# C'tan in Ghost Arks



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I just rechecked the codex and it looks like C'tan can ride in Arks.

Anyone thought of ways to exploit this yet?


----------



## Steaknchips (Dec 28, 2009)

'It can only carry necron Warriors, Necron Lords, Overlords, Crypteks and the necron Special Characters'

As a C'Tan is none of these I would have to assume this is thread closed?


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Steaknchips said:


> 'It can only carry necron Warriors, Necron Lords, Overlords, Crypteks and the necron Special Characters'
> 
> As a C'Tan is none of these I would have to assume this is thread closed?


Assume away, but perhaps someone with the Necron Codex should have a chance to comment first?

C'tan are Characters. Characters can ride in Ghost Arks. C'tan can ride in Ghost Arks.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

C`Tan is a monstrous creature, and can not ride an Ark... Only the Speacial Characters and the named models above can ride it..


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Definition of 'Special Character'?


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

darklove said:


> Definition of 'Special Character'?


Unique, named, listed with a separate entry to the bog-standard Overlord/Cryptek.

If there was a Special C'tan Character then you might have more luck. Also pretty sure BRB restricts what kind of unit can go in a transport, and that probably rules out MCs; although I'm not certain.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

Those are the named necrons lords. Just end this debate please


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The entry for C'tan says they are Characters. None of the other Characters in the codex have 'Special' written by them.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

A monstrous Creature can never fit in an Ark, Show me where that rule is, instead of breaking the rules and try to find loop holes.

-C`tan is a MC, transports cant carry MC.... End of Debate... Thanks..


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bogg said:


> A monstrous Creature can never fit in an Ark, Show me where that rule is, instead of breaking the rules and try to find loop holes.
> 
> -C`tan is a MC, transports cant carry MC.... End of Debate... Thanks..


So, as you seem to be someone not interested in civil discourse or in 40k rules, perhaps your contributions to this thread can cease with that remark.

Codex trumps BRB, and the codex says that special characters can travel in Ghost Arks. None of the Characters in the codex have 'Special' anywhere in their profiles, they are all identified as a 'Character'. C'tan have the 'Character' rule, as do the HQ choices.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm inclined to agree with Bogg on this one, in that a RAW cannot override a clear rule set out in the BRB, as well as fricking LOGIC that a Montrous Creature cannot embark in a vehicle.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

Unit Type (Infantry) can embark a vehicle, My guess is that the wording (Character) confuses you, and im sure since the wording character is used and is a new word, we will see it in the 6th edition ..


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

As someone stated earlier, it clearly says in the Ghost Ark's description that it can transport ...
a.) Necron Warriors
b.) Immortals
c.) Necron Lords & Overlords
*d.) Necron Special Characters*

A C'Tan is none of the above.
A C'Tan is a _'character'_ alright, a classification which will most likely have more importance once we see 40k 6th edition.
Nowhere does it say that a C'Tan is an _'Independent Character'_ or _'Necron Special Character'_, no ?
It is clearly classified as a _'Monstrous Creature'_ first and foremost. 

In the Rulebook it clearly states that only *Infantry* models can embark on transport vehicles, so you're out of luck.

Also, if we really have to go down the word-bending route, like some people are so fond of, the stupid C'Tan isn't even a _'Necron'_ ... 

But I guess there'll always be people who're going to try to exploit everything, no ?


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

:goodpost:

Listen to this man.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

:goodpost: 

Nicely written..! Wish I could explain like that, and that this will end this debate..


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The rulebook also clearly states that Jump Infantry can't go in transports, but some Necron transports can take jump infantry. 

There are lots of examples in the Necron Codex of BRB rules that are countered by Necron special rules. If it says in the codex that Necron Jump Infantry can go in a Nightscythe, or even Jetbikes, then that completely goes against what it says in the BRB but it is allowed.

All I'm saying is, if the codex says Special Characters (a term that is not defined anywhere in the codex or BRB) are allowed in the GA then the closest thing to that in the codex is Characters; and C'tan are Characters.

Why are people so aggressive today? Whose baby did a spank?


