Hi,
Do Imotekh's nightfight and lightning storm abilities still apply even if he is in reserve?

Do they apply if he is attatched to a unit in a closed vehicle i.e. Warrior squad in Nightsycthe but on the board?

Can a Cryptek with a Chronometron attached to Imotekh and his warriors use the chronometron to gain re-roles to nightfight and storm if in the same positions as Imotekh i.e. off the board in reserve or in a transport?

Thanks in advance.

Firsst turn - yes

Second turn onwards - no, because he needs to be on the board to roll for night fight (it is HIS roll, as defined in the FAQ a number of times), you dont have permission to roll while in reserve.

FAQ covers your last question

Thanks nosferatu.

To which FAQ are you refering, the new GW necron one or the Dakka one, or even the rulebook FAQ?

Necron one.

Repeatedly it defines the roll for NF as "his" roll - which is the only reason the chrono allows you to reroll it. Because it is HIS roll, you cannot roll while off the board in reserves, dead, or any other situation where it is absurd to consider a model still able to contribute to a battle.

Ok thanks. Just to clarify, on the board in a vehicle, he is still allowed his rolls and the crypteks reroles?
Sorry for the repeated questions, don't have access to FAQ from this computer.

Yep, thats ok - because while youre not "on the board" while embarked, you are still in play - otherwise you couldnt fire weapons, etc.

Flashman, just be aware that nosferatu1001 is giving you his interpretation of the implications of the Necron FAQ's. It's far from cut-and-dried, and if you drug Nemesor Dave onto this thread he'd pretty vigorously maintain that the Lord of the Storm power remains in effect with Imotekh in reserve, or even with Imotekh killed.

The relevant codex wording is: "If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn." (etc)

Then, the relevant FAQ q&a entries are:
Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55)
A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

Q: If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units? (p84)
A: No.

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the chronometron.

The original rule clearly states that the Lord of the Storm special rules are a consequence of Imotekh's inclusion in the army, not a direct action such as shooting or casting a psychic power, etc. The single enabling factor for Lord of the Storm effects are inclusion of Imotekh in the army. The subsequent FAQ answers follow the possessive tense of the questions, ie, the first question implicitly assumes Imotekh owns the Night Fighting roll, and the answer is couched in the same terms. But D6 roll "possession", for some undefined by RAW value of "possession", is a weak reed to base a reinterpretation of the codex rule on.

Nosferatu makes the argument that Imotekh cannot exercise a power from reserve, which is actually (he says) what's happening when we make the Night Fighting roll. Actually, in a thread he was arguing over this with N.Dave, he says almost exactly that:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Additionally you CANNOT use powers from reserve, and cannot use "start of turn " "Start of movement phase" powers when you have just arrived from Reserves.

The problem with this is that if he's correct, and you cannot use powers from reserve, then the power isn't Imotekh's - because Imotekh most certainly CAN "use the power", or more accurately the power manifests, when he's in reserve on the first turn. Likewise, if he's mistaken, and you CAN use powers from reserve, well, the argument's also over.

This is the weakest part of his argument, ie, that the Lord of the Storm rules can apply on turn 1 when Imotekh is in reserve, but can't on turn 2 when Imotekh is still in reserve. It ends up in a paradox, and requires a specific exception to his argument, which is a good indication that there's a logical flaw somewhere in the reasoning.

I'm making Nemesor Dave's points here b/c you're getting a one-sided treatment of the question. I myself believe that you and your opponent should recognize this as a gray area and come to an agreement. If I were playing nosferatu, I'd probably play that you had to be on the board to roll. If I were playing Dave, I'd agree that he could roll while in reserve. All I'm saying here is, don't take what nosferatu is saying as black-and-white gospel or you're liable to end up in an argument.

ps - bring beer to the game, that always works.

Very good summary of both sides of the argument.

My take on the paradox you mention is that Imotekh's inclusion in the army starts the storm going, Imotekh himself is the only one who can keep it going.

I'm starting to think the other way. It's inconsistent to say that the power "hops" from global to personal.

I'm starting to think the power IS personal, but the power CAN be employed from reserve. It's more consistent. Edit: but if we were playing, we'd go your way - it's not a big enough deal to make an argument over. The OP must be keeping everything in reserve? That's a bit odd for Necrons, isn't it? Don't see an advantage. But that's tactics, and I'm sure he has reasons.

The ruling on the Chronometron is a big factor inclining me to believe that it is personal.

calypso2ts wrote:Very good summary of both sides of the argument.

My take on the paradox you mention is that Imotekh's inclusion in the army starts the storm going, Imotekh himself is the only one who can keep it going.

This. It's not a paradox. There's a difference between starting the night-fight and keeping it going.

Mannahnin wrote:The ruling on the Chronometron is a big factor inclining me to believe that it is personal.

And that's fine, it's a big reason the INAT ruling that "Lord of the Storm" goes away if he dies feels "right". It also happens to be a "personal" power that we know we can employ from reserve, for at least one turn.

rigeld2 wrote:This. It's not a paradox. There's a difference between starting the night-fight and keeping it going.

A very minor one, and no difference in the power itself. There's no rule-as-written support for separating the power on turn one from the same power on turns two, three, etc. other than probability of successful employment. And there's no rule-as-written support for denying a Necron player the opportunity to make that probability check. Quote:

"...you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn."

No qualifiers. No "if you're not in reserve", no "if you're not dead", you can just do it. If we had one instance of being able to employ that power after dying I'd be arguing in favor of that, too. We don't - but reserve sure doesn't seem to be an impediment.

Tervigons have similar wording. Can I spawn gaunts I'm reserve?

It's his ability and you can't use abilities while in reserve without permission.

If your Tervigons could spawn gaunts from reserve on turn one, and then suddenly lost that ability on turn two, we'd have a parallel situation.

You DO understand that Imotekh CAN use his ability on turn one from reserve, right? (without getting into the argument of whether it's "his" ability or an army effect.)

There are two abilities - manifesting the storm, and trying to keep it gong

One is entirely passive, the other is active.

Find a single instance where someone can use an active power from reserve where this isnt specifically allowed - e.g. Autarchs strategist rule, etc.

I think Randall stated the case for allowing you to roll to continue nightfight from reserve as well or better than I could.

Before the FAQ there was no question, you could roll from reserve. Nightfight begins if your army includes Imotekh, the lightning is a result of the nightfight being in play, and "you" are the one rolling to continue nighfight. Those are the facts from the codex.

The FAQ calls the roll "Imoteks" and creates and implied contradiction.

This implied contradiction from a FAQ is not the same as RAW.

There is no RAW argument against rolling to continue nightfight if Imotekh is dead or in reserve and the codex clearly supports this being allowed.

There is no contradiction; RAW the FAQ is more specific and replaces the codex.

I agree that beforehand there was no issue - it was an army wide ability, meaning no chrono reroll bt gaining you a lot of flexibility. GW decided to screw around with it, and one consequence is that it is a little less powerful

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no contradiction; RAW the FAQ is more specific and replaces the codex.

I agree that beforehand there was no issue - it was an army wide ability, meaning no chrono reroll bt gaining you a lot of flexibility. GW decided to screw around with it, and one consequence is that it is a little less powerful

The FAQ is not answering a question about whether LoS works when Imotekh is off the table, or who is rolling. You are not arguing RAW. You're taking the use of "Imotekhs roll" and wrapping a whole argument around it. There is not even a contextual relationship between the FAQ and your claim.

Actually it's more powerful this way. According to the original wording, chronometron should not work. Now it can be kept going much longer.

Randall Turner wrote:You DO understand that Imotekh CAN use his ability on turn one from reserve, right? (without getting into the argument of whether it's "his" ability or an army effect.)

The ability to keep the storm going?

You do understand that's separate from the "creation" of the storm, right?

Nemesor Dave, I think for the purposes of "Lord of the Storm" employment from reserve, it's irrelevant how closely the power is tied to Imotekh himself. While I agree that the codex phraseology and FAQ wording isn't consistent on this, it doesn't seem germane to the employment from reserve issue.

The weak point in their argument is that they have to somehow do the mental gymnastics to separate the "Lord of the Storm" effects on turn one, from subsequent effects on later turns. They're doing that by attempting to separate the probability of the storm continuing from the storm itself - without any RAW support.

So, their argument goes "sure, fine, LotS the actual power works from reserve, but the die roll, yeah, that's a separate deal right there".

If this sticks in my craw as a beer player, it's going to stick in pretty much anyone's - and the RAW is an irresistible lever to use pulling apart their specious arguments, like so:

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are two abilities - manifesting the storm, and trying to keep it gong

One is entirely passive, the other is active.

Odd, I only see one ability - Lord of the Storm. I see two sentences there. And they're so short, I'll just keep repasting them:
Lord of the Storm:"If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn."
To me, that "furthermore" sorta means the second sentence is a continuation of the first - I mean, if it weren't already totally obvious. Can you provide support for the opposing view?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find a single instance where someone can use an active power from reserve where this isnt specifically allowed - e.g. Autarchs strategist rule, etc.

I see one real concrete instance where this particular power is specifically allowed from reserve, partner. Again: "...the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn." Then, I don't see anywhere it's subsquently dis-allowed, only wording on how to resolve the probability of it continuing. I also seem to be doing a lot of quoting of rules here without reciprocity on your part. Perhaps you could do me the favor of adhering to the tenets of YMDC and provide something a bit more concrete than restating your position?

Nosferatu, that was an example of how to attack your argument, not you. I really don't think any one rule is very important, and if you have the beer, we'll play it your way. In this case, though, I think you're going too far out on a limb and hurting your own credibility.

Anyway, Dave and Nosferatu and all of y'all, I have a question. A bit off topic. What's going on here? I'm a noob, clue me in. Are the positions in YMDC used as input to TNAT? Is this an attempt to maintain tournament rule balance or some such? I don't particularly care about YMDC consensus or specific TNAT rulings on situations I'm familiar with, but I do care that TNAT at least remain an unbiased reference for quick resolution of disputes where I'm not familiar with the situation. This discussion is also making me wonder about other rules discussions, such as the IC attached to units thread you all were hammering on yesterday. I was initially going, "oh, another abstract intellectual exercise here", but after mulling over the arguments in this disagreement, I wonder.

[to be clear: I understand that YMDC consensus, TNAT guidelines, tournament rules in general, and finally HYWPI aren't directly linked - but to maintain they're completely unrelated is disingenuous. Also, specifically re: IC/units - imo It's fairly obvious that the (IC/units) issue isn't well developed in RAW outside of voluntary attachment/detachment - and that Necron propensity for attaching "ever-living" models to fragile infantry units exposes the undeveloped areas. While I agree that it'd benefit from a revisit in a FAQ release, RAW supports the "IC as a unit" interpretation, albeit indirectly.]

Randall Turner is totally spot on with this(and just for GP the INAT Faq agrees).

There is nothing attaching the ownership of the ability specifically to the Stormlord, it is an army ability that YOU(as in the player) continue to roll for. It could even be argued that the ability could continue after Imotek's death.

This is the same type of army wide rule as Draigo making Paladins a Troops choice, they do not revert back to being Elite if Draigo is killed or held in reserve.

Randall Turner wrote: I also seem to be doing a lot of quoting of rules here without reciprocity on your part. Perhaps you could do me the favor of adhering to the tenets of YMDC and provide something a bit more concrete than restating your position?

Whoa! Passive aggressive at all? Stop being snarky and stick to the facts.

There are two distinct parts to the rule Lord of the Storm. The first being that the Night Fighting rules apply. The second (separated by a period on purpose since the sentence construction of ",furthermore," is entirely valid) is continuing the storm.

The precedent set by the Necron FAQ suggest it is Imotekh's roll. First with...

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fight continues...A: No he can attempt it....

Consistent with Imotekh making the roll is the ruling...

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord....only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the Chronometron...

To be consistent with the Chronometron, Imotekh must own the roll. This is backed up by the reference to Imotekh making the roll in the related FAQ question. A model not on the board is not in play and does not get to make these kinds of rolls (consistent with Psychic Communion, Farseer powers et cetera from past rulings).


