Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/342767.page#2379855

imweasel wrote:SoS was faq'ed to affect vehicles.

There is some debate on whether rune priests storm caller does or not.

Mannahnin wrote:Here is a thread with said debate:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/333544.page

Premise 1: Storm Caller was errata'd to use the exact same word for what it affects that SoS does.
Premise 2: SoS had been FAQ-clarified that it does indeed apply to vehicles.
Conclusion: SC also applies to vehicles.

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Here is a thread with said debate:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/333544.page

Premise 1: Storm Caller was errata'd to use the exact same word for what it affects that SoS does.
Premise 2: SoS had been FAQ-clarified that it does indeed apply to vehicles.
Conclusion: SC also applies to vehicles.

IF gw followed precedent, then yes. Considering they don't, you can only assume, not conclude.

Otherwise, why not change the sw faq the same way that the ba faq was?

Mannahnin wrote:You've used this argument before; I rejected it then and I'm rejecting it now.

GW does make use of precedent; they just aren't very consistent about it, because they have poor editorial oversight. But it doesn't matter whether GW uses precedent or not. IF they had made a contradictory ruling, we'd have to throw up our hands and shake our heads. But they HAVEN'T made a contradictory ruling. So we can just use elementary deductive reasoning.

They didn't add the same ruling to the SW FAQ because their editors are nonexistent or poor.

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You've used this argument before; I rejected it then and I'm rejecting it now.

GW does make use of precedent; they just aren't very consistent about it, because they have poor editorial oversight. But it doesn't matter whether GW uses precedent or not. IF they had made a contradictory ruling, we'd have to throw up our hands and shake our heads. But they HAVEN'T made a contradictory ruling. So we can just use elementary deductive reasoning.

They didn't add the same ruling to the SW FAQ because their editors are nonexistent or poor.

They use precedent but aren't very consistent simply due to 'poor editing'? Ummm...that's a poor excuse.

Would these be the same editors from gw that convinced folks on the inat 'council' to arbitrarily change the deff rolla rule awhile back? And to only FINALLY faq it so that def rollas worked in a ram? Which you could have 'concluded' that it did based on the 'precedent' of the rules themselves?

Autarchs +1 stacking and IG astropaths not? That was due to 'poor editing' and did use 'precedent'?

RAW, GW hasn't made a ruling on the storm caller power, like usual. They did for SoS.

imweasel wrote:

Autarchs +1 stacking and IG astropaths not? That was due to 'poor editing' and did use 'precedent'?

RAW, GW hasn't made a ruling on the storm caller power, like usual. They did for SoS.

Autarch stack as they have an extra line stating that they do. IG guard don't but it was assumed that they would follow the eldar ... they were FAQ'ed that they don't because games workshops stance is things don't stack unless they say they do.

As for Saves ... all saves are listed as working for models with wounds. The problem is that all the base rules are written for infantry and then you assume they work for the other types. Myself I believe that a vehicle can have any type of save, even an armour save; what I would like to see is one extra line/paragraph added to the vehicle rules stating that armour, invulnerable and cover saves can be used against damage (unless it would be ignored by the weapon)

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You've used this argument before; I rejected it then and I'm rejecting it now.

GW does make use of precedent; they just aren't very consistent about it, because they have poor editorial oversight. But it doesn't matter whether GW uses precedent or not. IF they had made a contradictory ruling, we'd have to throw up our hands and shake our heads. But they HAVEN'T made a contradictory ruling. So we can just use elementary deductive reasoning.

They didn't add the same ruling to the SW FAQ because their editors are nonexistent or poor.

They use precedent but aren't very consistent simply due to 'poor editing'? Ummm...that's a poor excuse.

It’s not an excuse, it’s the obvious explanation. Everyone who pays any attention to GW rules recognizes that their editorial oversight and consistency is rather poor (though it's definitely gotten better over the years). We can lament that fact (and we do), but to decide “well, they don’t always use precedent, so we can’t use it for resolving two very similar situations” is just silly and counterproductive.

imweasel wrote:Would these be the same editors from gw that convinced folks on the inat 'council' to arbitrarily change the deff rolla rule awhile back? And to only FINALLY faq it so that def rollas worked in a ram?

A) The INAT initially ruled the way they did because A) the UKGT House Rules forbade DRs from working on vehicles, and B) because John Spencer (whom GWUS for a while had taking all the rules emails Customer Service got, and was giving good, consistent answers using the FAQs), had advised that this was how the studio planned to rule when the FAQs were next updated. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/232715.page

B) When the Ork FAQ was eventually updated, GW unexpectedly ruled the opposite way, that Deffrollas do work in a ram. This could be because the guys at GW changed their minds, or could be because a different person in the studio than the one/s the INAT guys talked to was given responsibility for handling the question, and decided to rule it differently for one reason or another.

imweasel wrote:Which you could have 'concluded' that it did based on the 'precedent' of the rules themselves?

That’s a total misuse of the word “precedent”, which undermines your argument a bit. If you think ‘precedent’ is the same thing as ‘evidence’, then your whole argument looks to be founded on shaky ground.