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't have the codex, but I assume that if the Jump Infantry entry in the codex says it may take a dedicated transport, then that's a legitimate overriding of the BRB rule as it's explicitly stated. Making up some bullshitty RAW just to get away with doing something that was neither intended nor logical just to cheeseshit over opponent's armies on the other hand, is simply retarded.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

spanner94ezekiel said:


> I don't have the codex, but I assume that if the Jump Infantry entry in the codex says it may take a dedicated transport, then that's a legitimate overriding of the BRB rule as it's explicitly stated. Making up some bullshitty RAW just to get away with doing something that was neither intended nor logical just to cheeseshit over opponent's armies on the other hand, is simply retarded.


You are suggesting that people that can read are retarded? That is quite a dick thing to say.


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

darklove said:


> The rulebook also clearly states that Jump Infantry can't go in transports, but some Necron transports can take jump infantry.
> 
> There are lots of examples in the Necron Codex of BRB rules that are countered by Necron special rules. If it says in the codex that Necron Jump Infantry can go in a Nightscythe, or even Jetbikes, then that completely goes against what it says in the BRB but it is allowed.
> 
> ...



No one's I hope. But you're annoyingly persistent trying to interpret something to your advantage which is clearly not intended to be read that way. Also, if you were some person I was playing against in my local store I'd have quit by now, simply letting you win or whatever really.

The difference between the two transport vehicles is that the text clearly states which units can be transported by them respectively. In the Nightscythe's game text it say that it is allowed to transport units other than Infantry (in this case Jumpers & Jetbikes), while in the Ghost Ark's codex entry it lists .... wait, I did explain that above.

And nowhere it says that the Ark is allowed to make an exception from existing rules (like the Scythe is allowed to), no ?

Also, you simply seem to be unable to grasp the difference between:
*Monstrous Creature (Character)*
and 
*Infantry (Character)*

As for the term you love so much, namely _'Necron Special Characters'_, it refers to the six named characters. And, again it has been said before, the C'Tan are not _'Necrons'_.

You know, thinking about it, why don't you just send an inquisitive piece of email to GW with the question ? I'm pretty sure they will tell you the exact same thing.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Sworn Radical said:


> No one's I hope. But you're annoyingly persistent trying to interpret something to your advantage which is clearly not intended to be read that way. Also, if you were some person I was playing against in my local store I'd have quit by now, simply letting you win or whatever really.
> 
> The difference between the two transport vehicles is that the text clearly states which units can be transported by them respectively. In the Nightscythe's game text it say that it is allowed to transport units other than Infantry (in this case Jumpers & Jetbikes), while in the Ghost Ark's codex entry it lists .... wait, I did explain that above.
> 
> ...


What is the definition, as provided for in the main rulebook, for special character? Bloody book is on another continent and it has been causing problems ever since. 

Under unit descriptions, all named characters and C'tan are listed as Unit Description (Character). There are no special characters as a descriptor in the necron codex. So, unless we have a definition of special character from the main rulebook, none of the named characters can ride or all the named characters can ride along with C'tan.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Found a copy. Special Characters need a name and not just a title. C'tan is a title. The Deceiver is a name. Were the C'tan available called the deceiver and were it a character, it could ride. As it stands, there are no named C'tan, so they can't ride in spite of being a character because they don't fit the designation of special character as defined in the main rulebook.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

I can honestly say after reading your explanations for playing the game the way you do, analyzing every word for rules bending destructabilty, and flat out condescending attitude that I would have packed up my toys and left. I probably wouldn't even shake your hand and thank you for wasting my time.


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

lokis222 said:


> Found a copy. Special Characters need a name and not just a title. C'tan is a title. The Deceiver is a name. Were the C'tan available called the deceiver and were it a character, it could ride. As it stands, there are no named C'tan, so they can't ride in spite of being a character because they don't fit the designation of special character as defined in the main rulebook.


Essentially what I said on page one. Glad somebody else can recognise it too, but very sad to see this discussion still going on. 