As far as I know...
The INAT is maintained by a separate group of individuals, I think Yakface is the nominal head of it but I am not keyed in on its workings. I do know that YMDC is for discussion, that occasionally a post relevant to the INAT will be made and voted on so they can decide how to consistently represent the rules within the context of the existing books and GW FAQ's/Erratas.

There is something attaching the ownership to the Stormlord - the FAQ. Not only the Chrono question, but it's referred to as Imohtek's Lord of the Storm ability in a different question - indicating possession.

An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

calypso2ts wrote:Whoa! Passive aggressive at all? Stop being snarky and stick to the facts.

The "facts" are that you aren't providing rule quotes to support the key elements of your position, partner. Call it snarky, it's also fact. ie..

calypso2ts wrote:There are two distinct parts to the rule Lord of the Storm. The first being that the Night Fighting rules apply. The second (separated by a period on purpose since the sentence construction of ",furthermore," is entirely valid) is continuing the storm.

There's actually quite a few sentences describing the Lord of the Storm ability, including strike probability, hit count, damage, etc. More than two. Call them "parts", "sentences", whatever, I don't care. I'll dispute that a sentence-ending "period" allows you to disassociate a particular probability roll from the remainder of the ability, though. For the same reason we treat "counts as" equivalent to "is" - we start parsing punctuation as ability-separators we'll end up with a half-dozen "abilities" per special rule. Then, as far as "abilities" go, the RAW clearly treat them and their ability to be employed from reserve, not individual die rolls! (see below) Please provide a rule quote that supports your position here, as it's the crux of your argument.

calypso2ts wrote:
The precedent set by the Necron FAQ suggest it is Imotekh's roll. First with...

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fight continues...A: No he can attempt it....

Consistent with Imotekh making the roll is the ruling...

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord....only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the Chronometron...

To be consistent with the Chronometron, Imotekh must own the roll. This is backed up by the reference to Imotekh making the roll in the related FAQ question. A model not on the board is not in play and does not get to make these kinds of rolls (consistent with Psychic Communion, Farseer powers et cetera from past rulings).

I do not care who "owns" the "rolls", it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Imotekh's ability is applicable from reserve. "Roll ownership" isn't treated anywhere in RAW, and as such is an informal "touchy-feely" argument without binding power in these arguments. If you disagree - provide a cite saying otherwise!

Regarding employment of abilities from reserve - this most defintely is treated in the rules, so let's quote rules! Looking at the pertinent BRB entries:

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

The "Lord of the Storm" ability specifically states that it's applied on turn one, INCLUDING rolling for lightning hits, strikes, damage, etc. (Some gray area on cover saves, but there ARE rolls made during the first turn.) The rule doesn't specifically state that it applies while Imotekh is "alive" it states that... "If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord," , which is arguably more permissive. Your argument is that somehow those first-turn rolls aren't "owned" by Imotekh, including the probability rolls for strikes, but the probability rolls for continuation are "owned' - please provide some basis in RAW for "ownership of rolls" vs. "ownership of ability", which is clearly treated.

Then, as far as similar rules go, counter-examples selected at random...

IG.31A.02 – Q: Does the Astropath's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification]. Ref: IG.31C.01, RB.94B.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

IG.31C.01 – Q: Does an Officer of the Fleet's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, RB.94B.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01,TYR.59B.03

The defining characteristic of these abilities' employment from reserve is that the enabling character be alive. That is all.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

You mean the ERRATA portion of the FAQ? That is very different from answering a question about an ability.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

You mean the ERRATA portion of the FAQ? That is very different from answering a question about an ability.

No, I absolutely don't.
The Venomthrope Q/A is not in the Errata portion of the FAQ and absolutely changes a BRB rule.
The SitW Q/A I'm referring to is the fact that SitW extends inside vehicles. It used to not. One of those two options changed a rule.

Randall Turner wrote:
There's actually quite a few sentences describing the Lord of the Storm ability...we start parsing punctuation as ability-separators...

Far more sensible to examine punctuation than to arbitrarily decide the word furthermore must unite two separate thoughts/actions/ideas/events. I will use punctuation to distinguish between ideas when, here is the shocker, two ideas are presented!

Randall Turner wrote:
Then, as far as "abilities" go, the RAW clearly treat them and their ability to be employed from reserve, not individual die rolls! (see below) Please provide a rule quote that supports your position here, as it's the crux of your argument.

I do not care who "owns" the "rolls", it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Imotekh's ability is applicable from reserve. "Roll ownership" isn't treated anywhere in RAW, and as such is an informal "touchy-feely" argument without binding power in these arguments. If you disagree - provide a cite saying otherwise!

I do not have to 'prove' a unit cannot make rolls from reserve, you need to prove that it can.

Randall Turner wrote:
RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

Thank you for locating that. Does Imotekh's rule say that he can roll to continue the storm from reserve? It does say that including him is enough for Night Fighting on turn 1, it DOES NOT say you can roll to keep it going from reserve. I know that Imotekh is tied to this ability because it says so in the Necron FAQ's, specifically that it is his ability.

Since he is in reserve, I am looking for specific rules quotes here. Assuming you can make a roll for an ability while in reserve without permission to do so is a bit too touchy feely for me.


I am sorry, I did not see any of the counter examples you were talking about that involved a model in reserve taking an action like a psychic test or continuing a magical storm...

Randall - the rules have been provided countless times in the other threads, whcih if you had searched you would have seen.
Snarkiness this early in, brilliant start.

There are two abilities - one passive, the other not - unless you feel rolling a dice is a passive ability?

So, assuming you agree that the two sentences show separate abilities, one passive the other active, presumably you can now find ANY example anywhere of ANY active ability being used while in Reserve, where it hasnt been explicitly allowed?

When you have shown permission to use Imotekhs dice roll from Reserve, please post it here for us all to see. Anything mentioning reserves at all will do, really


NecronLord - youre back claiming that FAQs dont change rules? Hilarious. They do, all the freaking time. Errata chanegs the rules text, which may or may not change the operation of the rule.

hmm... does "snarky" mean, "doesn't agree with me"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, assuming you agree that the two sentences show separate abilities, one passive the other active, presumably you can now find ANY example anywhere of ANY active ability being used while in Reserve, where it hasnt been explicitly allowed?

Of course I don't agree to that. The "Lord of the Storm" ability is one single ability. (How many "abilities" do you read as being presented there? Just curious.) And I can find numerous examples of abilities with multiple, complex associated actions - they're still referred to as single abilities in the rules.

Regarding "the rules have been provided countless times in other threads" - what rules are you referring to? I've got every FAQ, codex, BRB errata, etc. at my fingertips here, provide a quote.

Randall Turner wrote:Of course I don't agree to that. The "Lord of the Storm" ability is one single ability. (How many "abilities" do you read as being presented there? Just curious.) And I can find numerous examples of abilities with multiple, complex associated actions - they're still referred to as single abilities in the rules.

Then I'd argue that if Imotekh is in Reserve, none of the ability works.
Cite the rule that allows the use of an active ability while in Reserve.

Either you split off the first part, or it's all one and none of it works.

And every single FAQ that involved Lord of the Storm referred to it as his ability. Just FYI. FAQs can change rules.

It's undecided until a further faq update addresses it.

The ability gives express permission to start at the beginning of the game sans any modifiers or caring about Imotekh's status beyond being in an army list. You aren't allowed to split up the ability into half active and half passive even though that makes the most sense, it is simply the 'lord of the storm' special rule.

The wording of the faq implies it is an owned active ability to continue the storm but it doesn't do anything but explicitly give permission to re-roll with a cryptek, it doesn't forbid Imotekh from using it no matter what what his status or location is, simply that he can't re-roll unless he's in a unit with a chronometron. It makes sense that he can't use an owned active ability if he's in reserves or dead, but that isn't a question the faq answers and a lack of other similar examples of active abilities being used from reserves does not forbid this active ability, which is part of a special rule given express permission to activate at the start of the game regardless of the special character's status or location.

If you're a TO I'd go with the active / passive split ruling, but there's no concrete argument to be made for or against it in RAW right now.

Randall - no, just your attitude so far is... irksome.

There is one special rule that has multiple abilities. One is active, the other passive.

Find allowance to roll dice for a model that is in Reserve. Until you can find permission to do so, you cannot. Argue all you like, you cannot alter that basic fact, and you will be unable to do so because it doesnt exist.

The existence or lack of other "active abilities" that function from reserve isn't relevent, particularly as the Necron codex contains a number of unique rules and particularly environmental abilities.

The use of a "while alive" ability from reserve is generally excepted from the "no abilities from reserve" rule, per quote my prev post.
The qualifier for "Lord of the Storm" ability is "inclusion of Imotekh", which is very similar to "while alive" and at least as broad.

And finally, the explicit mandate that the "Lord of the Storm" ability is active turn one, without qualifiers, as an explicit ability enabler reinforces the "while alive" analog.

Actinium, I wouldn't want to set a precedent by disallowing it in a tournament. Once again, it's a credibility thing - purely RAW, it's allowed, and I believe (as Nemesor Dave does) that it's also ROI consistent to allow it. That means subsequent FAQ's are liable to allow it.

hold on...

okay, we have Graeme Nicoll in the office here on other business, one of our producers suggested I simply email the question to him for forwarding to his rule guys. The YMDC tenets accept GW email responses as valid, perhaps we can get it resolved.

EDIT:

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is one special rule that has multiple abilities. One is active, the other passive.

ANY rule support for this assertion would be nice.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find allowance to roll dice for a model that is in Reserve. Until you can find permission to do so, you cannot. Argue all you like, you cannot alter that basic fact, and you will be unable to do so because it doesnt exist.

Sure, Ez. Imotekh's "Lord of the Storm" ability, roll to-hit for lightning strikes on turn one. (Somehow I don't think that's going to make you happy.)

Randall Turner wrote:The YMDC tenets accept GW email responses as valid, perhaps we can get it resolved.

They actually don't. But have fun.

Seems like 3 people who already have opinions set in stone are trying to argue this out, and the only consensus is:

"Check with your group, decide for yourselves."

The arguement has probably been made, but I'm just curious:

How can the Stormlord have two abilities when the FAQ states not only that he can reroll with a chrono, but ALSO that he can roll on turn one?

Does it change from a passive to an active the moment the game starts? That seems really arbitrary to me, if the ability for the first turn is still the passive, then why can the stormlord roll for it at all? And if the ability for the first turn is the active, why can he roll for it from reserve?

As I read the FAQ it indirectly solves this argument... But maybe I'm missing some crazy detail? As I understand it Rulebook < Codex < FAQ.

EDIT: Just to clarify - I don't think it's two separate abilities, one active, one passive. I think it's related to the Stormlord becuase he brings it, and he's the focal point, but as long as he's "a part" of the army, the army gets it. Something in reserve is still part of the army. Something dead isn't. It's that simple to me.

Also - The only reason I can see for including in the FAQ "Q:Can you roll to check for night fighting on turn one" Is to make things clear in the case of an argument just like this. What other purpose would pointing this (A: Yes, you can) out on the FAQ serve?

Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

As I'm posting in-clear, not anonymous, and I'll attribute any email response I get to the GW responder, I don't think the "spoofed" issue is, well, an issue.

E-mails are by and large jokes because they are notoriously unreliable and contradictory, not because they are possibly faked.

Randall Turner wrote:

Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

As I'm posting in-clear, not anonymous, and I'll attribute any email response I get to the GW responder, I don't think the "spoofed" issue is, well, an issue.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:37 PM
> To: rigeld2
> Subject: LOLEMAILS
>
> Yes, emails are impossible to spoof.
> Even when not typing them on a forum, it's trivial to spoof a from address.
> Again, have fun.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Viti wrote:As I understand it Rulebook < Codex < FAQ.

False. Specific > General. Doesn't matter where the rules lie, it's always Specific > General.

Also - The only reason I can see for including in the FAQ "Q:Can you roll to check for night fighting on turn one" Is to make things clear in the case of an argument just like this. What other purpose would pointing this (A: Yes, you can) out on the FAQ serve?

I don't see that question/answer in the Necron FAQ - can you give me a page number?

The purpose of attribution is to allow independent verification. <sigh>

And the point about potential contradiction is well-taken, Actium, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

Edit: Deleted.

