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.

Okay, the last one I started in the News and Rumors forum went off-track relatively rapidly. So I thought I'd start a new one, but set some ground rules.

Here's the link to the INAT FAQ Version 2.0: http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf

This thread is for posting questions that you believe should be reviewed or additonal question that need to be answered. I will update this post periodically to include a master list of all questions. I'm pretty certain I can get a mod to prune this thread if necessary to keep it readable and useful.

PLEASE, DO NOT start rules arguments in this thread, or get into an in-depth discussion about the questions people pose.

PLEASE DO start a new thread for each ruling that you wish to discuss. And PLEASE DO provide a link to that discussion thread so that I can include it in this summary. Unless the link is posted in THIS THREAD, there's a good chance I may miss it.

PLEASE DO post the INAT FAQ reference number (i.e. ORK.55D.01) so that we can efficiently categorize and review questions. Quoting the whole ruling is not necessary unless you need to do so to remain clear.

Again the INAT Rules FAQ Council does not guarantee that it will change its position, or add additional questions to the FAQ simply because they're brought up here. But we will take a look at it and see if the answer should be changed/added. When discussing issues (in their own threads) please help us by being as precise as possible, especially in regards to relevant rules (list codex/book and page #). Thanks.

FAQ ANSWERS FOR REVIEW:

RB.41C.01 - Potentially Unclear
RB.42O.01 - Interaction with SW Choosers of the Slain
RB.45C.01 - Rules Change or Clarification?
RB.48A.02 - Typo ("Joints")
RB.48B.02 - Exarch Powers?
RB.62B.01 - Needs clarification for vehicle squadrons/artillery.
RB.63F.01 and 02 - Why 1" away from a vehicle?
RB.67A.02 - Contradicts RAW for non-fast vehicles?
RD.67A.03 - Does emergency disembarction end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?
RB.67F.01 - Too harsh?
RB.70H.01 - RAW conflict (internal RAW inconsistency).

RB Questions -
RD.67A.03. Does emergency disembarkation end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?
Can a psyker who is able to use "two(or more) psychic powers per turn" use the same one twice?
Review IC/Wargear/"his unit"/special rule interaction
Review ramming/tank shock interaction.

BA.06DD.01 - RAW?
BA25A.01 - Mounting for whirlwind launcher?

BT.22B.04 - Default behavior for Pods? (applies to all Drop Pod Qs)
BT.29A.01 - RAW answer seems counter-intuitive.

CD.52D.01 - Why not shooting attacks?

CSM Questions - "Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as Troops units." Scoring units?

DA.27C.01 - By RAW, Ravenwing Land Speeders from Attack Squadrons should be scoring units.
DA Questions - Are Ravenwing Landspeeders from an Attack Squadron a Scoring Unit http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225574.page

DE Questions - How does night shield interact with melta weapons +d6?

DH.08G.01 - Contradicts rulings changing definition of Daemon (DH.20Q.01)
DH.30A.01. WH FAQ fixes this moment with WH vehiecles.
DH.31A.01 - Typo
DH Questions - Can Inquisitors without psychic powers ally with Black Templars

ELD.31A.01 - Banshee Exarch Acrobatic power
ELD.35G.01 - Contradicts GW FAQ
ELD.51D.01 - No evidence either way that staff of ultramar is either 1 or 2 handed.
ELD Question - Can Eldrad use his shuriken pistol and witchblade for +1 attack, or does 2 special weapons take precedent?
ELD Question - Is a power lance treated as a CCW when charged?

IG.38.01 - Command Platoon Infiltrate?
IG.47.01 - Does codex scout rule supercede USR scout rule?
IG Question - Is a hunting lance a 1 or 2-handed weapon?

ORK.55D.01 - Deff Rollas and Ramming - Is a tank shock?

NEC.21E.02 - Possible Contradiction - Special movements on fleeing unit that doesn't go towards the board edge.
Necron Questions:
WBB vs. Sweeping Advance (or any other way of removing models that doesn't rely on wounds.)
Can Wraiths/Scarabs run?