Why not allow my friend's Dreadnought to ride in the Ghost Ark, seeing as it technically didn't say anywhere that you can't? Why not have my C'tan ride in his Land Speeder Storm? Heck why not have the Dread ride my C'tan which is in turn riding my Doom Scythe which is riding my Monolith? What do you get from this? Other than a disturbingly large handful of illegitimate cross-breeds, you get a big mess. Just because it doesn't say you can't throw your opponent's army on the floor and insta-win doesn't mean you can. :russianroulette:


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

This debate is one of the silliest I have seen in quite some time.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Farseer Darvaleth said:


> Essentially what I said on page one. Glad somebody else can recognise it too, but very sad to see this discussion still going on.
> 
> Why not allow my friend's Dreadnought to ride in the Ghost Ark, seeing as it technically didn't say anywhere that you can't? Why not have my C'tan ride in his Land Speeder Storm? Heck why not have the Dread ride my C'tan which is in turn riding my Doom Scythe which is riding my Monolith? What do you get from this? Other than a disturbingly large handful of illegitimate cross-breeds, you get a big mess. Just because it doesn't say you can't throw your opponent's army on the floor and insta-win doesn't mean you can. :russianroulette:


This is literally one of the most stupid and pointless remarks I've ever read on this forum. It totally misses the point. Have you even read this thread?


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

If a C'tan can ride in a ghost ark how many spaces does it take up?


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

darklove said:


> This is literally one of the most stupid and pointless remarks I've ever read on this forum. It totally misses the point. Have you even read this thread?


Is there even a point to this thread besides to act like an ignoramous and get huffy when you can't break the game to suit your ridiculous fantasy? Let me guess, another thread just to "see everybody's reaction?" Every time I read a post by you I shake my head and think that gamers like you are the reason people instinctively hate Necrons.


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

darklove said:


> This is literally one of the most stupid and pointless remarks I've ever read on this forum. It totally misses the point. Have you even read this thread?


I have indeed read the thread. I did not think my comments were stupid or pointless. My point was that you cannot simply bend the rules to suit yourself. What in my post did you think was stupid? My examples? Perhaps because your recognise similarities between what you have suggested is RAW and what I've posted?

I don't think I was quite deserving of such harsh comments, darklove. I have often read your contributions to tactical threads and respected points you have made; increasingly now it seems my original opinion was ill-founded.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

darklove said:


> This is literally one of the most stupid and pointless remarks I've ever read on this forum. It totally misses the point. Have you even read this thread?


Perhaps or perhaps not. But when you read the meaning of special character as defined in the rulebook, do you see that a C'tan isn't. Honestly, I thought you were right till I managed to look at a rulebook, so I can see where the confusion is coming from.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I can't even think of 1 instance where a MC could ride in a transport.....

anyone?


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> I can't even think of 1 instance where a MC could ride in a transport.....
> 
> anyone?


snotpod, tyranids.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

lokis222 said:


> snotpod, tyranids.


I was about to edit in not counting nid pod.....ninjas >.> 

I meant conventional transport vehicles


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> I was about to edit in not counting nid pod.....ninjas >.>
> 
> I meant conventional transport vehicles


I don't think it works either, but that is splitting fine hairs. If we go that direction, you can suddenly include blood angels dreadnoughts as another false parcing of the rules. 

It is tangential and unnecessary because the main rulebook definition of special characters excludes a C'tan anyway. Once that occurs, what sort of transport is academic.


----------



## Steaknchips (Dec 28, 2009)

darklove said:


> Assume away, but perhaps someone with the Necron Codex should have a chance to comment first?
> 
> C'tan are Characters. Characters can ride in Ghost Arks. C'tan can ride in Ghost Arks.


Firstly starting the thread by being overly rude at someone quoting from the new codex is making you look overly agressive.....

Special characters have always been those named characters and unique choices in every army book. The old C'tans yes (although not allowed due to being MC's as noted above) but i'm afraid not the new ones. This whole argument is as lame as when people said the dreadknights given the teleporters became jump infantry and could go in storm ravens.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Steaknchips said:


> Firstly starting the thread by being overly rude at someone quoting from the new codex is making you look overly agressive.....
> 
> Special characters have always been those named characters and unique choices in every army book. The old C'tans yes (although not allowed due to being MC's as noted above) but i'm afraid not the new ones. This whole argument is as lame as when people said the dreadknights given the teleporters became jump infantry and could go in storm ravens.