Anyone feel free to site the rule in the BrB that states units can't use abilities in reserve?

Permissive rule set; it's not what we "can't do" it's what we "can do"

Altimera wrote:Permissive rule set; it's not what we "can't do" it's what we "can do"

Fair enough. So if 'you' can roll to continue Night Fighting, then there must be a specific rule to stop you from doing so or denying such permissions. Hence why it was a question if GK could use Psychic Communion from reserve, question asked answered no. So until the question is answered by a GW FAQ with the answer, 'no you may not roll to continue night fighting' then you may as it is specifically allowed by the rules entry in the Necron Codex.

Active Vs. Passive are two made up classifications of abilities that are nowhere in RAW. You can't just decide - LoS works from reserve part of the time, but not all the time without a precise explanation in the codex or FAQ.

The FAQ says "his roll" simply to identify the roll coming from the LoS special rule which is Imotekhs special rule. It does not change RAW. The codex tells you what conditions are required to be allowed to reroll for night fight - "if nightfight is in play".

So this does not mean that the Nightfight is kept in play by Imotekh and the lightning does not come from Imotekh though it could be called "Imotekhs lightning" simply because it is caused by a special rule granted by including Imotekh in your army. The FAQ grants an additional ability under a specific circumstance. Nowhere does the FAQ take away any permission already granted by the codex.

As explained clearly in the codex the roll is granted if nightfight is in play -it is you who may roll to continue it.

INAT is great for HWYPI and that is the purpose of that document and has no relation to discussion based on RAW. INAT was never meant to be strictly based on RAW.

Randall Turner wrote:The purpose of attribution is to allow independent verification. <sigh>
.

Emails are pointless in this forum. Dont bother posting one, as anyone can post up another generic "yourquestions@GW" style email stating the opposite. The funny thing? Chances are it is probably real as well - theyre not the most consistent at answering questions. Any "ruling" you post will be ignored by everyone as not worth the pixels it has been displayed with.

The email does NOT go to the Studio. It is NOT authoritative. It does NOT have any binding force outside of the person who received the email and anyone they can persuade to listen to it, given it is in an entirely unverifiable form of communication. Official GE FAQs are what are required.

"sigh" back at you. You dont know what youre posting, and why theyre generally met with scorn, showing a naivety on your part.

Oh, and you dont get to prove an exception by using the case as an exception. Thats just a terrible way to argue.

Until there is a FAQ ALLOWING it to be used by Imotekh while in reserve, it cannot be used by Imotekh while in Reserve.

Lord of the Storm includes a big exception.

"If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord..."

It says "includes" not "on the battlefield" or anything else. That's pretty good coverage.

I do not believe it is correct to split this exception away from later sentences. The very next sentence begins with "Furthermore," fancy-man speak for "and". The next paragraph begins with "In addition," also fancy-man speak for "and". Who the ability belongs to is irrelevant. If all that's required is for Imotekh to be in the army for the dice to be rolled, the dice get rolled and the storm goes on.

I do not think I am stretching any wording of the ability to allow this. It gives the exception at the beginning, covering every sentence afterwards. That's how exceptions work. You don't get to ignore it just because the text doesn't restate the exception every time the ability is further explained. Can you imagine what that would look like? Better yet, here you go:

"If your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. If your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the tart of the turn. If the result is greater than the turn number, and your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, the storm continues and the Night Fighting rules remain in play. If not, and your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules cease to be in effect and are not used for the rest of the battle.

If your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, whilst the Night Fighting rules remain in play, roll a D6 for each unengaged enemy unit on the battlefield at the start of each Necron Shooting phase. On a roll of a 6, and your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord, that unit is struck by a bolt of lightning and suffers D6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits (Vehicles are hit on their side armour). Note that Night Fighting rules broutght in to play by a Solar Pulse do not generate lighting even If your army inludes Imotekh the Stormlord."

Also, I'm inclined to believe that if Imotekh is killed (fails EL) or falls back off the board, Night Fighting should end. Your army doesn't include Imotekh if he's been killed or fled from it. It does include Imotekh if he's waiting in reserves or on the table. Just an aside with no relevance to the current discussion.

Fafnir13 wrote:
Also, I'm inclined to believe that if Imotekh is killed (fails EL) or falls back off the board, Night Fighting should end. Your army doesn't include Imotekh if he's been killed or fled from it. It does include Imotekh if he's waiting in reserves or on the table. Just an aside with no relevance to the current discussion.

Ah, actually, no, nightfight can be continued if nightfight is in play. Regardless of him being alive or dead.

Including Imotekh is the requirement for the LoS to begin.


[edit sorry, retraction!]

How is Imotekh rolling for night fight to continue if HE is dead?

There is no longer a HE to roll. Or are you ignoring the FAQ again?

nosferatu1001 wrote:How is Imotekh rolling for night fight to continue if HE is dead?

There is no longer a HE to roll. Or are you ignoring the FAQ again?

He is not rolling. We covered this already.

Ah, so you ARE ignoring the FAQ - thats the only way you can conclude that, when they say HE is rolling the actually he ISNT roling.

Good to know - anymore doublethink I need to know?

(You "covered" it by pretending the FAQ said something different to that which is actually said. About as blatant an attempt at diversion from the written fact as is possible to get, but I'm not hugely shocked)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, so you ARE ignoring the FAQ - thats the only way you can conclude that, when they say HE is rolling the actually he ISNT roling.

Good to know - anymore doublethink I need to know?

(You "covered" it by pretending the FAQ said something different to that which is actually said. About as blatant an attempt at diversion from the written fact as is possible to get, but I'm not hugely shocked)

The FAQ does not say that he is rolling. The FAQ calls it his roll. This is implied, but that is not enough to change the RAW or the conditions for making that roll.

It depends how you interpret "If your army includes". I interpret it as anything deployed (on the table) or deployable (in reserves), but that isn't necessarily correct. Does anyone know of any similar rule or FAQ that might clarify what "If your army includes" is supposed to mean?

ND - lol, so its his roll but someone else performs the roll on his behalf? It is HIS roll because a) it says so and b) the chronometron cannot work without it.

Your attempts at wiggling out of clear wording stating the exact opposite of what you are caliming is a sight to behold.

Fafnir13 wrote:It depends how you interpret "If your army includes". I interpret it as anything deployed (on the table) or deployable (in reserves), but that isn't necessarily correct. Does anyone know of any similar rule or FAQ that might clarify what "If your army includes" is supposed to mean?

The phrase "if your army includes" is a substitute for "while alive", Fafnir, phraseology necessitated b/c Necrons aren't "alive".

Which of course places it into the most common exception for employing abilities from reserve: (emphasis mine)

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01,TYR.59B.03

Randall Turner wrote:The phrase "if your army includes" is a substitute for "while alive", Fafnir, phraseology necessitated b/c Necrons aren't "alive".

False. Surprise Attack! ability for Cato Sicarius says "An army that includes..." and Space Marines are very much alive.

In fact, all of the Chapter Tactics in SM state that if you include "X" in you are army, everyone with "Combat Tactics" replaces it with "Y". And as rigeld pointed out, Space Marines are very much alive.

All the above SM abilities apply with the owning character in reserve. All apply whether the owning model is alive or not.

Your main point here seems to be Imotekh's ability should continue after "death", for some value of death?

Edit: @rigeld - lol no it's just your logic fail. Look, guys -

"If (A) then (B)" in no way implies, "if (B) then (A)", ie,

if (model is not alive) then (don't use phrase "while alive") does not imply, if (don't use phrase "while alive") then (model is not alive).

What if Imotekh dies?

Order of events:
1) Nightfight is for the game turn.
2) Halfway through the opponents shooting phase Imotekh is killed.
3) Night fight is still for the game turn - the same as a tech priests bolster defenses is "for the duration of the game".

So nightfight doesn't end when he dies.

This is important because otherwise subsequent turns would fail because the rule requires nightfight to be in effect to continue it.

The reason it works if Imotekh is dead is because the rule defines how the rule works on all subsequent turns.
If your army includes Imotekh on turn one do X and on subsequent turns do Y.

At the start of the game the rule tells you what action there is first turn, and subsequent turns. The same as bolster defenses says it works for the entire game. The rule is part of the techmarines special rules, but it doesn't end when he dies.

On turn two, the way this rule acts is Y, because on turn one, Imotekh was included. The condition that allows the nightfight roll, is only that nightfight is still in effect.

On turn 2, when Imotekh comes to roll the dice to see if Night Fight continues, he is dead and so cannot roll it.

As you cannot roll a 4+, Night Fight ends.

It doesnt go away as soon as he dies, just when you next come to make the roll you cannot roll.

Has any one ever seen Imotekh die on round two? just wondering how this sort of thing would change and alter the out come of the game. I've played Imotekh when codex was first released.. yeah necrons do well on night fight.. first round or two but after that you want to open it up for your guys to Dakka Dakka Dakka, the enemy. i took some wounds on imotekh but went seven rounds and still no dead.. but still this is a good thread to read. i agree with the codex and FAQ .. i'm just saying .

Yes, I've seen him die - Night fight doesnt do a lot against close up trueborn blasters blowing Imotekhs ghost barge (wel, the warriors, but they know their place....) and him being assaulted by wytches. He doesnt do well against wytches.

nosferatu1001 wrote:On turn 2, when Imotekh comes to roll the dice to see if Night Fight continues, he is dead and so cannot roll it.

As you cannot roll a 4+, Night Fight ends.

It doesnt go away as soon as he dies, just when you next come to make the roll you cannot roll.

Except that, being a army wide rule, the death has no effect on Lord of the Storm.

NecronLord3 wrote:
Except that, being a army wide rule, the death has no effect on Lord of the Storm.

It was army wide rule, until GW FAQ:d the keeping night fight up to be his personal rule. Because
1) If it's army wide rule, Chrono cannot work (as it's not Imhotek's roll, but general, army wide roll)
2) If Chronometron works, it is Imhotek making the roll, which he cannot do unless he is alive and on table.

Basically, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Before FAQ it was (obviously as per Necron Codex) number 1 and now it is number 2.

And any claims that non-errata portion of FAQ's don't alter rules are blatantly false.

There are multitude of examples presented, here's just one of them:
"Q: If a model with a Nemsesis Force halberd has had
his Initiative reduced to a fixed number by an
ability/special rule, do they still get the +2 Initiative
from the Halberd? (p54)"
A: No. (GK FAQ version 1.1)
A: Yes. (GK FAQ, version 1.2)

If someone claims that non-errata FAQ don't change rules, I'd like to see how one can argue that neither of those two, completely contradictory answers changed any rules. By definition, one of the answers MUST have changed rules, which makes that argument completely invalid.
There are multitude of examples like this, SiTW etc.

GW reversing its decision on the answer to a question, does not alter the rules. It alters the answer to a question on the rules. Just as GW answering a question on whether or not the Chronometron works with Imotek answers that question it does not alter an entire unrelated section of the Codexes rules. The Necron codex specifically defines the Lord of the storm ability to be an army wide rule, nothing has yet altered that. Play it how you want to, but that is not RaW,

The question to answer here is not if the rules allow this but whether this action violates any rule. A subtle difference that has huge ramifications.

Looking over the reserve rules (and the BRB faq) I see nothing prohibiting special rules from being used from reserve, aside from not being able to find los of or to measure distance from a model not on the board.

Though the brb faq does say

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now for LoS to violate that rule the ability would have to occur at the start of the turn. I'd argue that the ability occurs at the start of the game and makes you to roll at start of each turn, and thus does not violate the ruling in the faq.

Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there). It only says that the roll determining if the night fighting rule stays in effect, if an army contains Imotekh, can be rerolled only if the cryptek with the chronometron is in the same unit as Imotekh. Nothing there implies ownership of the roll for night fighting to continue.

NecronLord3 wrote:GW reversing its decision on the answer to a question, does not alter the rules. It alters the answer to a question on the rules. Just as GW answering a question on whether or not the Chronometron works with Imotek answers that question it does not alter an entire unrelated section of the Codexes rules. The Necron codex specifically defines the Lord of the storm ability to be an army wide rule, nothing has yet altered that. Play it how you want to, but that is not RaW,

So, when GW change the rules by changing their answer, that isnt them changing their rules? They said the rules work X way, they now say the rules work Y way. That is literally a change to the rules.

