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.

Edit:For clarity, this thread is about RAW, not HYWPI. Thanks.

Can the MotF from my Primary Detachment repair vehicles from other detachments in the army? I.E repairing Imperial Knights.

FAQ:
"Q: Can models from an Allied Detachment that have the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Allied vehicles? (p112)
A: No."
(Emphasis GW)

P.109 BRB: "your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army"

So the FAQ limits models with the ability to repair from your allied detachment, not your primary. In fact, it bolds the allied detachment part of this FAQ.

Now to establish raw without the FAQ, since the FAQ specifically refers to the allied detachment.

Battle brothers:BRB p.112 "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Blessing of the omnissiah: C:SM p.92 ""may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle..."

Conclusion: Models from one's primary detachment can repair battle brothers in the same army, but models from allied detachments may never repair other vehicles outside of their detachment in the same army.

As written this would be correct.

HIWPI, since FAQ's are (after all) simply questions written by players (and often poorly worded or overly specific questions at that) and only address that specific question I am guessing the RAI is that the MotF in a Primary detachment cannot repair it's allies either. I am guessing that by "allied" the GW team assumed the question writer meant "detachments allied with one another" (primary -> allied and vice versa)

To me, the bolding on the Allied Detachment combined with proper noun indicates they knew exactly what they were saying RAI = RAW, imho.

Right. But it's still a specific question from a GW Customer about the allied detachment. No mention of the primary. If they got a question about the Pirmary detachment's MotF what would they answer with?

Answer : we don't know.

(In other words, this FAQ specifically talks about the Allied detachment MotF. It makes no mention of the Primary, so we don't know if the Primary MotF can or cannot based solely on this particular FAQ without yet another FAQ or an errata)

Interesting. I didn't know they printed questions exactly as received. Do you have a source on that claim?

 Dracos wrote:
Interesting. I didn't know they printed questions exactly as received. Do you have a source on that claim?

Why wouldn't they? No, I don't have a source, but it's a safe assumption.

We know that default Raw you can. I believe I've established that above.

So without the FAQ limiting it, the answer is that the MotF can repair battle brothers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
Interesting. I didn't know they printed questions exactly as received. Do you have a source on that claim?

Why wouldn't they? No, I don't have a source, but it's a safe assumption.

No, you just made that up.

 Dracos wrote:
We know that default Raw you can. I believe I've established that above.

So without the FAQ limiting it, the answer is that the MotF can repair battle brothers.

Yes, without the FAQ, any MotF can repair any friendly unit in the army as a whole. The FAQ calls out Allied MotF specifically. Why limit the Allied MotF when the rules themselves did not? This is why I believe RaI is that (based on the FAQ) the MotF can only repair units in it's own detachment (primary or allied).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
Interesting. I didn't know they printed questions exactly as received. Do you have a source on that claim?

Why wouldn't they? No, I don't have a source, but it's a safe assumption.

No, you just made that up.

No. I made an assumption. There's a big difference. Being rude doesn't change that we don't know, but can assume they do print FAQ's as submitted as there is little reason to change them.

I was not being rude, I was identifying that what you were saying was something you made up (assumed being functionally identical in this case).

In fact, the "assumption" that they print them as they get them is silly.

They are called Frequently Asked Questions. This implies that the question is asked frequently. Meaning, from multiple sources. The implication of what you are saying is that all submitters are phrasing the question identically. That is comical.

The fact is that we don't know how they choose the questions [or the phrasing of], and what you are saying doesn't even make sense in the context of Frequently Asked Questions.

 Dracos wrote:
I was not being rude, I was identifying that what you were saying was something you made up (assumed being functionally identical in this case).

In fact, the "assumption" that they print them as they get them is silly.

They are called Frequently Asked Questions. This implies that the question is asked frequently. Meaning, from multiple sources. The implication of what you are saying is that all submitters are phrasing the question identically. That is comical.

The fact is that we don't know how they choose the questions [or the phrasing of], and what you are saying doesn't even make sense in the context of Frequently Asked Questions.

Do you work for GW? have you ever managed FAQ's? Probably not based on what you're saying here.

When it comes to multiple FAQ submissions of the same/similar questions, typically (from experience) one of them is chosen to 'represent' the question similar asked by many.
You're right, we don't know how they choose questions or which phrasing to use. However, It is far from comical or nonsensical to make safe assumptions that they pick one as a representative of the many.

Yes; you were being rude (and dismissive). I was quite clear that it was an assumption AND that I was stating HIWPI, not RAW (as I had already agreed RAW the interpretation you provided was correct). (ie : opinion. one based on experience, but that is irrelevant). You chose to jump on my interpretation (HIWPI) as if I were claiming it as fact/RAW. I'll accept your apology at any time, thank you.

I've made my contribution to this debate. /done.

Your assumption is based on nothing, and therefore something you made up. Simple as that. Sorry if that is too much for you to handle.