When the first responses posted on a thread are the equivalent of 'what a stupid question, shut up and fuck off', I take that as aggressive.

Don't I have an equal right to talk about the rules of the game on this forum? If I have misunderstood the rules in some way then I am very happy to be enlightened, in an appropriate way. Slamming the door to any discussion in my face is trying to exclude my from participating in this forum. 

If you don't like a thread, don't post on it.

If you think I have made a mistake in the way I interpreted the rules for anything, as I mentioned above, then I am very happy to discuss it and to improve my knowledge of the game. I didn't see this as such an open/shut case, which is why your 'ime paskaa' attitude got my goat a bit.


----------



## Steaknchips (Dec 28, 2009)

You do indeed have every right to talk about game rules. The thread is not one I dont like, in fact based on the title I read your question it got me interested and to which I tried to answer with added help of quoting the codex to assist in the answer of what really does look like an open and shut question.

I appologise if that seemed agressive.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Naturally I accept your apology. Likewise, I hope you don't think I am trying to provoke anything, and so will leave it there.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

BRB pg 49 gives a definition of "Special Character". They have a specific name and are "Unique". Neither of which is applicable to a Shard.


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> BRB pg 49 gives a definition of "Special Character". They have a specific name and are "Unique". Neither of which is applicable to a Shard.


nor are they a necron. There is a difference between a necron and a unit in the necron codex. (the GK codex is full of stuff like this)

3 strikes and its out


----------



## H0RRIDF0RM (Mar 6, 2008)

darklove said:


> The rulebook also clearly states that Jump Infantry can't go in transports, but some Necron transports can take jump infantry.
> 
> There are lots of examples in the Necron Codex of BRB rules that are countered by Necron special rules. If it says in the codex that Necron Jump Infantry can go in a Nightscythe, or even Jetbikes, then that completely goes against what it says in the BRB but it is allowed.
> 
> ...


Wait a minute! You didn't expect this reaction from the Warhammer 40k community? Don't you realize that Warhammer 40k players are almost all bitter, hateful, and ungrateful for new developments in the hobby? I switched over to Warmachine a year ago and since then have increased my salary by $20k a year, bought a house, and fell in love with a woman. If I still played Warhammer 40k I would probably be stabbing hobo's in an alley way for pants soup and gallon wine jugs!


----------



## BrainFreeze (Oct 9, 2008)

The arguement that they are not Necrons is no longer valid due to the "Necron" Rule not existing anymore. The same arguement could be applies to the named characters in the Necron codex since none of them are actually "Necrons" per rules as written. Someone could argue that there are no actual "Necron Special Characters"

RAI i'm sure you are right, the whole arguement is silly but for some reason I can see some people at the store I go to trying things like this.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I feel dumber for having read this thread, did we seriously just have 5 pages about trying to get a C'Tan into a Ghost Ark? I'm hoping that posting in this thread will somehow counteract the effects of the thread.


----------



## paolodistruggiuova (Feb 24, 2010)

BRB says MCs cant ride in vehicles, the codex DOESNT specifically say that there's an exception to that rule so you cant embark a C'Tan...it's just that simple.
every other codex rule who override BRB ruleing has a CLEAR explanation like the stormravens or the night scythe with dreadnoughts/jump packs/jetbikes

now i'm feeling a dumb too for answering this thread...bah...


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Stay classy heretics. :victory:


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> I feel dumber for having read this thread, did we seriously just have 5 pages about trying to get a C'Tan into a Ghost Ark? I'm hoping that posting in this thread will somehow counteract the effects of the thread.


Agreed... I actually cannot believe that anyone is trying to argue about what exactly a Special Character is.
I'll let you argue that a C'Tan is a special character so long as you agree never to use necrons except in tournaments that don't allow special characters...