LOL. Or wait, am I now Rigeld again? Which account am I posting from??

THe FAQ defined it as HIS roll. He cannot make HIS roll when HE is dead, because HE cannot do anytyhing while dead that isnt explicitly defined. So, when it comes round to the start of the roll, one criteria for making the rolls (was night fighting still in play?) may be fulfilled, but you cannot then roll the dice because the person required to roll the dice isnt allowed to. Thus ending night fighting.

The rule is army wide, the roll GW changed the rules to make it Imotekh making the roll

Venomthrope FAQ absolutely changed the rules as they apply to the Venomthrope.

FAQs can change rules. Errata can change wording.

Actually Errata does change wording, and they may change the function of the rule (For example - errata to remove Waaagh! from non-Infantry Ork models changed the letter but not the function of the rule, as it never applied to them anyway) but are not required to.

Tarrasq wrote:The question to answer here is not if the rules allow this but whether this action violates any rule. A subtle difference that has huge ramifications.

Looking over the reserve rules (and the BRB faq) I see nothing prohibiting special rules from being used from reserve, aside from not being able to find los of or to measure distance from a model not on the board.

Though the brb faq does say

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now for LoS to violate that rule the ability would have to occur at the start of the turn. I'd argue that the ability occurs at the start of the game and makes you to roll at start of each turn, and thus does not violate the ruling in the faq.

Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there). It only says that the roll determining if the night fighting rule stays in effect, if an army contains Imotekh, can be rerolled only if the cryptek with the chronometron is in the same unit as Imotekh. Nothing there implies ownership of the roll for night fighting to continue.

Absolutely correct in every way!

No ownership implied? Imotekh's Lord of the Storm rule, his roll... How is ownership not implied when they use possessive la gauge throughout?

Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

Implied is not RAW. Stick to the tenets of YMDC. You are drawing conclusions based on what you believe the wording of the FAQ implies about the wording of the codex. If that were an acceptable form of argument we could draw all kinds of conclusions based on implied scenarios from far more than just this FAQ.

An implied change is not enough to go on by the tenets of YMDC.

The codex precisely gives YOU permission to roll to continue nightfight in subsequent turns if nightfight is in effect. The sentence you're looking for is something like "You may roll to continue nightfight if nightfight is in effect and Imotekh is in play.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

Since the question is not specifically asked and addressed per the FAQ you cannot alter the entire rules section for a unit. When the FAQ addresses it, there will be an answer. Until then Specific trumps general and the FAQ only vaguely refers to the matter in a question that effects the Chronotron. Doesn't address LotS. LotS is an army wide ability, per the Codex.

Tarrasq wrote:Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there).

NecronLord3 wrote:Absolutely correct in every way!

That's what I was referring to with my post. Sorry for not quoting it. I couldn't care less about the rest of this debate anymore, I was simply addressing that statement.

Have fun.

The question not being directly addressed isnt important: they answered and asked that HE rolls.

No implication there, a straight up assertion that HE rolls.

Feel free to ignore the FAQ, but as per the tenets of YMDC you must point this out as it is not following accepted rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The question not being directly addressed isnt important: they answered and asked that HE rolls.

No implication there, a straight up assertion that HE rolls.

Feel free to ignore the FAQ, but as per the tenets of YMDC you must point this out as it is not following accepted rules.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Entries refer to LotS:

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night
Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55)
A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

and

[Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a
Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to
see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek
with the chronometron.[/u]

2 FAQ Entries. One refers to the roll as an army ability, the other as "he" rolling so they conflict in the same document. What other piece of reference material do we have to go off of? The Codex, that specifically and in every way refers to this repeatedly as an Army ability. Sense the Codex is really the most important piece of material, as it is the most specific and directly addresses the rules in question, using one off word in an FAQ entry to rewrite the entire section of LotS, is out of line and totally unwarranted.

You are reaching. To suggest that it is debatable or possible to be altered by GW in a future FAQ, is fair. But as of right now RaW is very clearly making LotS an army wide rule unaffected by the physical location of Imotek other than in regard to the Chronometron allowing a reroll when attached to the same squad as Imotek.

Actually, the second question implies ownership as well, since that's how the Chrono works.

Again, you dont seem to know how the chrono works - it requires the reroll to be of a roll that was made by a member of the unit.

So, two claims of ownership, one DIRECT the other necessary for the answer to follow the rules.

That's consistency right there - again, you can ignore the FAQ if you like, but thats no longer RAW

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, the second question implies ownership as well, since that's how the Chrono works.

It in no way changes the wording of the Codex, still an Army Wide ability.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, you dont seem to know how the chrono works - it requires the reroll to be of a roll that was made by a member of the unit.

So, two claims of ownership, one DIRECT the other necessary for the answer to follow the rules.

That's consistency right there - again, you can ignore the FAQ if you like, but thats no longer RAW

Again you are ignoring the specific permissions allowed by the Necron Codex entry, and you ignore the first FAQ entry addressing the issue which reiterates that it is an army wide ability.

Sorry, you dont seem to get specific vs general.

The FAQ is more specific than the codex, so you follw the FAQ. The FAQ has stated that it is HIS roll, and has not altered the rules for the chrono requiring Imotekh to be in the unit with the chrono cryptek.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, you dont seem to get specific vs general.

The FAQ is more specific than the codex, so you follw the FAQ. The FAQ has stated that it is HIS roll, and has not altered the rules for the chrono requiring Imotekh to be in the unit with the chrono cryptek.

And you are ignoring that the FAQ is considered "soft" rules versus the codex and erratta which are considered official RAW. Specific permission allowed by the codex trump vague references in the FAQ.

Are you ignoring that according to the tenets of YMDC that the posted FAQs (which include both errata and FAQ) are considered RAW?

Happyjew wrote:Are you ignoring that according to the tenets of YMDC that the posted FAQs (which include both errata and FAQ) are considered RAW?

And you all are ignoring something specifically stated in both the FAQ and Codex making LotS an army special ability not requiring Imotek to be in play in order to use. Something vaguely referencing a question about an entirely different ability is not overriding the RAW of the Codex until it is erratad or specifically addressed in the FAQ.

What, the answer to the question that requires Imotekh to be in the unit that has the Chronocryptek otherwise the chrono doesnt get to reroll? And the part where it specifically states HE rolls it? The 2 consistent answers? Those answers?

Theyre not "soft" accordig to the tenets of this forum and most tournaments out there

nosferatu1001 wrote:What, the answer to the question that requires Imotekh to be in the unit that has the Chronocryptek otherwise the chrono doesnt get to reroll? And the part where it specifically states HE rolls it? The 2 consistent answers? Those answers?

Theyre not "soft" accordig to the tenets of this forum and most tournaments out there

Nothing alters the codex wording at all, identifying the LotS ability as an ability of the army containing Imotekh. It simply gives you permissions to do things not addressed in the codex.

I still think ownership of the roll is irrelevant. You get to use the ability if your army includes Immotekh. That's what the codex says and the FAQ did not change that.

I'm still up in the air on the whole lightning while dead thing though. I took, "If your army includes..." at it's plain English meaning and assumed that a dead model was no longer considered included. Is it just the generally accepted terminology in Warhammer that "army includes" doesn't care about the status of the model?

I think thats a great argument for LotS not happening when Imotekh dies, Fafnir.

I personally think that first LotS Necron Faq answer was a bit of a joke. He can attempt to roll for it but he doesn't have to...since you're rolling for an army wide rule there hehe. That would also explain why the chronometron works in that situation. Imotekh just decided he'd roll this time so his cryptek buddy would give him another chance.

All jokes aside, trying to explain why rules are the way they are doesn't matter as far as RAW is concerned. All the faq says is that for this special rule a piece of wargear can modify this rule if certain conditions are met. It doesn't apply to any other special rule just this one. It's an exception for LotS nothing more.

The debate over roll ownership still doesn't matter. It changes nothing because he can still use it in reserve even if it said specifically Imotekh rolls the dice, use the model to physically touch the die to roll it for this rule.

I also want to admit that rigeld2 is right in reference to my use of the word implies in my previous post. Reading the chronometron rule does seem to imply Imotekh owns the roll. However as stated previously , and I want to stress this again, what the rules imply is not the rules as written.

Tarrasq wrote:The debate over roll ownership still doesn't matter. It changes nothing because he can still use it in reserve even if it said specifically Imotekh rolls the dice, use the model to physically touch the die to roll it for this rule.

Exactly. Ownership is irrelevant. We have a specific overriding a general. Stipulating ownership, logic goes like this:

A. [general] LotS written as "Army Effect" rule, generally may be used from reserve.
B. [specific] Chronometron affects Imotekh, hence LotS is "Personal Ability".
C. [general] "Personal Ability" generally may not be used from reserve.
D. [specific] LotS specifically allows ability's use on first turn, may be used from reserve.

We end up at, "may be used from reserve".

Because there's no specific enabler for post-death (heh, ded necrons) usage, there we're at "may not be used after death".

No you end up with an ability that forces night fighting in first turn if your army includes Imhotekh.

If you want to continue night fighting, then Imotekh must roll to do so. If he is not on the board, he cannot do the rolling.

Happyjew wrote:No you end up with an ability that forces night fighting in first turn if your army includes Imhotekh.

If you want to continue night fighting, then Imotekh must roll to do so. If he is not on the board, he cannot do the rolling.

And the codex doesn't specify he owns the roll. Its specifically says YOU.

NOW we descend into logical fail land.

Happyjew, does Imotekh own the LotS ability? (If you say yes...)

Does he employ the ability on turn one? (If you say yes...)

Can he be in reserve when he does so? (If you say yes...)

you're screwed. So the question is where you go off-track, and where you do so determines your logical fail point. I'm pretty sure you're going to end up back at Nosferatu's "two separate abilities" point, just want to make sure...

Edit: NecronLord3, don't argue ownership. It's (LotS) an ability. Imotekh either owns it or he doesn't. It's pretty clear the original intent was that he doesn't, but it's also pretty clear the person who answered the FAQ's wasn't the original rule writer - and for better or worse, he didn't adhere to the original rule's conventions.

And the FAQ changed it so the roll belongs to Imotekh, otherwise, you would not be able to use the chronometron to re-roll.

Happyjew wrote:And the FAQ changed it so the roll belongs to Imotekh, otherwise, you would not be able to use the chronometron to re-roll.

It changed nothing. The FAQ gave permission to use the Chronotron. Nothing more.

Let's see:

If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn.

This means if you include Imotekh, regardless of what happens from there on out, Night Fighting rules apply in Game Turn 1.

Furthermore you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn.

This tells us that at the time the codex was released, keeping the night fighting rule was an army-wide ability unlocked by including Imotekh.
When the FAQ was released, rolling to keep Night Fighting in effect, became the personal property of Imotekh. This means that if he is dead, or in Reserves (in other words, not in play), he cannot roll to keep Night Fighting in effect.

As it is I already know you're not ever going to agree with me, so I am done responding in this thread.

A really good time to bail on a thread is when you're about to get intellectually raked over the coals.

Happyjew wrote:When the FAQ was released, rolling to keep Night Fighting in effect, became the personal property of Imotekh.

When the FAQ was released, the LotS ability became the personal property of Imotekh. (Arguably, I'll stipulate it.)

Your wording here attempts to further decompose the LotS ability into the initial turn 1 effect, which you'd like to keep as an abstract army-wide ability, and the continuation roll, which you'd like to cherry-pick as a separate ability that's owned by Imotekh.

This is what's known as, "making gak up".

Unfortunately, as Tarrasq helpfully points out, the only BRB wording we have on the issue refers to "abilities" as a whole, ie...

Tarrasq wrote:Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

There's some more wording in different codex FAQ's which we can reproduce here if you'd like, but what it boils down to is there's no support for decomposing an ability into separate parts, some of which may or may not, considered individually, qualify for use from reserve.

tl;dr - You can't break up an ability into smaller abilities, it's an atomic whole.

No, the ability did not become his - the roll became his.

He can attempt to roll for it but he doesn't have to...since you're rolling for an army wide rule there hehe.