SM.142D.01 - Multi-melta shoudl be pintle-mounted

SW.GEN.01 - Add Land Speeder Storm
SW Codex GEN.02 - points for Rhinos and Razorbacks?
SW.06A.02 - Effect of Storm Caller when assaulting targets in the open.
SW.07.02 - Old & Wise & Seize the Initiative (and Emperor's Tarot and other ways of re-rolling choosing who goes first)
SW.10A.03 - Berserk Charge and Counter-Attack: +2 attacks or +2 attack
SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01 - Wolf Tooth Necklace should be Wolf Tooth Talisman
SW.15G.01/RB.48A.02 - Contradictory Answers

Tyranids Question: Can Spore Mines Run?

WH.18.01B - Overly restrictive definition (does not allow Doom to be canceled)

APOC.91C.02 - No ordnance Damage Table
Apocalypse Question: What happens if a walker is in assault with a Gargantuan Creature/Superheavy, and the walker becomes immobilezed?

Again, if you start a debate on any questions in the INAT FAQ, please post a link here so I can add it into the list and link the thread directly.

Beserk Charge and Counter Attack.

DA.27A.01 – Q: Can Ravenwing Bikes Turbo-Boost
during their Scout move?
A: No [RAW].
DA.27C.01 – Ravenwing Combat Squads:
Ignore the reference to “scoring units” as the definition of
a scoring unit has since been changed [clarification].

Consistency, anyone?

The Scout USR has since been changed so that Scout bikes MAY Turbo-Boost.

What justification do you have for enforcing one but not the other, when both should either be thrown out as outdated, or kept in as RAW?

Trekari wrote:DA.27A.01 – Q: Can Ravenwing Bikes Turbo-Boost
during their Scout move?
A: No [RAW].
DA.27C.01 – Ravenwing Combat Squads:
Ignore the reference to “scoring units” as the definition of
a scoring unit has since been changed [clarification].

Consistency, anyone?

The Scout USR has since been changed so that Scout bikes MAY Turbo-Boost.

What justification do you have for enforcing one but not the other, when both should either be thrown out as outdated, or kept in as RAW?

The well known "Codex trumps rulebook." Never heard of it? Not surprising.

FNP ruling:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224772.page

1) The ruling does not pay any attention to the English language used which demonstrate that wargear-applied special rules are covered by pg. 48. I cover this on pg. 11 quite concisely.

2) "His unit" also doesn't even come close to the language used in the example of Stubborn. or a half-dozen other listed examples in the thread, about what GW believes "specified in the rule itself" should look like. "His unit" is anything BUT specific, given that it could have at least two definitions.

3) A demonstration of the consequences of getting this wrong. Your ruling would allow for the following:

Ghazghkull + Nobs+ Painboy all having FNP
Grotsnik + 30 'Ard Boyz all having FNP

785pts of models (42 models in total), all having FNP because the language was ignored and examples also ignored. What army has the firepower necessary to deal with this many 4+ FNP checks against anything but AP 2 or better, or power weapon wounds?

olympia wrote:
The well known "Codex trumps rulebook." Never heard of it? Not surprising.

Ability to read: heard of it?

Codex says bikes can't Turbo-Boost, Codex says Attack Bikes and RAS Landspeeders are scoring units.

INAT FAQ says bikes still can't Turbo-Boost during Scout move, which is RAW, yet says Attack Bikes and RAS Landspeeders aren't scoring units, which is not RAW.

If Codex> BRB, then the FAQ is wrong about taking away the scoring AB and Landspeeder, hence my bringing it up.

Enjoy your crow, once you get your foot out of your mouth.

ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

Dark Eldar.
How does Night shield interact with melta weapons abbility to get an extra dice?

DH.30A.01. WH FAQ fixes this moment with WH vehiecles. I see no point of keeping this restiction for DHs.

RD.67A.03. Does emergency disembarction end on the players turn it happened on (thus, mainly, only preventing making assault distance longer by closing access points) or lasts for a complete turn (thus being similiar to 4th ed. entanglling)?

Zubb wrote:ELD.51D.01.
Tried hard, but found no RAW evidence of staff of Ultramar being double-handed.

Nor is there evidence that it's single-handed.

#moved all Qs into a single post#

Ghaz lets discuss this elsethere.