----------



## Klaivex (Dec 21, 2010)

BrainFreeze said:


> The arguement that they are not Necrons is no longer valid due to the "Necron" Rule not existing anymore. The same arguement could be applies to the named characters in the Necron codex since none of them are actually "Necrons" per rules as written. Someone could argue that there are no actual "Necron Special Characters"


Just because the rule isn't there doesn't mean that necrons aren't still necrons or that c'tan are necrons. In the grey knight codex there are Grey knights and inquisitors/henchmen. Neither of them have rules called Grey knight or inquisitor but their are still powers/abilities that effect one and not the other. When it effects both groups it says "any unit in the GK codex" because despite not having rules stating so they are not the same


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

I'm not taking sides here rules-wise, but fluff-wise there's no reason a C'tan can't go aboard a Ghost Ark since they are carried around in Tesseract Labyrinths when they are not battling anyways. The rules will probably not allow this, just sayin'.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

SoulGazer said:


> I'm not taking sides here rules-wise, but fluff-wise there's no reason a C'tan can't go aboard a Ghost Ark since they are carried around in Tesseract Labyrinths when they are not battling anyways. The rules will probably not allow this, just sayin'.


Just had a mental picture of a necron on a ghostark with a pokemon ball. 

"Nightbringer, I choose you" Then the ghostark sinks a foot and a half.:laugh:


----------



## SoulGazer (Jun 14, 2009)

lokis222 said:


> Just had a mental picture of a necron on a ghostark with a pokemon ball.
> 
> "Nightbringer, I choose you" Then the ghostark sinks a foot and a half.:laugh:


I'd play that. :victory:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

lokis222 said:


> Just had a mental picture of a necron on a ghostark with a pokemon ball.
> 
> "Nightbringer, I choose you" Then the ghostark sinks a foot and a half.:laugh:


Love it! For that reason alone it MUST be possible! :victory:


----------



## Zaden (Oct 21, 2008)

I find it interesting when someone posts an idea on a public forum, based on their view of how a unit could operate, or based on their playstyle, or whatever, and then they proceed to get flamed all to fuck by people that don't agree with the OP's views of how a unit should operate, or they don't share the same playstyle, or they are just trolling and feel like a good vent because someone powergamed on them in the last tounament they attended.

The point of public forums is to attract people from all corners of the world to share very different views and ideas about gameplay, fluff, etc. Strange to condemn people for doing just this. Discount the idea based on interpretation of rules, sure. Criticize based on personal preferences and playstyle, I'm not so sure.

I suspect a tounament that doesn't allow (special) characters wouldn't allow C'tan shards. Based on this, there is definitely an argument for them falling into the category. Conjecture though, and certainly debateable.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Zaden said:


> I suspect a tounament that doesn't allow (special) characters wouldn't allow C'tan shards. Based on this, there is definitely an argument for them falling into the category. Conjecture though, and certainly debateable.


A good question is who would even bother going to tournaments that are so crappy?


----------



## Zaden (Oct 21, 2008)

In some Canadian locales you take what you can get for tournaments. I live in a large city as Canada goes and the tournament scene here is limited to say the least. I think you live out east so your situation may be a bit better. Damn east-west inequality! =)


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Zaden said:


> I find it interesting when someone posts an idea on a public forum, based on their view of how a unit could operate, or based on their playstyle, or whatever, and then they proceed to get flamed all to fuck by people that don't agree with the OP's views of how a unit should operate, or they don't share the same playstyle, or they are just trolling and feel like a good vent because someone powergamed on them in the last tounament they attended.
> 
> The point of public forums is to attract people from all corners of the world to share very different views and ideas about gameplay, fluff, etc. Strange to condemn people for doing just this. Discount the idea based on interpretation of rules, sure. Criticize based on personal preferences and playstyle, I'm not so sure.
> 
> I suspect a tounament that doesn't allow (special) characters wouldn't allow C'tan shards. Based on this, there is definitely an argument for them falling into the category. Conjecture though, and certainly debateable.


I agree with your point about the necessity of freedom of opinion on forums like ours...to a certain extent. After all these forms are primarily designed to provide a service of furthering the hobby, and many view rule lawyering for a favorable outcome or excessive power gamer or complaining as detrimental to the hobby, hence they will almost always respond with hostility.