This is brilliant. This is the way to prove the FAQ does not contradict the Codex... Next game I play rock-paper-scissors with Imothek about who rolls for Night fighting.

I get whats the problem though and I am on your side Nos. Stupid answer though. But still official. There is nothing to argue about it.

I still have yet to see someone try to disprove my main arguement, that abilities that dont measure distance from that particular or involve line of sight from that model can be used from reserve. Which in this instance is all that matters. Who owns the roll makes no difference. The only rule that concerns abilities and reserves is in the BRB faq only concerns units coming in from reserve and only abilities that occur at the start if the turn.

Anyone have an official rule that my main argument violates? Otherwise rolls can be made and abilites can be used from reserve.

That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

Which LotS, and the FAQ does( also the INAT FAQ, for those using them.). You don't get to pick and choose which parts of LotS you a allowing to be used.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

Which LotS, and the FAQ does( also the INAT FAQ, for those using them.). You don't get to pick and choose which parts of LotS you a allowing to be used.

I'm sorry - with all the rules quotes floating around in this thread I must've missed the one that said Imotekh was allowed to roll while in reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

Which LotS, and the FAQ does( also the INAT FAQ, for those using them.). You don't get to pick and choose which parts of LotS you a allowing to be used.

I'm sorry - with all the rules quotes floating around in this thread I must've missed the one that said Imotekh was allowed to roll while in reserve.

Imotekh doesn't roll, you do per the rules for LotS:

Furthermore you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn.

...
I was unaware of that. Man. I'll be sure to take the dice out of my opponents models hand next time.

Seeing as how you do all of the rolling (I've yet to see a WH40K model roll any dice), does that mean a Cryptek with a Chronometron has to be attached to you for it ti work?

rigeld2 wrote:...
I was unaware of that. Man. I'll be sure to take the dice out of my opponents models hand next time.

Your comment suggests that nothing has changed and that it was always Imoteks roll, which I would agree with.

Of course the roll was always his, as it is his special rule under the rules for Imotekh. The conditions for granting you the ability to roll for his special rule are clearly defined and don't require him to be on the board.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the ability did not become his - the roll became his.

You're just going to change your answers however you can to force Imotekh to deploy, aren't you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, because the Necron FAQ made it HIS ability, by allowing a chronometron to reroll the roll to see if it continues

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because they have decided, about 3 places, that lord of storms IS an ability rolled for by Imotekh. Its NOT just the chrono ruling, as you know and dishonestly decided not to remember to put in your post, but repeatedly throughout the FAQ rolling to continue nightfight and the entire storm ability is linked to Imotekh

This, again, is called "making gak up". You don't have an argument with intellectual integrity, that'll happen. A rational argument is also internally consistent - a rationalizing argument, not so much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

Which LotS, and the FAQ does( also the INAT FAQ, for those using them.). You don't get to pick and choose which parts of LotS you a allowing to be used.

I'm sorry - with all the rules quotes floating around in this thread I must've missed the one that said Imotekh was allowed to roll while in reserve.

Well, again, the INAT ruling says so. (Imotekh is allowed to roll while in reserve.) The rules just say he's allowed to use the ability in reserve, we're commuting that "allowance" to rolls that compromise part of that ability. (Which seems to me is the same thing the INAT dudes did.)

I think it's a bit inconsistent (there's that hobgoblin again) to dispute the one without arguing against the other, or do you just not care how some of the better 40k minds decided to interpret the ability?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:...
I was unaware of that. Man. I'll be sure to take the dice out of my opponents models hand next time.

Your comment suggests that nothing has changed and that it was always Imoteks roll, which I would agree with.

No, that's not what my comment was intending to mean. I was mocking the statement "Imotekh doesn't roll, you do per the rules for LotS: "
If you're rolling, it's not Imotekh's roll - and the FAQ clarifies that it *is* his roll. You're making it on his behalf of course - since models can't roll dice.

Of course the roll was always his, as it is his special rule under the rules for Imotekh.

I'm not sure I agree that it was always his roll, but that's irrelevant as the FAQ has clarified that it is.

The conditions for granting you the ability to roll for his special rule are clearly defined and don't require him to be on the board.

Please show what part of the rule grants permission to use an active, voluntary ability while off the board.

Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

Mannahnin wrote:Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

Which the codex specified works while the Autarch is in reserves.

Happyjew wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

Which the codex specified works while the Autarch is in reserves.

Which doesn't matter for Imotekh because LotS is an ability granted to the Army. If Draigo is held in reserve and the GK army consists of no other Troops than Paladins, is the army therefore illegal? It is an ability granted to the army by Draigo's Special rules, and does not specify it may used in reserve.

Mannahnin wrote:Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

a) Is that bonus an active, voluntary thing?
b) Does the rule state that it works while in Reserve?

But the FAQ was what clarified that it's voluntary. You have the choice.

Mannahnin wrote:But the FAQ was what clarified that it's voluntary. You have the choice.

I'm not sure why that affects my statements at all.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

Which the codex specified works while the Autarch is in reserves.

Which doesn't matter for Imotekh because LotS is an ability granted to the Army. If Draigo is held in reserve and the GK army consists of no other Troops than Paladins, is the army therefore illegal? It is an ability granted to the army by Draigo's Special rules, and does not specify it may used in reserve.

Are you talking about 'Grand Strategy' which is done BEFORE deployment? Even so, if you are playing a mission using the standard FOC, which requires 2 Troop choices, then yes, the army is illegal, regardless if Draigo is in reserves or not.

You asked about permission "to use an active, voluntary ability while off the board."

Anyway, I don't think a blanket prohibition exists on using abilities while off the board. Generally speaking you can't use abilities which involve measurement, at least, but I don't really see why one couldn't use something like the storm.

Mannahnin wrote:You asked about permission "to use an active, voluntary ability while off the board."

Anyway, I don't think a blanket prohibition exists on using abilities while off the board. Generally speaking you can't use abilities which involve measurement, at least, but I don't really see why one couldn't use something like the storm.

There doesn't need to be a blanket prohibition - you need permission.
And yes that's what I asked - what's your point? Would you mind stating which ability you're referring to (LotS or the Autarch Reserve bonus) with which posts? I'm slightly confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Several other abilities in the game do, like the Autarch bonus to Reserve rolls.

Which the codex specified works while the Autarch is in reserves.

Which doesn't matter for Imotekh because LotS is an ability granted to the Army. If Draigo is held in reserve and the GK army consists of no other Troops than Paladins, is the army therefore illegal? It is an ability granted to the army by Draigo's Special rules, and does not specify it may used in reserve.

Are you talking about 'Grand Strategy' which is done BEFORE deployment? Even so, if you are playing a mission using the standard FOC, which requires 2 Troop choices, then yes, the army is illegal, regardless if Draigo is in reserves or not.

Draigo makes Paladins Troop choices, so it'd be a legal army.

And NecronLord3 - Draigo's ability is neither voluntary nor active, so there's no comparison between that and LotS.

Actually it is not a legal army, as there is only 1 Troop choice.

rigeld2 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But the FAQ was what clarified that it's voluntary. You have the choice.

I'm not sure why that affects my statements at all.

Actually I think what he is suggesting and seems perfectly logical, s you have permission to actively choose not to roll for the ability per the FAQ. If passive abilities are the only actions allowed in reserve, then you MUST roll while in reserve you don't have the active choice to not do so per the FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Actually it is not a legal army, as there is only 1 Troop choice.

What are you talking about you can have 6 Paladins Squads( or six individuals actually) in a Draigo Army and be legal. I never suggested there was only 1 squad of Paladins.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:And NecronLord3 - Draigo's ability is neither voluntary nor active, so there's no comparison between that and LotS.

But it's a special rule granted to the Army by including Draigo in that army. Just as LotS is an abiltiy granted to the Necron army by including Imotekh in the army. Same thing, if you cannot use abilities from reserve without specific permission the army would be illegal if the only Troops choices were Paladins.

This was answered pages ago. The faq may say he and his or hers or its or theirs as much as it likes, it only qualifies that a chronometron can effect the roll not how when or why you make the roll which is still as outlined in the codex as: 'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game' and 'Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn.'

There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh, it only cares if Imotekh is in the army list at all and if he is currently attached to a harbinger of eternity with a chronometron. That certainly implies a great deal about how and where the ability should work, but for now it hasn't actually altered anything about the conditions for its use.

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

And where exactly is this said in the rules?

Tarrasq wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:That's not how 40k works. You need permission to use things while in reserve.

And where exactly is this said in the rules?

It doesn't. It is an invention for those arguing on these forums to justify their arguments for or against a ruling. The idea being that all rules in 40k dictate only what you can do and if there is no rule telling you that you can do a thing that you can't do a thing.

However this argument generally breaks down considering their are plenty of examples dictating specifically things you can't do.

The argument generally holds no water. As this is not a permissive rules set, its a general versus specific rules set. There are general rules that dictate how things work, unless specifically being told to do otherwise.

LotS gives you a general rule on how LotS works. You are specifically told that it does not have to be rolled for and specifically that the Chronometron can affect a roll for LotS. You are also told that specifically this is allowed when the Cryptek is in a squad joined by Imotekh. Independent characters must be attached prior to deployment to a squad if they are being held in reserve with that squad all rolls for reserves at the same time. Therefore not only is the roll allowed to work in reserve it also can be rerolled using the Chronometron because you are specifically allowed to do so per the FAQ.

Just... Wow.

I'll just bring out my hammer then - there's no rule forbidding it.

You do normally need a rule telling you that you can do anything. Games don't really work otherwise.

That being said, I don't believe there's a blanket prohibition on use of abilities like this while in Reserve.

Randall - so rolling isnt an abiltiy? Wrong.

Necron - the ruleset is permissive AND general beats specific.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Randall - so rolling isnt an abiltiy? Wrong.

Necron - the ruleset is permissive AND general beats specific.

Wow, so you are just wrong now.

Rolling is not an ability it is something the player does to determine if a unit is successful and doing something.

You've been proven time and time again that you are incorrect and it has been sighted repeatedly.


So now you want to argue if the General Rule for Deepstrike says that you roll to scatter but equipment like Teleport Homers says you do not roll to scatter, your argument is that you still roll to scatter and ignore the specific rule.

No, yet again you are wrong. 100% consistency.

Rolling to see if night fight continues is an ability, separate to the "night fight just occurs" ability.

"cited", not "sighted". You have repeatedly ignored the rules given in the FAQ, stated they arent RAW, and then decided that when it tells you that HE rolls it really doesnt mean HE rolls but "anyone" rolls it.

Your last comment is, quite frankly, nonsense. Dont put words in other peoples mouths. Permissve AND specific beats general is how this ruleset is constructed - you can deny it, but that doesnt really matter to reality.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, yet again you are wrong. 100% consistency.

Rolling to see if night fight continues is an ability, separate to the "night fight just occurs" ability.

"cited", not "sighted". You have repeatedly ignored the rules given in the FAQ, stated they arent RAW, and then decided that when it tells you that HE rolls it really doesnt mean HE rolls but "anyone" rolls it.

Your last comment is, quite frankly, nonsense. Dont put words in other peoples mouths. Permissve AND specific beats general is how this ruleset is constructed - you can deny it, but that doesnt really matter to reality.

You are given permission to roll to continue nightfight if nightfight is in effect. The FAQ does not take this away.

If your unit is pinned, do "you" roll for saves when they get shot? I suppose the unit can't perform an action, so rolling saves is not allowed?

Try supporting your statements and maybe they wouldn't be so easily countered.

Where is the permission for Imotekh, the OWNER of the roll, to continue rolling while in REserve?

Bear in mind that performing actions while in reserve, such as modifying reserve rolls (when optional) has always required explicit permission.

Your entire argument is nonsense, perhaps you should avoid the common logical fallacies (so far at least 2, in one post - congrats) and your posts would be worth reading.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Where is the permission for Imotekh, the OWNER of the roll, to continue rolling while in REserve?

Bear in mind that performing actions while in reserve, such as modifying reserve rolls (when optional) has always required explicit permission.

Your entire argument is nonsense, perhaps you should avoid the common logical fallacies (so far at least 2, in one post - congrats) and your posts would be worth reading.