Trekari wrote:FNP ruling:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224772.page

This was probably one of the more hotly debated issues. As it is, I fully expect the ruling we came to to satisfy nobody, because the rules can be interpreted in a variety of fashions. Ruling one way allows for potential abuses, and ruling in other ways seemed unjustly restrictive.

As a result, we decided to treat special rules and USR's granted by wargear that affect a unit as fundamentally different than special rules that are granted by characters that afffect units. This may seem inconsistent and arbitrary to some, but it seemed like the best way to proceed that addressed the most egregious issues. In particular, the warboss attaching to Snikkrot's squads, etc. Otherwise, an Apothecary in a command squad wouldn't be able to aid its Captain, etc.

Trekari wrote:INAT FAQ says bikes still can't Turbo-Boost during Scout move, which is RAW, yet says Attack Bikes and RAS Landspeeders aren't scoring units, which is not RAW.
If Codex> BRB, then the FAQ is wrong about taking away the scoring AB and Landspeeder, hence my bringing it up.

FYI, we're not binding ourselves entirely by the RAW. In particular, we often considered other alternatives when the RAW dealt specifically with a 4th or 3rd Ed ruleset, and fundamental changes in the 5ed rules made a situation unique - this was a precedent that was set by some of the GW FAQs.

The idea is to address questions that are likely to arise in a tournament setting, and provide a reasonable, fair response. It's not an exact science, thanks to the GW Studio's rules writers, who often lack a certain amount of precision.

For example, declaring that DE weapons that wound on a 2+ or 4+ are "poisoned" weapons isn't strictly by the RAW, but as those weapons work almost identically to poisoned weapons (which didn't exist at the time) we elected to not unduly penalize DE players by preventing them from a re-roll just because their codex is eight years old.

By the way, we're also flat-out not going to address Apocalypse formations and/or strategic assets. No tournament that we no of allows either. There are a handful of tournaments that allow FW Imperial Armor units, so we've included them.

Centurian99 wrote:

Trekari wrote:FNP ruling:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224772.page

This was probably one of the more hotly debated issues. As it is, I fully expect the ruling we came to to satisfy nobody, because the rules can be interpreted in a variety of fashions. Ruling one way allows for potential abuses, and ruling in other ways seemed unjustly restrictive.

As a result, we decided to treat special rules and USR's granted by wargear that affect a unit as fundamentally different than special rules that are granted by characters that afffect units. This may seem inconsistent and arbitrary to some, but it seemed like the best way to proceed that addressed the most egregious issues. In particular, the warboss attaching to Snikkrot's squads, etc. Otherwise, an Apothecary in a command squad wouldn't be able to aid its Captain, etc.

Just to be clear, given a dichotomy of 'potentially abuse' vs "unjustly restrictive", the council decided on potentially abusive?

Centurian99 wrote:

Trekari wrote:INAT FAQ says bikes still can't Turbo-Boost during Scout move, which is RAW, yet says Attack Bikes and RAS Landspeeders aren't scoring units, which is not RAW.
If Codex> BRB, then the FAQ is wrong about taking away the scoring AB and Landspeeder, hence my bringing it up.

FYI, we're not binding ourselves entirely by the RAW. In particular, we often considered other alternatives when the RAW dealt specifically with a 4th or 3rd Ed ruleset, and fundamental changes in the 5ed rules made a situation unique - this was a precedent that was set by some of the GW FAQs.

The idea is to address questions that are likely to arise in a tournament setting, and provide a reasonable, fair response. It's not an exact science, thanks to the GW Studio's rules writers, who often lack a certain amount of precision.

So, question, in writing this FAQ, what was the method used to derive answers for frequently asked questions?

Buzzsaw wrote:
Just to be clear, given a dichotomy of 'potentially abuse' vs "unjustly restrictive", the council decided on potentially abusive?

That overly simplifies things a bit...but yes. Abusive is in the eye of the beholder. Is it abusive to take 2 lash princes and 9 obliterators, double lash a unit an average of 14" in front of the rest of the army, and then hit it with shots from 9 oblits? It's abusive, but clearly legal. Most every army has some combination of units that works like that. When it comes to wargear that grants ability to the whole unit, nearly every army has something like that. Sure, Orks have one unit that can be totally abused...but just because you can have the nob bikers and attached warboss with FNP, would that same unit be abusive if everyone was in mega-armor and making every move through DT? Or how about an Apothecary in a SM command squad - does the Apothecary's narthecium give an attached commander FNP, and if he does, is it abusive?