However I will state that lately the forums have become a bit toxic in this respect with open hostility being expressed against those that express views different from the norm, even when such views are justified and supported by fact (Note I am not talking about rule lawyering.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Zaden said:


> In some Canadian locales you take what you can get for tournaments. I live in a large city as Canada goes and the tournament scene here is limited to say the least. I think you live out east so your situation may be a bit better. Damn east-west inequality! =)


Maritimes are kind of shit too. Bloody central Canada.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> I agree with your point about the necessity of freedom of opinion on forums like ours...to a certain extent. After all these forms are primarily designed to provide a service of furthering the hobby, and many view rule lawyering for a favorable outcome or excessive power gamer or complaining as detrimental to the hobby, hence they will almost always respond with hostility.
> 
> However I will state that lately the forums have become a bit toxic in this respect with open hostility being expressed against those that express views different from the norm, even when such views are justified and supported by fact (Note I am not talking about rule lawyering.


I kind of like the rules lawyering. I have seen some ideas come up that were truly unique because someone was looking at what the rules mean.

Personally, the bitching people out for having different ideas rather than have a discussion has been getting a bit annoying. The Matt Ward crap before the codex release was effectively shutting down entire threads. Both the haters and lovers of the guy were guilty of it.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

There's a large difference between questioning a way of interpreting the rules, and looking for ways the words are placed to allow ridiculous exploitation. A word that was used in the original post, actually. I don't play competitively, so maybe my view is skewed. But every time I play a game and some power-gaming asshat does something that reeks of cheese and says "ah, but the way I interpret the rules says I can do (obvious bullshit justified with "it doesn't say explicitly I can't")" I hate the gaming aspect of the hobby a little more.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Then don't play them. Honestly, if it isn't cheating and part of what the rules allow, it is more you problem than his. 

What occurred here was a misunderstanding of what special character meant and as a consequence, what the rules would have allowed if that misunderstanding was true. 

This happens. Sometimes, it turns up ideas that are pure gold. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you not liking people playing the game by the rules in ways that disadvantages you. People do shady things in games sometimes, but shady and power gaming are two different things. So unless your fellow is cheating, suck it up. Don't like it, don't play people like that. We all spent our time and money in the hobby and deserve to play it how we all like within the rules as they are written. 

Personally, I avoid causal gamers because they aren't much challenge or fun to play. My best games have been against people where any mistake would have cost my opponent or I the game, and we both knew it.


----------



## Pzycho Leech (Aug 26, 2010)

The day you can put C'tan in Arks, I'm putting Daemon princes in LandRaiders.

Or Rhinos... Two models can poke out the top of a rhino... Twin lash princes in a rhino... Ohhh yeah...


----------



## Zaden (Oct 21, 2008)

lokis222 said:


> Then don't play them. Honestly, if it isn't cheating and part of what the rules allow, it is more you problem than his.
> 
> What occurred here was a misunderstanding of what special character meant and as a consequence, what the rules would have allowed if that misunderstanding was true.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Casual players and competitive players are very different. Casual players come to have fun and learn more about what they like about their army, and the game in general, and perhaps see their newly painted character decimate some bad guys and justify their time and devotion put into the model. Truly competitive players have already extensively studied every aspect of their army, and every other army they may face, as well as all of the rules in the rulebook, intended or not, down to every little nuance and tactic. If a competitive player hasn’t attained this level of play yet, he is a casual player that is in transition. Competitive players play to win, and if they don’t achieve this goal, you can be sure they are learning from their loss to increase their chance of winning next time. Not all competitive players will be fun to play against, but they will provide challenge (which is fun to other competitive players), as they will pounce on any mistake made, and will be quick to recover from any mistake they make.

The two types of players do not get the most out of the game when they play each other. Casual players will often feel power-gamed against by a competitive player, but often all that is happening is the competitive player is dominant due to his knowledge of both player’s armies, of the strengths and weaknesses each army has against the other and how to exploit them, and of the game in general. It would be like a chess grandmaster playing chess against a casual chess player. They are playing at different levels, and are practically playing different games.