You are given permission in LotS as it is an army special rule not an ability of any single model. And per the FAQ you can use the cryptek to reroll the LotS ability while being held in reserve with Imotekh, as he must be joined to the squad prior to the start of the first if you want him to lead it anyway. Permission multiple times per the codex and one FAQ entry is not denied by one FAQ entry that says he does not have to roll, and the entry is entirelynerrelevant as he isn't rolling in the first place.

Where is the permission to use it while in reserve?

Every time a model has been required to make a roll - and HE makes thr roll as defined in the FAQ, more than once - while in Reserve this has been specifically allowed.

You have permission to use it while on the board. You have no permission to use it whiule in Reserve. You have no permission to use it while he is dead.

You are still ignoring the FAQ that has CHANGED the rules by saying it is irrelevant - in which case you are not following the tenets of this forum, again.

nevermind

nosferatu1001 wrote:Where is the permission to use it while in reserve?

Every time a model has been required to make a roll - and HE makes thr roll as defined in the FAQ, more than once - while in Reserve this has been specifically allowed.

You have permission to use it while on the board. You have no permission to use it whiule in Reserve. You have no permission to use it while he is dead.

You are still ignoring the FAQ that has CHANGED the rules by saying it is irrelevant - in which case you are not following the tenets of this forum, again.

The FAQ changed nothing in regard to the specific ability of LotS. It gave permission to not have to use the ability and permission to use the Chronometron in conjunction with this ability. The codex says you can use the ability for your army, reserving units has nothing to do with army composition.

Your assumptions are not part of the tenents of YMDC. If you have a problem with me report it!

NecronLord3 wrote: The codex says you can use the ability for your army, reserving units has nothing to do with army composition.

Your assumptions are not part of the tenents of YMDC. If you have a problem with me report it!

Have you been following this whole discussion or are you just popping in. Here is why Nos (correctly) states you need permission to use the ability from reserve...

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

Too bad Imotekh does not get permission to do so.

Apart from saying HE ROLLS THE DICE it "changes nothing"

Oh wait, it did. Shucks, guess thats you STILL ignoring the FAQ rules.

calypso2ts wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote: The codex says you can use the ability for your army, reserving units has nothing to do with army composition.

Your assumptions are not part of the tenents of YMDC. If you have a problem with me report it!

Have you been following this whole discussion or are you just popping in. Here is why Nos (correctly) states you need permission to use the ability from reserve...

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

Too bad Imotekh does not get permission to do so.

Popping in? Look at this thread. You however are and should read the Tenets of YMDC "2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."

And your point is moot, as the ability is not being rolled for by Imotekh, it's an army ability granted by Imotekhs inclusion. You make the roll per the codex. Until specifically addressed by the FAQ it is an army ability, not vaguely changed by a word in an FAQ.

If you wish to argue about the INAT FAQ's ruling anyway, you should read the whole document:

◊NEC.55F.05 – Q: Does ‘Lord of the Storm’ apply
even if Imotekh starts the game in reserve? If
Imotekh is killed, does Night Fighting immediately
end?
A: ‘Lord of the Storm’ does still apply when Imotekh starts
the game in reserve. If he is killed while the Night Fighting
rules are in effect, then these rules continue until the start
of the next game turn (unless the opposing army also
contains Imotekh) [clarification].

◊NEC.55F.04 – Q: If Imotekh is joined to a unit that
contains a Cryptek with a Chronometron, can the roll
to see if an enemy unit is hit by his lightning bolts be
re-rolled? What about the roll to determine the
number of lightning bolt hits a unit suffers?
A: Yes to both (although obviously not more than one roll
per Chronometron in the unit) [clarification].

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apart from saying HE ROLLS THE DICE it "changes nothing"

Oh wait, it did. Shucks, guess thats you STILL ignoring the FAQ rules.

"If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn. If the result is greater than the turn number, the storm continues and the Night Fighting rules remain in play. If not, the Night Fighting rules cease to be in effect and are not used for the rest of the battle."

Until errata alters the underlined portions of the rule for LotS, that is RAW. Until a direct question is refereed to using LotS in reserve, continuing to do so is RAW. Clarifying if you are able to choose not to make the roll does not alter the Codex text or the other FAQ entry which reiterates that it is an army wide ability.

edit: no i'm not going to get back into this.

Randall Turner wrote:edit: no i'm not going to get back into this.

LoL, I know I tried to stop too and I couldn't help myself!

calypso2ts wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote: The codex says you can use the ability for your army, reserving units has nothing to do with army composition.

Your assumptions are not part of the tenents of YMDC. If you have a problem with me report it!

Have you been following this whole discussion or are you just popping in. Here is why Nos (correctly) states you need permission to use the ability from reserve...

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

Too bad Imotekh does not get permission to do so.

I don't see how you conclude permission is not granted.

Even according to your quote the roll is allowed. The LoS rule states it goes into effect when 'Your army includes Imotekh'. This qualifies for the first sentence - 'not in play'. It also qualifies for the last sentence. 'Your army includes Imotekh' directly means it applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not.

Necron Codex:
1) Your army included Imotekh so nightfight is in effect
2) if nightfight is in effect you may roll to continue it

From the FAQ:
1) you may reroll #2 if Imotekhs unit contains a chronometron

Nowhere is there any restriction added in RAW.

Necron - you still misunderstand Errata and FAQ, and seem to think that only Errata changes rules.

That is so incredibly wrong, as has been proven to you multiple times by now, that your argument will remain incorrect until you realise this fact.
The FAQ changed the rule such that HE makes the roll, and as such you are now required to prove he can specifically roll while in Reserve, or while dead.

Thats it. Nothing more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Necron - you still misunderstand Errata and FAQ, and seem to think that only Errata changes rules.

That is so incredibly wrong, as has been proven to you multiple times by now, that your argument will remain incorrect until you realise this fact.
The FAQ changed the rule such that HE makes the roll, and as such you are now required to prove he can specifically roll while in Reserve, or while dead.

Thats it. Nothing more.

You have continually stated the same thing but you lack any proof.

Though I have asserted that the FAQ implies it is Imotekhs roll, you have failed to provide any proof of this. Your arguments generally lack any proof of your statements at all.

You haven't even proved that nightfight begins when Imotekh is not on the board. Perhaps these are things we can agree on or not, but you have not proved anything.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
You have continually stated the same thing but you lack any proof.

What, apart from when the FAQ defines it as HIS roll? Or when it allows HIM to reroll it by having a Chrono in the unit? That proof you mean?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Though I have asserted that the FAQ implies it is Imotekhs roll, you have failed to provide any proof of this. Your arguments generally lack any proof of your statements at all.

As opposed to your arguments which make up rules, ignore rules, ignore words that you find inconvenient (distance, for example), and generally ignore the basic way the game rules operate? Those arguments that, despite being proven incorrect, you cling to against all sense or reason?

Nemesor Dave wrote:You haven't even proved that nightfight begins when Imotekh is not on the board. Perhaps these are things we can agree on or not, but you have not proved anything.

"proven"

It begins when he is off the board, however as HE rolls you have to have permission for HIM to roll to see if it continues when he is in reserve or dead. Every single time an active ability has operated from Reserves you have had explicit permission in the codex or via FAQ to do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"proven"

It begins when he is off the board, however as HE rolls you have to have permission for HIM to roll to see if it continues when he is in reserve or dead. Every single time an active ability has operated from Reserves you have had explicit permission in the codex or via FAQ to do so.

Here is an example of proof:

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a
Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to
see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek
with the chronometron.

You see it says "the roll" not "his roll". Therefore regarding RAW, this FAQ does not change anything. "You" may still roll as described in the Necron Codex which does not require anything except your army includes Imotekh and nightfight in effect.

Actually if you'll notice it says the Cryptek may use it to re-roll the roll. Wow, the cryptek is making the re-roll. Now who's re-roll is it?

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

No, THIS is proof. Apparently repeating it to you is required
Notice it says HE rolls the dice, and explicitly states Imotekh is the one rolling for night fight?

Shucks, you're still wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

No, THIS is proof. Apparently repeating it to you is required
Notice it says HE rolls the dice, and explicitly states Imotekh is the one rolling for night fight?

Shucks, you're still wrong.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Why does it matter who the roll belongs to? The roll is made if Imotekh is in your army. That's what let's the roll be made if he's in reserve.

It is not a separate ability. It is one ability with the extremely specific note that it all works if Imotekh is in your army. Not if he's in play, alive, on the battlefield, or any other requirement.

Whether it is Imotekh's roll, the players roll, or an Oompa Loompa's roll, the roll can be made while Imotekh is off the table because LoS very specifically states that it may happen when Imotekh is included in your army.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Lol. I've bolded the bits which prove you wrong. Still ignoring written rules and claiming they arent RAW? You know what RAW stands for, yes? See the rule up there? See that written rule up there, saying that Imotekh rolls the dice? Thats RAW.

Fafnir - it makes a difference because every. single. time. you have been allowed to perform an action while in reserve, said action has had to be explicitly allowed. Logans High King, Autarch reserve manipulation. And so on. This shows an inate permission requirement, like the rest of the rules, which is NOT given in the LotS

Next you'll say Imotekh can roll, as required in the rule changing FAQ, when dead?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Lol. I've bolded the bits which prove you wrong. Still ignoring written rules and claiming they arent RAW? You know what RAW stands for, yes? See the rule up there? See that written rule up there, saying that Imotekh rolls the dice? Thats RAW.

Rules as Written refers to what is stately clearly in the rule, not what conclusion you can jump to by saying ' that must mean X, and if X that must mean Y, and if Y that must mean Z'. Even though it implies it's "his roll" does nothing. The conditions set by the codex for rolling don't change.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Lol. I've bolded the bits which prove you wrong. Still ignoring written rules and claiming they arent RAW? You know what RAW stands for, yes? See the rule up there? See that written rule up there, saying that Imotekh rolls the dice? Thats RAW.

Fafnir - it makes a difference because every. single. time. you have been allowed to perform an action while in reserve, said action has had to be explicitly allowed. Logans High King, Autarch reserve manipulation. And so on. This shows an inate permission requirement, like the rest of the rules, which is NOT given in the LotS

Next you'll say Imotekh can roll, as required in the rule changing FAQ, when dead?

The ability does work when Imotekh is dead, but at my venue we use the INAT FAQ clarifies this anyway.

You are confusing FAQ and codex rules which clarify (which LotS doesn't need) rules that are used in reserve. It has always been questionable as therefore the need foe the clarification. But as you have been repeatedly shown, LotS does not need the clarification as it is a passive ability of the army.

Is there room for GW to FAQ this another way? Yes, but as of right now RAW allows it and the INAT FAQ agrees so that is how the majority of venues are going to play it.

You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Something like a canoptek spyder making scarabs can't happen in reserve, it is an ability that starts and ends right there in the turn so if he's off the board a spyder can't use it, he has no permissions to do so.

Lord of the storm starts automatically, as soon as Imotekh is in your army list. It is given express permission to do so. Rolling to continue night fighting is expressly permitted by the rule for as long as night fight is active, the faq vaguely implying ownership to Imotekh does not change the criteria for when you're allowed to roll or not as outlined in the codex. The special rule doesn't care if Imotekh is alive or dead, on board or off.

Faqs can absolutely change the rules but in this case that isn't the question that's being answered here, you're simply being told you're allowed to stop night fighting if 'he' chooses. That is the only thing that faq entry changes about how you use lord of the storm.

Actinium wrote:Something like a canoptek spyder making scarabs can't happen in reserve, it is an ability that starts and ends right there in the turn so if he's off the board a spyder can't use it, he has no permissions to .

That and Spyders are required to be a certain distance from a Scarab swarm to generate Scarabs. You are in limbo while in reserve. However you can be attached to the squad(not tomb Spyders to scarabs but Crypteks to warrior squads) while in reserve if you are allowed to do so per the RB rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Ah yes, like the RAW where it states Imotekh the Stormlord rolls that you keep ignoring and says doesnt matter? That RAW?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Ah yes, like the RAW where it states Imotekh the Stormlord rolls that you keep ignoring and says doesnt matter? That RAW?

It doesn't trump the raw of the Codex, which is not addressed in the FAQ.

RAW is rules as written. Not Answers to FAQ questions.

