[Lord Grok Of Xillaqua]

In fact RAW for TTT is also RAI because there is something wrong with the wording and everyone sees that. By saying "let's play it as it is written" you decide to ignore part of the rule just because it misses something.

After reading Bugmans rules I thought: maybe TTTs unit was intended to be the one with ambushers rule?

I agree with you about the Ambushers rule for TTT's unit, that was most likely the initial intent .Personally, I don't see anything wrong with playing with the model RAI outside of tournament play so long as you let your opponent know and have his approval to use it RAI.

 

[SilverFaith]

Not so fast... this is not quite nearly as clear as you guys make it out to be. I understand what the RAW states... HOWEVER the RAI is in direct contradiction to the RAW.

But "rules as intended" is literally defined as "We THINK this is how the makers wanted it to be, but it's not what they actually tells us." - RAI being in direct contradiction to the RAW is pretty damn common because of this.

I agree with you, however - he is quite clearly intended to be used in a unit. But the problem is, as someone pointed out to me once, his rule could just mean to apply to HIS Terradon, and nothing else. It's not useless, because it DOES affect something, even if only that one Terradon. The fact that it might as well be useless in almost any given situation, is an entirely different matter.

I would never NOT play with a friendly guy who didn't want me using Tik'Taq'To in a unit. It's the rules, and I intend to play them as close to how they are written as possible, baring specific houserules (Agreed upon, unofficial FAQs) my group establishes.

 

[The Sauric Ace]

I would never NOT play with a friendly guy who didn't want me using Tik'Taq'To in a unit. It's the rules, and I intend to play them as close to how they are written as possible, baring specific houserules (Agreed upon, unofficial FAQs) my group establishes.

I suppose that there is no need to get all angry at friends for inregularities in the rules
If I encountered a guy who was this bend over not to allow me to use Tik'Taq'To I would simply be a little catious about his agenda. How big of a difference does it really make, Tik'Taq'To is overly expensive with or without the added benefit of him joining a unit? So my guess is that such a guy, would bend any written rule to his advantage, at least that's the fear.

Now I'm not saying that's the reason for anyone claiming other wise and if the person not wanting Tik'Taq'To to join a unit also is consistent about other rules not to his advantage, I'll be fine. It's just a little too narrow minded to my taste.

All this provided a friendly match, with or without joining of terrado, I just don't think Tik'Taq'To is worth it competitive

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Here's the kicker. Sometimes, things we were told to change actually made it to print by mistake. There was a famous one about fast cavalry where the rules and the summary did match, in the same book.

The point is that we don't know if GW even meant for TTT to have this rule. It could be that GW forgot to add in the part that would provide the explicit exception allowing him to join, but it could also be (with just as much likelihood) that they forgot to remove the joining rule before it went to print.

All we actually, truly know is that TTT has a rule that cannot come into play according to all the actual printed rules. To assume we know what was "intended" is to be a bit full of ourselves and to make assumptions that we really ought not.

That's true. But if it works like you said then we can't be sure of anything. Amount of FAQs is so damn small, and amount of bugged rules is so damn high that we can almost assume that Warhammer doesn't have rules at all

With TTT you have two ways to read this rule. RAW - which makes this rule totally useless, and so called RAI which makes this rule playable. I think in this situation you should choose RAI.

In fact RAW for TTT is also RAI because there is something wrong with the wording and everyone sees that. By saying "let's play it as it is written" you decide to ignore part of the rule just because it misses something.

Of course there is a chance that the rule was supposed to be removed, but GW forgot to do it (we've seen GW's editing). I have no reason to call your (@Sleboda ) experiences into question. However, it is FAR more likely that they simply forgot to include the rule that allows TTT to join the Terradon unit. That is the simpler mistake to make and the more difficult mistake to catch during editing. However, it ultimately makes little difference, because @Trociu is correct. If you start assuming the possibility of unintended rules accidentally making it into the book , then you can make that case for every single rule and both RAW and RAI collapse. It makes no sense to use an interpretation of a rule that makes another rule (that made it into the book) absolutely useless. Especially when there is a logical interpretation that allows the rule to function properly.

I agree with you, however - he is quite clearly intended to be used in a unit. But the problem is, as someone pointed out to me once, his rule could just mean to apply to HIS Terradon, and nothing else. It's not useless, because it DOES affect something, even if only that one Terradon. The fact that it might as well be useless in almost any given situation, is an entirely different matter.

That is not a problem at all. The rule reads "All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own". Terradons is written in plural and since TTT can only have a single terradon as mount, the idea that was pointed out to you is null and void.



But lastly... in the never ending war of RAI vs. RAW I give you THE RAW PARADOX!