Like it or not this is a rules based game. The integrity of any rules based system is determined by the wording of the rules; how air-tight or loose that wording is. The wording either allows or does not allow actions. Any unintended actions that make use of loopholes in the wording are dealt with by simply closing loopholes, not by condemning users by acting within the bounds of the system. This will always be a downfall of a rules based system, and is not the responsibility of the users, but the administrators (GW). And the system will require constant revision. The timeliness of revision is critical to the system operating properly, and GW is not very timely. This is ultimately the issue. Their slow response to loopholes allows exploitation to go unchecked for often lengthy periods of time.

And ultimately you don’t have to play against anyone you don’t want to play against.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

That is a big contender for the best post I've ever read on Heresy.

Please enjoy the largest rep cookie I can find.


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Eh, someone tried to exploit a rulke in a way it clearly never owrked. Others pointed this out to him, he tried to dismiss them and continue regardless and others got angery at his attitude.

Honestly competitive players are not necessarily better players because they are grand masters of the game. Its because they build the most possible cheese build and then steam roll it into the casual players fun build. I'm a casual player, i play armys for shits and giggles. Do not think me incapable of googling the latest cheese build, its tactics and how it stomps over whatever army you happen to play. I to could do that. I choose not to, because short of tourments (where everything legal goes) it would get freaking boring.

I just hate the assumption that i'm not running X list means i'm not as good. I also tend to avoid power gamers (not competitive gamers) because their not fun. You always end up arguing some exploited rule attempt with them.

Oh and PS, I believe Ctan can travel through Monoliths.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

JackalMJ said:


> Oh and PS, I believe Ctan can travel through Monoliths.


They can.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

JackalMJ said:


> Honestly competitive players are not necessarily better players because they are grand masters of the game. Its because they build the most possible cheese build and then steam roll it into the casual players fun build.


Being able to write a good list is part of the skill of the game.

Any 'tard can find a netlist and read a general outline about how it works, but a lot of netlists are utter trash anyway (see Lash Princes, Zerks, Plagues and Oblits).

That being said, 40k really doesn't require _that_ much skill to be good at. The game is not complex or deep by any means.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

JackalMJ said:


> Eh, someone tried to exploit a rulke in a way it clearly never owrked. Others pointed this out to him, he tried to dismiss them and continue regardless and others got angery at his attitude.
> 
> Honestly competitive players are not necessarily better players because they are grand masters of the game. Its because they build the most possible cheese build and then steam roll it into the casual players fun build. I'm a casual player, i play armys for shits and giggles. Do not think me incapable of googling the latest cheese build, its tactics and how it stomps over whatever army you happen to play. I to could do that. I choose not to, because short of tourments (where everything legal goes) it would get freaking boring.
> 
> ...


You seem to be arguing for ignorance, is this so? Players should not try to play well because it spoils the 'fun' for people that don't care about winning or losing...

I never use anyone's lists but my own, and I spend a lot of time scheming and plotting and calculating to do it. I enjoy making lists that win games, and I don't think that puts me into a minority.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

> A transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or any
> number of independent characters (as long as they
> count as infantry), up to a total of models equal to the
> vehicle’s transport capacity.


Is a C'Tan a Necron Warrior? No. Is a C'Tan a Necron Lord? No. Is a C'Tan an Overlord? No. Is a C'Tan a Cryptek? No. Is a C'Tan a Necron special character?

No.



> UNIQUE
> Special characters can be either independent or
> upgrade characters, but each one of them is unique, so
> the player may not include multiples of the same
> ...


A C'Tan matches none of the available rules.

He is not Unique - the definition of Special Character, he is none of the allowed units according the Codex, he is not an Infantry unit, and he is not an Independent Character.

If by the definition of trying to learn the ins and outs of the rules, I'm a powergamer, then yes, I'm a powergamer. As someone who'd try to get the benefit of the rules (remember the Lumbering behemoth debate - don't even dare bringing it back up though), I'd try and benefit here. But there's no way around it.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Is a C'Tan a Necron Warrior? No. Is a C'Tan a Necron Lord? No. Is a C'Tan an Overlord? No. Is a C'Tan a Cryptek? No. Is a C'Tan a Necron special character?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


I think that got settled long ago. :grin:


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Fashionably, oh-so-sexily late.