So you disagree that the FAQ changes rules? The more specific FAQ question AND answer (naughty of you to pretend it is just the latter - the former defines it as Imotekhs roll as well, you failed to notice this again, shock) have changed the rules

You can disagree that the FAQ is rules, but you fail at the tenets of this forum by doing so

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you disagree that the FAQ changes rules? The more specific FAQ question AND answer (naughty of you to pretend it is just the latter - the former defines it as Imotekhs roll as well, you failed to notice this again, shock) have changed the rules

You can disagree that the FAQ is rules, but you fail at the tenets of this forum by doing so

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

Venomthropes - you mean this?
Q: Must every non-vehicle model in a unit that
assaults a Venomthrope brood take a Dangerous
Terrain test? (p45)
A: Yes.

This does not change RAW. It changes HWYPI.

SitW is in the ERRATA section. That is why it changes the RAW.

In the case of LoS, the FAQ says you may choose to roll, but it is not required. That is all. It is not Errata!

Nemesor Dave wrote:

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

You're absolutely wrong in this. This has been proven multiple times to you, but you still repeating this.

There are multitude of examples, for example SiTW (previous FAQ didn't affect units inside vehicles, now does), Halberds vs abilities that reduce init to 1 (previous faq said hit at init 1, new faq says hit at init 3). Nos has given even more.

This is also easy to prove logically: There are only two options:
A) FAQ rulings don't change rules, they only give interpretation of rules. This means that GW can NEVER change FAQ ruling, because doing so would change rules, which is not possible according to you.
B) FAQ can change rules.

Because we know that A is false and that B is reverse of A, B must be true. QED.

Luide wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

You're absolutely wrong in this. This has been proven multiple times to you, but you still repeating this.

There are multitude of examples, for example SiTW (previous FAQ didn't affect units inside vehicles, now does), Halberds vs abilities that reduce init to 1 (previous faq said hit at init 1, new faq says hit at init 3). Nos has given even more.

This is also easy to prove logically: There are only two options:
A) FAQ rulings don't change rules, they only give interpretation of rules. This means that GW can NEVER change FAQ ruling, because doing so would change rules, which is not possible according to you.
B) FAQ can change rules.

Because we know that A is false and that B is reverse of A, B must be true. QED.

Errata by definition change rules. FAQ answers don't change rules but change how a rule should be played.

Example:
1) RAW says You may do A and you may do B.
2) FAQ says, no you may not do A.

It changed the rules but it did not change RAW.

You cannot say:
3) you may not do A, therefore you cannot do B.

The FAQ didn't change the rule.

In the case of LoS.

1) RAW says A - you can roll to continue nightfight and B - Imotekh is not required to be on the board. Its an army wide rule with its own conditions for that roll.
2) FAQ says A - you, "Imotekh" may roll or not roll. Its up to you.
3) FAQ does not answer any question about B so it remains unchanged.

If it was Errata, you may pick apart the change in wording and discover what other implications it has regarding the rules. As a FAQ it answers a specific question on how to correctly play in answer to that question only.

Wrong. You just dont get it.

Errata change the text of rules, which may or may not change the function of the rules. Fact

FAQs CAN change the rules. FACT.

Venomthropes not reducing you to I1. SitW working then not working (one of them follows the rules, the other doesnt - so the answer at SOME point changed the rules) while inside a vehicle.

As you have been told, and agreed to in the tenets, the FAQs ARE RAW in this forum.

You cannot ignore the FAQ claiming it isnt RAW, or at least not here. Feel free to ignore FAQs where you play - if you can get others to agree with you, that is.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

Venomthropes - you mean this?
Q: Must every non-vehicle model in a unit that
assaults a Venomthrope brood take a Dangerous
Terrain test? (p45)
A: Yes.

This does not change RAW. It changes HWYPI.

SitW is in the ERRATA section. That is why it changes the RAW.

In the case of LoS, the FAQ says you may choose to roll, but it is not required. That is all. It is not Errata!

Are you just selectively picking and choosing?

The Venomthrope FAQ in question, as has been pointed out to you before, is the one where you don't get reduced to I1 for taking the dangerous terrain tests.

An the SitW FAQ in question is if it affects Psykers inside vehicles. It used to not, now it does. One of those changed a rule.
That one was also pointed out before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as far as the validity of FAQs, the tenets say they're RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. You just dont get it.

Errata change the text of rules, which may or may not change the function of the rules. Fact

FAQs CAN change the rules. FACT.

Venomthropes not reducing you to I1. SitW working then not working (one of them follows the rules, the other doesnt - so the answer at SOME point changed the rules) while inside a vehicle.

As you have been told, and agreed to in the tenets, the FAQs ARE RAW in this forum.

You cannot ignore the FAQ claiming it isnt RAW, or at least not here. Feel free to ignore FAQs where you play - if you can get others to agree with you, that is.

Show me what the FAQ says anything about Imotekh being in reserve or killed and LoS. You can't.
Show me the FAQ answer to the question what are the conditions that must be met to make the roll to continue nightfight. You can't.

For these questions you only have the codex explanation of how the rules work.

The answers to these questions that you are claiming are from the FAQ are not.

Codex: Its an army wide rule, Imotekh is only required to be included in the army.
RAW from the FAQ: Chronometron in Imotekhs unit allows a nightfight re-roll.
RAW from the FAQ: You're not forced to roll.
Made up stuff from Nos: everything else

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Show me what the FAQ says anything about Imotekh being in reserve or killed and LoS. You can't.
Show me the FAQ answer to the question what are the conditions that must be met to make the roll to continue nightfight. You can't.

For these questions you only have the codex explanation of how the rules work.

The answers to these questions that you are claiming are from the FAQ are not.

Codex: Its an army wide rule, Imotekh is only required to be included in the army.
RAW from the FAQ: Chronometron in Imotekhs unit allows a nightfight re-roll.
RAW from the FAQ: You're not forced to roll.
Made up stuff from Nos: everything else

So, yet again as soon as someone proves you wrong you ignore that, and change tack again? Have some integrity and actually admit your errors - you will get a small amount of respect from others by doing so.

Show me in the RAW where it allows HIM to roll while in Reserve - same as ANY active ability used in Reserve you have to have permission to use it
Show me in the RAW where it allows HIM to roll while dead - I assume you can see the absurdity of claiming otherwise?

RAW from the FAQ: IMOTEKH THE STORMLORD ROLLS. It states it in the question, yet you "conveniently" and dishonestly choose to ignore this fact. Again.

Made up stuff by ND that ignores rules, how the rules are constructed, and any inconvenient words like "distance": any post in this forum, pretty much.

rigeld2 wrote:
And as far as the validity of FAQs, the tenets say they're RAW.

There are no such rules, you are making this up.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

FAQs are official sources of information. They are not RAW.

The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

NecronLord3 wrote:The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

No rules changed?

BRB Page 36 wrote:The second disadvantage is that warriors who are assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that
are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault move, all of its models have their Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, regardless of other Initiative modifiers.

Tyranid FAQ page 2 wrote:Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood, or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting through the cloud? (p45)
A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

The BRB drops your initiative simply for taking the test. The FAQ changed that for Venomthropes - you're required to take the test, but not get your initiative dropped.
The rule changed.
You have had this pointed out before, and have had the SitW situation pointed out before. FAQs can, and do, change rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:FAQs are official sources of information. They are not RAW.

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

to be a little less snarky: This forum is for debating rules. The only official sources of information for rules debates are FAQs, rulebooks, and codexes. Which means you use FAQs to debate RAW. Which means they essentially are RAW.

Nice, going after forum RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

No rules changed?

BRB Page 36 wrote:The second disadvantage is that warriors who are
assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes
of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to
grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that
are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting
unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test
during their assault move, all of its models have their
Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, regardless
of other Initiative modifiers.

Tyranid FAQ page 2 wrote:Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood,
or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre
Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting
through the cloud? (p45)
A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

The BRB drops your initiative simply for taking the test. The FAQ changed that for Venomthropes - you're required to take the test, but not get your initiative dropped.
The rule changed.
You have had this pointed out before, and have had the SitW situation pointed out before. FAQs can, and do, change rules.

Okay, and this shows a specific change to a rule. Nothing like this was done to LotS. Until the question of LotS's ability being any army ability or not, RAW states it is not. An answer to a specific question about another rule is not RAW for a entire rules section.

GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW. They answer specific questions. If not specifically addresses it doesn't apply to everything on the games.

NecronLord3 wrote:GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW.

Take up your objections with the people who run this subforum - for YMDC they are valid sources of information for debates on RAW.

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW.

Take up your objections with the people who run this subforum - for YMDC they are valid sources of information for debates on RAW.

They are sources of officiall information. If you ask a question specifically addressed in an FAQ you are free to cite it as an official answer. Nothing makes it RAW. You and NOS are attributing it to much weight over the rule books. This is incorrect. You should always reference a rule book first then if a rule is unclear, refer to the FAQ. Erratta portions of the FAQ, should actually be physically altered in your codex, most choose not to do this.

NecronLord3 is just Nosferatu posting from another account.

Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use the LotS ability from reserve. By bringing up strawmen for these guys to shoot down, you're just muddying the waters. You're weakening (or at least allowing opponents to obfuscate) the position for the correct interpretation.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

You are making no point. Rule books are the only source of rules. FAQs answer specific questions, they do not broadly effect the rest of the game.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

You are making no point. Rule books are the only source of rules. FAQs answer specific questions, they do not broadly effect the rest of the game.

I'm making the point that your citation of the tenets proving that FAQs are not rules is wrong.
FAQs are rules - they make and change rules. Ignoring them in YMDC, when they're valid sources of information in a RAW debate, is the wrong thing to do - and mocking others for citing them is even worse.

Randal - nope, there have been about a dozen posts proving you wrong, which you ignore and / or dismiss. Also, claiming same accounts? Mature. It may have been attempted humour, tricky to tell

Necron - the tenets equate rulebook and FAQs as both being equal sources of informaiton. If you claim FAQs arent RAW then you are claiming the rulebook is also not RAW. Neither are codexes. Good one.

Your idea that you only check FAQs if you have an isuse is so laughably wrong you should reassess. For example under your concept of how FAQs work you would NEVER look at the Venomthrope FAQ - rulebook RAW your init drops to 1. Has done since the codex was released, and UP TO the FAQ where the FAQ has literally changed the rules.

You have to read BOTH the FAQs AND the Rulebook together. No other option works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Randal - nope, there have been about a dozen posts proving you wrong, which you ignore and / or dismiss. Also, claiming same accounts? Mature. It may have been attempted humour, tricky to tell

Necron - the tenets equate rulebook and FAQs as both being equal sources of informaiton. If you claim FAQs arent RAW then you are claiming the rulebook is also not RAW. Neither are codexes. Good one.

Your idea that you only check FAQs if you have an isuse is so laughably wrong you should reassess. For example under your concept of how FAQs work you would NEVER look at the Venomthrope FAQ - rulebook RAW your init drops to 1. Has done since the codex was released, and UP TO the FAQ where the FAQ has literally changed the rules.

You have to read BOTH the FAQs AND the Rulebook together. No other option works.

Actually I agree with you in regard to the Venomthrope. IMO, GW made an confusing situation with that ruling. Because regardless of any regard to RAW general tournament procedure is to refer to the Codex FIRST. Core rule book for any rules referenced by the codex second, then the FAQ for any questions that occur. General tournament procedure will not ever see that rule, until the event is over or unless a Tyranid player specifically has the FAQ in mind when using that rule.

However, it does not change RAW, FAQs are not RAW unless they specifically address a question. Which the Necron FAQ does not.

Rulebooks and FAQs are cited as official sources of information but nothing makes the FAQ equal per the Tenets and they clearly are not considered equal by GW. You are making that up.

And regardless it has no bearing on the LotS ability as the FAQ does not address it as an army wide ability.

I'm making the point that your citation of the tenets proving that FAQs are not rules is wrong.

Your implication that the Tenents make the FAQ equal to the rules is incorrect. You are wrong on this point. It never says anywhere, anything to that effect.

FAQs are rules - they make and change rules. Ignoring them in YMDC, when they're valid sources of information in a RAW debate, is the wrong thing to do - and mocking others for citing them is even worse.