Please adhere to the Tenants of YMDC

Specifically, the first

"1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. "

Back up your assumption with real evidence of how GW puts their questions in the FAQ, or take your gak elsewhere.

 Dracos wrote:
Please adhere to the Tenants of YMDC

Just a friendly reminder, before the Tenants you have the Rules of Dakka.

Rule 1: Be Polite

Also the same Tenant:
"1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. "

You made a statement ("No, you just made that up.") that broke rule 1 of Dakka, and the tenant you posted. You didn't back this rude statement up. You simply stated it.
Now obviosly this has caused offence (the user in question said so), so weather intentional or not, offence has been cause. Instead of causing further offence and derailing the thread, how about a simple appology, then move on with the rules?

Carry on people

Previously FAQ questions and answers from this site have been used verbatim, in the (in)famous days when GW briefly credited Yakface et al

While we take the Frequently Asked Question answers as written Rules, they are after all the writers 'clarifying' for us, it is completely ridiculous to over look how poorly executed they have been and asking 'why is this so?' is quite a valid question.

Quite a few of the answers are what I would consider ' Loaded Questions, ' designed to get a specific answer that could then be applied to more situations then what is in the question itself. Some of the questions require detailed answers to make sense, and the answers supplied have been simple 'Yes/No' responses. Many have been asking something specific and accurately presented but get an answer completely irrelevant or worse, containing the answer then addressing something not addressed by the question. Then there is the answers which have see-sawed back and forth depending on which Frequently Asked Question page is being reviewed or the date stamped onto them.

When one looks at Game Workshop's Frequently Asked Questions as a whole, Rorschach9's "Assumption" make a good deal of sense to explain why some of the above occurs without even needing to bring in forensic specialists to diagnose if the Question and Answer where penned by the same person.

Grendal, you're right. I should have finished that phrase with "as you have provided no basis for your assumption." I apologize for that. My mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to be clear, no one has a case to say that the RAW is different from what I described, is that correct?

Dracos,
The Frequently Asked Question you posted places an additional restriction where one previously did not exist. That restriction has named a specific detachment all thanks to the capitalization, as bizarre as that is, so it can only ever be applied to that detachment. Therefore it is very safe to conclude, from a Rule as Written perspective, that the Primary Detachment still has the ability to make repairs to their battle-brother allies. It is all down to this capitalization and the way the Writers have formatted Rules to indicate that this is defined terminology. It doesnt' even really matter if the Writer penned the question and the answer both, or just the answer, because it's inclusion in the Frequently Asked Questions in such a format makes it function as a Rule limited to just one detachment.

Simply expect some resistance if you try and bring this argument to the table top because the argument that the Rule as Written is always the Writers Intent is not one that is always accepted. Particularly in situations which applying the strict Rules as Written might not make sense or leads to unusual outcomes. There are many counter arguments that could be put forth when it comes to debates outside of this boards strict format, all based on how poorly the writers have taken definitions and inter-army interactions in the Rules dedicated to just those factors. If I was to make an 'unsupported statement' myself, it would have to be that the butchered Rules detailing interactions between detachments and the definition of Army have to be two of the worse written sections in the book.

Here you will get a little gold star for Rule Lawyer well.
Out there, you will lose opponents and tournaments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Previously FAQ questions and answers from this site have been used verbatim, in the (in)famous days when GW briefly credited Yakface et al

Nos, just for clarity: Is it the case that in the past, all questions were posted verbatim and credited; or some specific questions where posted verbatim, and those posted verbatim where credited?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Simply expect some resistance if you try and bring this argument to the table top because the argument that the Rule as Written is the Intent does not make sense in this situation. There are many counter arguments that could be put forth to attach the intent, all based on how poorly the writers have taken definitions and inter-army interactions in the Rules dedicated to just those factors....

Here you will get a little gold star for Rule Lawyer well.
Out there, you will lose opponents and tournaments.

I've never had any resistance to this in person. Only on these boards, which is why I made the thread. RAW is perfectly clear as far as I can tell, and apparently no one else can yet disprove. I could make up a reason why they might not want you to be able to ally in a repairing model to affect your primary detachment, if that is what is required to get passed moral outrage.

But I was only interested in the rules as everyone can read them. That being said, it has been over a year since I played in a tournament. Maybe the moral superiority cliques want me to stick to making a Taudar or Jetseer council army...

For clarity - some questions were posted verbatim, along with the answers given by Yaface et al, and credit was given in summary at the end of the document. So, not ever question had a "thanks to X for the Q and A" by it, however it didnt take people long to spot the cut and paste.

Dracos,
I should of been more precise that my warning was in general against using Rules as Written as solid fact when it comes to playing the game, as on this topic I am not surprised little resistance would be found.