So in the end, the FAQ council voted to make a differentiation between wargear that grants special rules, and characters that grant special rules. There's a couple of reasons for that. One, its fairly easy to determine which is which - wargear that grants a USR to a unit is fairly clearly wargear, and characters that have "special rules" have those clearly listed as "special rules." Two, there's some RAW justification for it (as "special rules" in the unit description could conceivably be interpreted to be what's refered to in the character rules in the main rulebook). Third, the most abusive combinations came from character special rules - things like using Snikkrot's ambush special rule to allow a warboss to ambush with the squad, or using Shrike to give another IC infiltrate.

Trekari wrote:
No disagreement about the GW rulesmonkeys, but changing out and out RAW seems a bit.. well, in the realm of errata rather then a FAQ. Here, for example, by RAW it seems both Codex SM and Codex DA bike squads are or can be made scoring units. In the interest of "a reasonable, fair response" you're doing some fairly major revising of the DA codex there, unilaterally removing their ability to have scoring assault bikes, no?

Basically, it was a judgement call. The GW FAQ's have been fairly consistent in the "play the codex as written" thing, but even they have fudged it a bit here and there (like giving DH LRs assault ramps and a new machine spirit). So while we didn't want to do massive, significant changes (which was actually discussed early-on), we tried only to break the RAW or overrule FAQs when there was clearly something that simply didn't work within the context of the 40K 5 rules. The DA Landspeeder thing was one of those things - the DA codex was clearly written under the 4th Ed. rules, when the definition of "scoring unit" was far more broad. No other army in the game can field scoring vehicles. So we made the call.

If you disagree (and its clear that you do) I'd suggest you start a thread with a poll and see what kind of support there is for that position. We don't bind ourselves to following poll results, but we like to see if there's an overwhelming trend one way or another.

Nurglitch wrote:So, question, in writing this FAQ, what was the method used to derive answers for frequently asked questions?

Pretty simple. Questions were collected by Yakface from a variety of sources, sorted, tagged, and assembled into the review document. Yakface gave his recommendation for the various answers based on his feel for the rules, and had a quick justification for why he suggested one answer or another.

The FAQ council consisted of the people listed on the first page of the doc, and over a week and a half, we had four 2-3 hour conference calls. The first three essentially each covered a third of the doc, and we went through each question. Anyone could bring an answer up for review if they disagreed with it or wanted some more explanation, and if a consensus wasn't clear, we took a vote. Majority ruled, although in most cases, the opinions were unanimous or near-unanimous once discussion was complete.

A few particularly thorny issues were set aside for the fourth session, which took about 3 hours to discuss 5 basic issues, IIRC.

Fairly simple process. The majority of the FAQ council (6 of 9) consisted of the various 40K Tournament Organizers from AdeptiCon, with three additional people who were invited to participate to get some "outside" opinions (including Yakface and two FLGS owners who run tournaments frequently).

SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01, SW.15N.01 incorrectly refer to the Wolf Tooth Necklace. The Wolf Tail Talismans is the name of the piece of wargear the questions are about..

ORK.93H.01 – Q: Is a Trukk with a Reinforced Ram
allowed to ram other vehicles and if so, does the front
armor bonus apply to both the hit the Trukk causes as
well as the hit it receives back?
A: Yes, yes and yes [clarification].

If you check the Walker section of the BRB, it states that Walkers are allowed to treat a Ramming action as a Tank Shock instead, so that they may attempt a Death or Glory attack.

Ramming and Tank Shocking are two different actions. A Tank Shock simply stops 1" away from vehicles, whereas a Ramming action allows you to contact them. This distinction being made (and the walker reference), means that allowing a vehicle to Tank Shock does not confer the ability to Ram as well.

This also affects:

RB.69B.01 – Q: Can any vehicle ram or are only
‘tanks’ allowed to do so?
A: Just tanks and other vehicles that are able to Tank Shock
[clarification].