You know this party didn't begin til I came.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Fashionably, oh-so-sexily late.
> 
> You know this party didn't begin til I came.


 lol. well played.


----------



## Zaden (Oct 21, 2008)

JackalMJ said:


> Eh, someone tried to exploit a rulke in a way it clearly never owrked. Others pointed this out to him, he tried to dismiss them and continue regardless and others got angery at his attitude.
> 
> Honestly competitive players are not necessarily better players because they are grand masters of the game. Its because they build the most possible cheese build and then steam roll it into the casual players fun build. I'm a casual player, i play armys for shits and giggles. Do not think me incapable of googling the latest cheese build, its tactics and how it stomps over whatever army you happen to play. I to could do that. I choose not to, because short of tourments (where everything legal goes) it would get freaking boring.
> 
> ...


Due to lack of quotes in your post I will assume in part this is a response to mine. I would like to clarify. Casual players play casual games. Competitive players play competitive games. My post insinuates that they are basically playing different games, in fact I used those words in the chess example. The point was that when the two types of players try to play the same game, it often doesn't go well. Fluffy builds versus cheese builds will not often produce a fun gaming experience for both.

Calling a competitive player better than a casual player in a casual game may be right, from the perspective of the competitve player, who wants to win every time, but since this is in the context of a casual environment, we should use the perspective of the casual player, which would suggest that the competitive player is not better at all, as they fail to acheive the average casual players goals in any given game.

The point? Apples will be apples and oranges will be oranges, and posts like this where a competitive player is attempting to expand his tactics toolbox within the bounds of the rules is very natural and shouldn't be condemned or judged, but simply agreed with or disagreed with, and the idea is simply discarded or expanded upon, and ultimately faq'd or not faq'd. I'm not saying casual players shouldn't have a say; I'm saying that due to goal incongruence, the conversation may go a bit sideways and turn from contructive to destructive, which helps nobody. If anything, seeing someone post a tactic that is clearly against or in line with the rules, whether you agree with it or not, will prepare you for when someone tries it in a game and you will know how to deal with it and what players in general think of said tactic, perhaps even being able to quote references that denounce it, or support it as the case may be. 

I apologize if I made anyone feel like approaching the game one way or the other makes a person a better or worse player. The 40K community is richer by far for the many differences and perspectives all the players add to it.


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Zaden said:


> I apologize if I made anyone feel like approaching the game one way or the other makes a person a better or worse player. The 40K community is richer by far for the many differences and perspectives all the players add to it.


Apology accepted and I also apologize as it seems I overreacted in my above post. I took offense to the idea that just because someone makes a horribly cheesy and rules abusive list that they are instantly a better player than someone who chooses to make a more fun list. After all, even the top players likely make a Cooke and wonky joke list time to time. 

I believe absolutely in knowing the rules, both to assist in coming up with interesting builds and in defense against people who either lie or try abusive tactics. I however do get annoyed at people who try to argue things like Deathscythes hitting everyone in multiple squads.

I also get annoyed when competitive players try to aim their army at the fluffy lists. Some people like to win and build competitive lists to do so. And they enjoy taking on other competitive lists and i have nothing but respect for that, but some people just like to win, period, they build the most nasty armies they can, with the most abusive rules they can and aim for the weakest targets they can.

Should anyone really respect that?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

JackalMJ said:


> I also get annoyed when competitive players try to aim their army at the fluffy lists. Some people like to win and build competitive lists to do so. And they enjoy taking on other competitive lists and i have nothing but respect for that, but some people just like to win, period, they build the most nasty armies they can, with the most abusive rules they can and aim for the weakest targets they can.
> 
> Should anyone really respect that?


I'm not sure I'd even call someone like that a competitive player. They're not looking to compete, they're looking for wins. Real competitive players are most interested in the _process_ of earning those wins. We feel good about getting them, but the real appeal is in the game itself. Someone like you're describing is just a bully and should be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

THIS THREAD ENDS NOW!!!

Before my sanity ends. Issue cleared and picture up to de-rail thread and for te lulz.


----------