Many players wouldn't know it is illegal to do so with an Allied Detachment, so these players won't protest when they encounter the Primary doing it
Of the players that do raise questions, most of them would grab the Basic Rule Book and verify that Battle Brothers can use abilities on each other
Of the tiny few that might look at the Frequently Asked Questions while at the table, probably only just me that does that, how many will digest the answer instead of taking it at face value
Of the remaining people how many would be swayed by a single sentence argument that now has a dribbling of rule support
If anyone has their hand up the last thing to ask is:
Lower your hand if you simply do not care....

How many would be left?

One of the thing we have online is time to track down all the information we need to formulate an answer and to really ponder what is being presented to us. That is why you will find more resistance online then at the table, as people at the table top are there to play a game. Should you encounter a person that is willing to make time to debate a rule in question, it is unlikely that it will be this rule and likely one they wish to bend, it might not be someone as willing to accept Rule as Written in blind faith. If you have not yet encountered such a player, well you have better luck then I do, but many times you might not even know you have been black listed. I know I don't tell my opponents when I black listed them after a broken rule was used to formulate a very 'win at all cost' tactic.

All this is a side point though, your answer has been provided as you are only interested in the Rule as Written.

Re-read the FAQ. If you take it as RAW ,it is total nonsense to begin with.

FAQ:
"Q: Can models from an Allied Detachment that have the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Allied vehicles? (p112)
A: No."
(Emphasis GW)

Strictly RAW...a model from an Allied Detachment cannot repair Allied vehicles. Leaving only Primary Detachment vehicles that can be repaired.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! RAW arguments, in a game with such poorly worded rules is nonsense from the start.

Bottom line, each detachment has it's own gear and after millenia of working on it have tweaked things just enough to prevent others from being able to work on it. So each detachment has to fix their own stuff and can't fix anyone else's stuff.

 Dracos wrote:
Your assumption is based on nothing, and therefore something you made up. Simple as that. Sorry if that is too much for you to handle.

Please adhere to the Tenants of YMDC

Specifically, the first

"1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. "

Back up your assumption with real evidence of how GW puts their questions in the FAQ, or take your gak elsewhere.

I did adhere to the tennets. I made a RAW agreement with your interpretation of the rules + FAQ, then concluded with HIWPI which you attacked.

Take your own advice.

Imperial Knights are, specifically, an Allied detachment.

RAW for Knights, No.

JinxDragon wrote:
Dracos,
I should of been more precise that my warning was in general against using Rules as Written as solid fact when it comes to playing the game

This is really a strange warning. I don't know how one would play a game where the rules as written, when unambiguous, are not taken as "solid fact".

@ Kommissar: I feel like you didn't read the thread. Please back up your assertion.

That is why I love this site, because Game Workshop's Rules are far from unambiguous.

You say that as if all their rules are ambiguous. I disagree that is the case.

 Dracos wrote:
You say that as if all their rules are ambiguous. I disagree that is the case.

I hope this was a joke.

 Idolator wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
You say that as if all their rules are ambiguous. I disagree that is the case.

I hope this was a joke.

Why? there are many rules, the vast majority I would contend, in 40k that are quite clear.

As to the main question, there isn't really a clear RAW as what is written is contradictory.
(If you take "Allied" to be a proper noun then they can only repair the primary det's vehicles and not their own.)
I would go off the meaning as derived from the base rules and give that meaning greater weight than the "clarification" from an FAQ.

The very fact this site exists is evidence in and of itself that enough of Game Workshop rules are ambiguous.

How do you figure that?

YMDC, while it does have a fairly large number of posts it's the biggest part of the forum and it's also heavily out numbered when you add up all the other forums.

Sure some rules are a bit ambiguous but it's far from all.

 Dracos wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Dracos,
I should of been more precise that my warning was in general against using Rules as Written as solid fact when it comes to playing the game

This is really a strange warning. I don't know how one would play a game where the rules as written, when unambiguous, are not taken as "solid fact".

@ Kommissar: I feel like you didn't read the thread. Please back up your assertion.

I can back it up with those pesky little "Written Rules"(as opposed to all the pretty pictures and charts):

Imperial Knights Codex, Household Detachments, Including Knights in your Army wrote: When you choose an army, Knights may be taken as a special form of allied detachment known as an Imperial Knight detachment, as shown on the Imperial Knight Force Organisation chart below. Each box in the Imperial Knight detachment section of the Force Organisation chart represents a single Imperial Knight (of any type), which means that you can include up to three Knights for each primary detachment in your army. Just as with other allied detachments, you can include one Imperial Knight detachment for each primary detachment in your army.

An army may include an allied detachment of Imperial Knights in addition to a standard allied detachment. So, for example, you could field an Imperial Guard army with an allied detachment of Space Marines and an allied detachment of Imperial Knights.

So you can see that the written rules constantly refer to the Imperial Knights detachment as a special form of Allied detachment.

FAQ says No BotO(nor similar rules) for Allied detachments.

Therefore not BotO for Imperail Knights