SW Codex GEN.02 - points for Rhinos and Razorbacks. What's the basis for using SM codex prices? The SW codex refers to the SM codex for the stats for the vehicle, but the SW codex has its own points for the vehicles.

Centurian99:

So what you're saying is that the process is essentially ir-reproducible, that no actual method was used to derive answers for frequently asked questions, and that what this document consists of is basically the subjective opinions of the writers?

The problem, as I see it, is that Warhammer 40k is like a set of arithmetic problems to which an FAQ (and Errata) is a solution. In providing this FAQ Yakface and co. have failed to show the work that certifies the correct-ness of the answers. John Spencer also has this problem: he gives answers, but provides no justification.

So why is this justification important? Well, perhaps you're familiar with the idea that an infinite number of monkeys playing with an infinite number of type-writers would eventually, and purely randomly, produce the complete works of Shakespeare (a curious notion given that the folios and quartos were hand-written).

So while it's perfectly possible to hit on the right answer, particularly if one is not a monkey and familiar with the material, like Yakface and co., certifying that one has, in fact, determined the right answer is far more useful. Any opinion could be right, but it only actually is right when justified by the correct solution.

Firstly, providing an actual method, rather than just eyeballing and agreement, means that we have a procedure for dealing with novel questions about the rules that have not arisen.

Secondly, providing an actual method provides a framework within which errors, inclarities, and so on can be objectively identified. So far all the INAT FAQ is, is the opinion of a bunch of guys that have claimed an authority on the subject, which is nice, and useful in the part of the world where they are deferred to, but useless for those of us want something objective rather than subjective.

Thirdly, and somewhat related to the first two, an explicit method means that anyone in the community can find and identify errors that Yakface and company might have missed simply by applying that method. So not only is it the only way of certifying answers and doing so objectively, but it is also the only way people can objectively identify errors and have those errors easily corrected.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the amount of work that Yakface and co. have put into this. I just think that the finished product would be more useful to the greater community is it was an FAQ about the game that everyone plays rather than about some guys opinions of the game they play.

Well-put, Nurglitch.

I also appreciate anyone who is willing to undertake fixing GW's cluster.... of rules. I believe Nutglitch's analogy is spot-on. After all, anyone can look at x^2=4 and point out that x=2, however without the procedure demonstrating that is the correct solution, people may overlook that x may also = -2.

Of course, I also believe that unless the answer is game-breaking (such as no Access Points on Blood Angel? Rhinos), that a FAQ should be strictly RAW so that people may then modify it for house-rules as they wish, rather than a house-rules document that ignores RAW when "lots" (a completely subjective and unprovable majority) of people play outside of RAW.

I kinda agree with Nurglitch on this one, its pretty much the same opinion as last years adepticon FAQ. Its pretty much the opinions of a few guys without any justification for the changes in the rules and it pushes the balance one way or the other. It really shouldnt be that many rule changes but rather clarifications on how rules work and above all they should be consistent.

This is actually pretty much as the houserules of any gaming club or tournament but it could be so much more.

Well I think C99, explanation of the process was a more high level look at how we approached the process. Yakface goes into pretty good detail in the afterword of the overall guidance and approach. The council as a whole IMHO was some of the best hobby talent and knowledge to be found anyplace. The objectivity and commitment to produce a consistent document given the hand dealt by 5th edition was very evident in how each and every member approached the process. As always ... there always exists each and every year the opportunity to get involved with the process.

We go through this every year. The fact that we have such a reaction to the document just reinforces the need that such a document at events like AdeptiCon. The process given the same individuals, the same questions, and understanding.. would produce in my opinion the same document.
The whole point in releasing this early on dakka and awc is to “catch” any edits or issues that we very possible could have missed. It allows us to assess the document prior to finalizing the document on Feb 1st. for general release. Honestly, at this point I think it is best, out of respect, to put this discussion on hold and wait for Yakface to have time to be involved in the discussion.

Nurglitch wrote:So what you're saying is that the process is essentially ir-reproducible, that no actual method was used to derive answers for frequently asked questions, and that what this document consists of is basically the subjective opinions of the writers?