Yes you could have concluded that. Or you could have concluded the opposite. Thousands of people the world around interpreted the Deff Rolla different ways. The reinstitution of Ramming to 40k was new in 5th after being left out in 4th and 3rd editions. People had legitimate disagreements about how the Deff Rolla should work.

imweasel wrote:Autarchs +1 stacking and IG astropaths not? That was due to 'poor editing' and did use 'precedent'?

What? The conflict in the rulings between Autarchs and Astropaths is an example of poor editing, precisely because GW did not follow precedent. If they kept the two consistent it would be easier for players to remember.

imweasel wrote:RAW, GW hasn't made a ruling on the storm caller power, like usual. They did for SoS.

You’re misusing RAW, too. RAW means rules as written. The lack of writing on a thing cannot be “RAW”, by definition.

The RAW is that SC uses the exact same word (“units”) for what Storm Caller affects as Shield of Sanguinius does.

The RAW is that GW has gone ahead and clarified for the folks who didn’t get it that SoS does indeed apply to vehicles.

The obvious conclusion is that Storm Caller is also intended to affect vehicles. You can stick your head in the sand about that and wait for GW to add an identical ruling to the SW FAQ as well, but I think you’d be silly to do so.

Tri wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Autarchs +1 stacking and IG astropaths not? That was due to 'poor editing' and did use 'precedent'?

RAW, GW hasn't made a ruling on the storm caller power, like usual. They did for SoS.

Autarch stack as they have an extra line stating that they do. IG guard don't but it was assumed that they would follow the eldar ... they were FAQ'ed that they don't because games workshops stance is things don't stack unless they say they do.

That's not correct, Tri. The rules for Autarchs in C:E don't say they stack. GW ruled that they do in the Eldar FAQ, and inexplicably ruled the opposite way for Astropaths in the IG FAQ.

Mannahnin wrote:What? The conflict in the rulings between Autarchs and Astropaths is an example of poor editing, precisely because GW did not follow precedent. If they kept the two consistent it would be easier for players to remember.

That kinda shoots the notion of 'precedent' in the foot. If a similar/same wording can result in two different conclusions there's no precedent to be had. Yours is a fool's argument (not that you are fool, rather that only a fool would try to debate the structure of your argument): If GW rules the same way for two similar rules, it's precedent. If GW doesn't rule the same way for two similar rules, it's poor editing. There's no way to win against such structural flim-flam.

Thinking back, I think the real precedent tends for GW to go with the more powerful of contentious rules interpretations.

Lash of Submission allowing bunching, Deffrollas working in the Ram, Shoota Boyz taking a PK Nob, Marneus Calgar not suffering No Retreat with God of War, S10 Thunderhammers on Twolf Wolf Lords, SoS applying to vehicles...

These, and many others I haven't listed, are examples of hotly debated rules issues/interpretations with many people creating detailed, structured arguments as to why the weaker interpretation is the most correct. Invariably, the stronger was officially adopted.

And in this respect, the IG Astropath issue still violates whatever tenuous precedent was established...

sourclams wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What? The conflict in the rulings between Autarchs and Astropaths is an example of poor editing, precisely because GW did not follow precedent. If they kept the two consistent it would be easier for players to remember.

That kinda shoots the notion of 'precedent' in the foot. If a similar/same wording can result in two different conclusions there's no precedent to be had. Yours is a fool's argument (not that you are fool, rather that only a fool would try to debate the structure of your argument): If GW rules the same way for two similar rules, it's precedent. If GW doesn't rule the same way for two similar rules, it's poor editing. There's no way to win against such structural flim-flam.

You are having a failure of reading comprehension and blaming it on me.

As I have repeatedly asserted, whether GW uses precedent or not is irrelevant to my conclusion. I opined that they DO make some use of precedent, but that opinion is not part of the argument in question, merely a difference of opinion with imweasel.

Imweasel and I have offered two different options a player has to help them use a rule (SC) with an open question (does it work on vehicles) which is very similar to another rule (SoS) for which GW has made a clear ruling for the same question (yes).

1. Make use of precedent ourselves to deduce how the first rule is intended to work based on the answer for the second.
2. Look at the first rule in a vacuum, out of context, and say "Well, since GW isn't always consistent in their rulings, I have no clue."

IMO the second is counterintuitive and unproductive.

sourclams wrote:Thinking back, I think the real precedent tends for GW to go with the more powerful of contentious rules interpretations.

Lash of Submission allowing bunching, Deffrollas working in the Ram, Shoota Boyz taking a PK Nob, Marneus Calgar not suffering No Retreat with God of War, S10 Thunderhammers on Twolf Wolf Lords, SoS applying to vehicles...

These, and many others I haven't listed, are examples of hotly debated rules issues/interpretations with many people creating detailed, structured arguments as to why the weaker interpretation is the most correct. Invariably, the stronger was officially adopted.

Doom of Malan’Tai doesn’t affect units in transports, embarked troops can’t fire out of a vehicle that popped smoke (and Machine Spirits can’t fire when smoked either), Stealth doesn’t help units in the open, Furious Charge doesn’t work on Counter-Attack, models without Power from Pain in a unit with a Pain token don’t benefit from its effect, Drop Pods count Immobilized results as Weapon Destroyed…