The problem, as I see it, is that Warhammer 40k is like a set of arithmetic problems to which an FAQ (and Errata) is a solution. In providing this FAQ Yakface and co. have failed to show the work that certifies the correct-ness of the answers. John Spencer also has this problem: he gives answers, but provides no justification.

That's a prejudicial way of phrasing the statement, Nurglitch. Like Muhwe said...I gave a high-level overview of the process used. Sure, we could have documented the reasoning behind each answer...but we were looking at a 200 page FAQ insteand of a 92 page FAQ.

The problem with you assumption is in that second paragraph - you're looking at it as a set of problems for which there is only one correct answer. Thanks to the incredible precision that the GW Studio uses, in many cases, their rules could be interpreted in many different ways. Or in many cases, contradictory rules are written. It's simply impossible to create a mathematical formula or programming tree that will be able resolve all questions without subjective judgements entering into the picture.

Above all, the point of the INAT FAQ is to create a common framework for fun games to happen in a tournament by addressing questions that are likely to pop up between players. Were some liberties taken with the RAW? Yes. And there was a subjective element to that, especially in cases like the interweaving cover saves issue, which just makes the game unfun and leads to bad feelings all around. (and also ridiculously slows down the game, because the only recourse a player has against it is to force his opponent to move their models one at a time, to make sure that the negative aspects of interweaving units are not ignored).

There's no way to avoid a subjective element when looking at GW's rules, becuase they're written with such imprecision. Heck, I was probably the number one champion of straight RAW on the council, but there are many times when I have to say, "forget RAW" because the results of trying to apply RAW were either nonsensical, internally inconsistent, overly complicated, or simply unfun.

But anyways...like I said, this is something of a "public beta comment period" for the INAT FAQ. So if you want to debate the finer points of certain issues, I encourage you to start a separate thread dealing with that issue and send me the link, so I can add it to the master post above.

RB.48B.01 – Q: Independent Characters joining a unit
do not confer their special rules onto the unit unless
“specified in the rule”. If an IC’s special rule says it
applies to “his unit” does this qualify?
A: Yes, “his unit” refers to the unit a character is joined to
[clarification].

This does not even come close to the example given on pg. 48 of the BRB.

See the following special rules for further examples of why "his unit" is not good enough:

Stubborn (USR)
Fearless (USR)
Night Vision/Acute Senses (USR)
Litanies of Hate (DA)
Liturgies of Battle (SM)
Honour of the Chapter (SM)
Bolter Drill (SM)
One Scalpel Short of a Medpack (Ork)

etc.

If this needs an errata for circumstances such as Shrike and Khan, who have abilities that are utterly useless, then issue errata to change their wording to meet the same level of "specified in the rule itself," but "his unit" is certainly not good enough. Otherwise, you create a slippery-slope for "his unit" to be liberally applied elsewhere at great consequences.

RB.67A.02 – Q: If a unit embarks on a transport and
in the same movement phase the transport is
‘Destroyed’ (by ramming another vehicle, for
example) are the models onboard allowed to
disembark?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].

This is wrong.

BRB 66 wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, and may not voluntarily both embark and disembark in the same player turn.However, they may embark and then be forced to disembark if their transport is destroyed.

RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘Destroyed’ in
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by
ramming another vehicle, for example) are the
models onboard destroyed?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].

Um...what? Someone copied/pasted something they weren't supposed to, it appears.

RAW, they follow the procedures on pg. 67.

Trekari wrote:RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘Destroyed’ in
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by
ramming another vehicle, for example) are the
models onboard destroyed?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification].

Um...what? Someone copied/pasted something they weren't supposed to, it appears.

RAW, they follow the procedures on pg. 67.

p.70 Moving "Flat Out" clearly says you cannot Embark or Disembark in the same Movement Phase the vehicle moves "Flat Out". So basically the unit would have to have already been in the vehicle at the start of the turn for it to even move at this speed.

p.67 Says that if you suffer a Destroyed-Wrecked and are unable to Disembark, the unit is destroyed. So under this circumstance it is clear that by RAW the unit would be destroyed if the vehicle suffered this result in its own Movement Phase that it moved "Flat Out" as it does not allow you to Disembark.

p.67 However does leave room to argue that if you suffer a Destroyed-Explodes result, the unit is not instantly destroyed as no where does it say they "disembark" like a Destroyed-Wrecked result does.

Trekari wrote:RB.48B.01 – Q: Independent Characters joining a unit
do not confer their special rules onto the unit unless
“specified in the rule”. If an IC’s special rule says it
applies to “his unit” does this qualify?
A: Yes, “his unit” refers to the unit a character is joined to
[clarification].

This does not even come close to the example given on pg. 48 of the BRB.

See the following special rules for further examples of why "his unit" is not good enough:

Stubborn (USR)
Fearless (USR)
Night Vision/Acute Senses (USR)
Litanies of Hate (DA)
Liturgies of Battle (SM)
Honour of the Chapter (SM)
Bolter Drill (SM)
One Scalpel Short of a Medpack (Ork)

etc.

If this needs an errata for circumstances such as Shrike and Khan, who have abilities that are utterly useless, then issue errata to change their wording to meet the same level of "specified in the rule itself," but "his unit" is certainly not good enough. Otherwise, you create a slippery-slope for "his unit" to be liberally applied elsewhere at great consequences.

Im not entirely sure what you are saying here. What are you saying, exactly? I think RB.48B.02 covers this "Slippery Slope" you describe quite thoroughly.

Centurian99:

Well, when I asked the question I asked for you to cite the method that was used rather than to cite some vague generalities about how you and some other guys came to an agreement. Call it a "high-level overview", but it would have been more truthful to say: "Yeah, we just agreed we were right".

The whole point of having a method is so that you don't need to document the reasoning behind each answer. You provide a method, and then apply it to each question to generate the answers.

Treating such a method as analogous to the effective method that a mathematician would use to provide the solution set to some arithmetical problem does not mean that there is one magical absolute answer to each question. That's a straw-man. What any effective method does is provide a hypothetical solution, not a categorical solution: you're saying that for method x, there is some set of solutions y such that if x then y. That's what objectivity is, being explicit about your method, your perspective, rather than pretending to some absolute certainty.

If you find the 40k rules so fuzzy that you can apply different methods for different results, then all you have to do is step back, make the methods and their results explicit, and then show why we should be motivated to prefer one method and its results over another. Sometimes this is as easy as producing consistent results, or clearer results (one method may occasionally produce two possible answers to a question while another method produces a convenient single answer per question), and sometimes this is as difficult as being a more efficient problem solving method.

If anything, carefully documenting your methods and their results means that you can learn from the inadequacies and further questions and discussion that this FAQ prompts. Documenting the methods as well as the answers that officials will lend their authority to is not about finding some final absolute answer, it's about finding the best answer right now and filing the information so that it can be used to find a better answer latter.

So, basically, your excuse that GW's rules are vague rather than precisely written holds no water since part of the point of being methodical is clarifying matters through a common key or decoder.

Likewise your concurrent excuse that the content of GW's rules are subjective holds no water because objectivity is precisely 'inter-subjectivity', connecting subjects via common tools to achieve common results.

One motivation for doing this is the motivation that drives what can be glossed as 'human civilization', the idea that doing things in a careful, methodical, and documented way means long term gain for short term pain. Sure, it'll be harder to produce a 200 page FAQ than it will be to produce a 92 page FAQ, but adding an explicit treatment of method won't take 108 pages, and it's harder to produce a new 92 page FAQ every year from scratch and opinions than to revise a 100 page FAQ according to a method that people can apply to new questions.

Certainly I can understand why you wouldn't want to do this, it requires more effort of your part, which you seem to have radically over-estimated, but if you're doing this to benefit the community, then like any structure erected for the use of the community surely it is in the interest of the builders to make plans, measure twice and cut once, and to leave those plans to those users who come after.

Surely you've heard the old "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will be fed for the rest of his life." The morale of that aphorism is that an effective method for problem solving is not only worth a correct answer, but worth all the correct answers for that type of question.

My point is just that the community as a whole would be better served by a methodical account of ways of reading GW's materials than by well-intentioned eye-balling by some self-appointed authority, and it is well within your power to do so.

But yeah, I'll bow out of this thread as I have nothing to add about the content of the document. I can't help if I don't know how the answers were adduced from GW's published material.