I'm not mocking you. You are just wrong in that regard. No where does it refer to FAQs as RAW. You are just making gak up, again.

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

Necron - your "tournament standard" is no such thing. In ANY tournament I have EVER been to around the UK you are expected to read and apply your FAQ, in toto, regardless of the rule question coming up or not. FAQs are to be read in conjunction with the codex and rulebook, on na equal footing.

If you read the tenets, note that codexes, BRB and FAQs are ALL VALID sources of information - there is no order given, therefore the fact you are making one up by saying BRB > FAQ is against the tenets.
They are all equal because the tenets grant them equality by the lack of an order. You cannot argue against this.

FAQs in this forum have equal footing to the BRB. If you dont agree with that, dont post

calypso2ts wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

<sigh> again -
The ability is his.
He's allowed to use it turn one from reserve.
He can use it from reserve.
Fini.

Randall Turner wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

<sigh> again -
The ability is his.
He's allowed to use it turn one from reserve.
He can use it from reserve.
Fini.

Calypso - you even said it yourself - "consistent rule set". You can't just decide on your own - it works from reserve, now it doesn't. The rule works based on 'Imotekhs inclusion' and there is nothing that changes that.

Randall - <sigh> again

The ability to continue the night fight requires a dice roll by Imotekh
You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here

et fini

nosferatu1001 wrote:Randall - <sigh> again

The ability to continue the night fight requires a dice roll by Imotekh
You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here
et fini

You even agreed that the LoS rule from the codex is an army wide rule that grants permission to roll to continue nightfight if nightfight is in effect if Imotekh was included in the army. This is what gives permission to roll while in reserve or dead. The conditions of the rule - that Imotekh was included and the chain of events started grants the permission.

This permission is not revoked by the codex or FAQ. There is no FAQ answering 'may you roll from reserve or dead' that would be needed to change this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here

You need permission to use an ability from reserve, not a specific roll.
You're given permission to use it from reserve on turn one.
Therefore, you can use the ability from reserve.

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

You missed the important part.

You're given permission to use the active ability from reserve on turn one.
Again, therefore, you can use the active ability from reserve.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

You missed the important part.

You're given permission to use the active ability from reserve on turn one.
Again, therefore, you can use the active ability from reserve.

Citation for the permission? Remember - the Night Fight isn't an active ability.

rigeld2 wrote:Citation for the permission? Remember - the Night Fight isn't an active ability.

Night fight is neither an active nor any other type of ability.
Ability is Lord of the Storm. Triggers "night fighting rules".
LotS - Permitted to use on turn one from reserve.
Hence, permitted to use from reserve.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Calypso - you even said it yourself - "consistent rule set". You can't just decide on your own - it works from reserve, now it doesn't. The rule works based on 'Imotekhs inclusion' and there is nothing that changes that.

The consistency I am referring to is with the Chronometron and reference to it being 'his ability.'

The paradox of saying it is not his ability is that the Chrono works on it and the FAQ calls it his. If it is his, he needs specific permission from reserve, if comes from him being in the army then no such permission is needed.

The counter to this is that he has permission to use it since Night Fight is in effect Turn 1 when he is in reserve. The argument against this is that you get Night Fight by including him, you get the re-roll by having him 'alive' on the board.

This is just laying out the discussion - my position is known. There is no argument imo that it is inconsistent to say he does not need permission because you get it by including him, but the chrono works. The real crux of the debate is whether permission is implied by Night Fight starting on Turn 1.

Regardless of people's position on this, I think we can agree that this is the basic framework of the debate.

The only question is whether LotS is one ability. because you're definitely given permission to use on turn 1 from reserve by being required to use on turn 1 from reserve.

i think the answer to that's blindingly obvious. i'm trying to get rigeld or nosferatu to step back in the trap and say it's a separate ability AGAIN so's i can make fun of them some more.

sorta bored.

Randall Turner wrote:The only question is whether LotS is one ability. because you're definitely given permission to use on turn 1 from reserve by being required to use on turn 1 from reserve.

i think the answer to that's blindingly obvious. i'm trying to get rigeld or nosferatu to step back in the trap and say it's a separate ability AGAIN so's i can make fun of them some more.

sorta bored.

So you're admitting to trolling?

rigeld2 wrote:So you're admitting to trolling?

Does that mean you're not going to step into the trap?

As a reminder to all, a courteous argument is more likely to be heard out than a facially insulting one. Furthermore, purposely attempting to irritate other users is against our rules. Please avoid doing so.

Thanks.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're admitting to trolling?

Does that mean you're not going to step into the trap?

Yes. And you're the first person ever to make it to my ignore list - which is kind of a feat.

Manchu wrote:As a reminder to all, a courteous argument is more likely to be heard out than a facially insulting one. Furthermore, purposely attempting to irritate other users is against our rules. Please avoid doing so.

Thanks.

Manchu, I don't believe rigeld2 is being honest by feigning injury. I also believe he and his partner Nosferatu are "working the system" by skirting the letter of the no-trolling rules while violating the spirit. Their "flavor" of bad-acting is to nit-pick verbiage and generate post volume to intentionally derail others' exchanges while avoiding the gist of the debate, which is typical 4chan-style activity intended to simply outlast debate opponents. At some point the best service I can provide to the discussion is to point out the illogical nature of their arguments. We're well past that point on this "stormlord from reserve" thread - everything that can be said, has been said. I shouldn't be posting on it, and wouldn't, no matter how often Nosferatu declares himself the "winnar!" by exhibiting truly amazing amounts of posting stamina. Except...

Once in awhile a new discussion member joins, and they honestly haven't followed the argument to that point. If you look back over the preceding dozen or so posts you'll see that I didn't respond to Nosferatu or Rigeld2, only to calypso2ts when he questioned the "definitive" nature of the preceding arguments. At that point, though I'd bypassed their previous responses to me, Nos and rigeld2 jumped on my response to calypso and went into their "obfuscation by volume" act, as per usual. I felt I should re-clarify their obfuscations to ensure calypso was getting an accurate view. They're derailing what could be a productive discussion between two other posters. Then - The post of mine that triggered this note from you was to calypso saying that I was waiting to make fun of rigeld2 again. Reading that as meaning to personally insult him, rather than attack his logic, is disingenuous on his part - he throws up his hands and goes, "oh noes, i've been insulted!" Then accuses me of trolling by asking if I'm admitting that I'm doing so. Again, this is deliberate misinterpretation and "working the system". Their pattern of dogging debate opponents with specious, contentious responses and flooding threads with marginally (at best) germane posts is at least as egregious violation of forum discussion protocol as a (perhaps recklessly worded) intention to poke holes in their logic.

If you read back through this thread, it's pretty clear that I've been trying to avoid them. It's nearly impossible.

@Randall Turner: I recommend use of the Ignore button. Also, I'd avoid posting that you "want to make fun of them more" about any users.

Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

And you are just making that up. There is nothing in the rules supporting your position.

What, that its Imo's roll? Wrong, that would be the bit in the FAQ you keep pretending doesnt exist, and then when you finally cant ignore it any longer try to claim the FAQs arent rules....

Or is it that youneed permission to roll while in reserve? If so you're missing the point of the ruleset - you need to find permission to do something, I dont need to find something saying you cant.

You're the one STILL making things up, hoping simple repetition and ignorance of the written rules will win through. Not happening.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

And you are just making that up. There is nothing in the rules supporting your position.

Of course there isn't. Actions or die-rolls aren't allowed from reserve. Abilities are allowed from reserve.

The only BRB FAQ verbiage anywhere near relevant:
Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Convention wording is also ability-centric, ie... (truncated for clarity, from INAT FAQ )
RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve

IG.31A.02 – Q: Does the Astropath's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification].

Can we just try ignoring this guy, NecronLord3?

Why do I have this feeling that before too long, both sides will be ignoring each other?

I think the 'made up' part he is referring to is the idea that Imotekh's LotS has 2 components. One that provides Night Fight on Turn 1, the second is the ability to continue it.

Is anyone REALLY arguing at this point that it is not Imotekh's roll? It CLEARLY is.

The only matter to be resolved is if LotS is the permission to roll from reserve because Turn 1 Night Fight works, or if it is not.

Exactly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:What, that its Imo's roll? Wrong, that would be the bit in the FAQ you keep pretending doesnt exist, and then when you finally cant ignore it any longer try to claim the FAQs arent rules....

Or is it that youneed permission to roll while in reserve? If so you're missing the point of the ruleset - you need to find permission to do something, I dont need to find something saying you cant.

You're the one STILL making things up, hoping simple repetition and ignorance of the written rules will win through. Not happening.

You are ignoring RAW and are substituting HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:
Can we just try ignoring this guy, NecronLord3?

Of course not. We have to refute the incorrect information people are spewing as truth and incorrect interpretations of RAW. Honestly people don't like asking rules questions on Dakka because of them.

"You are ignoring RAW and are substituting HYWPI. "

given you have admitted you dont treat FAQs as RAW, against the tenets of this forum, perhaps you should just stop posting incorrect statements such as the above?

I've given the rules quotes, from the FAQ, and given the precedent required for models being required to have specific permission to roll dice while in reserve.

You keep ignoring this, firstly claiming it wasnt written in the FAQ, sticking fingers in ears when the relevant quotes were repeatedly given to you, then you changed tack and tried to claim FAQ arent RAW, and had that proven incorrect, so no your argument is just a factless assertion that, frankly, is insultingly easy to disprove.

Keep posting with no rules basis - even easier to disprove you then.

Randall - feel free to ignore me, the only reason I ever know you now post is when others quote you. Your posts are totally irrelevant in rules discussions, from mine and quite a few others perspectives.

Taken from the GW website:

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

This is RAW. The Tenets of YMDC, do not over ride this. As you can see the 'weight' of the rules is clearlly defined. Your claim that FAQ answers are RAW, is untrue. They give specific answers to specific questions and nothing more. The tenets sight rule books and FAQs as official 'information'. This does not reassign the weight of the FAQ over the rule books, which is clearly defined by GW.

NecronLord3 wrote:This is RAW. The Tenets of YMDC, do not over ride this. As you can see the 'weight' of the rules is clearlly defined. Your claim that FAQ answers are RAW, is untrue. They give specific answers to specific questions and nothing more. The tenets sight rule books and FAQs as official 'information'. This does not reassign the weight of the FAQ over the rule books, which is clearly defined by GW.

You have misunderstood both the Tenets and what the FAQs are for then.

The FAQs are not RAW, because the FAQs are not rules. They an explanation of how the studio interprets the rules they wrote. As such, they are accepted here as having the same weight as the rules, because the vast majority of players (at least going by previous polls) accept them as such.

You're welcome to ignore them for your own games, of course. But for the purpose of discussion on this board, they are accepted as exactly what they are intended to be, which is a clarification as to how the studio thinks the game should be played.

insaniak wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:This is RAW. The Tenets of YMDC, do not over ride this. As you can see the 'weight' of the rules is clearlly defined. Your claim that FAQ answers are RAW, is untrue. They give specific answers to specific questions and nothing more. The tenets sight rule books and FAQs as official 'information'. This does not reassign the weight of the FAQ over the rule books, which is clearly defined by GW.

You have misunderstood both the Tenets and what the FAQs are for then.

The FAQs are not RAW, because the FAQs are not rules. They an explanation of how the studio interprets the rules they wrote. As such, they are accepted here as having the same weight as the rules, because the vast majority of players (at least going by previous polls) accept them as such.

You're welcome to ignore them for your own games, of course. But for the purpose of discussion on this board, they are accepted as exactly what they are intended to be, which is a clarification as to how the studio thinks the game should be played.

Obviously the exact wording of a FAQ is not meant to hold the same weight as Errata, codexes or the BRB.

The answer to the FAQ question is RAW. This still doesn't allow someone to take the wording of the FAQ and try to apply it to other questions or rules discussions unrelated to the question being answered.

Yes, the answer to the question asked in a FAQ - the meaning is considered RAW regarding a specific question. Surely the wording of a FAQ is not meant to be so strict as to draw conclusions about other rules that are not part of the question.

Is there no different between the exact wording of a FAQ Q/A and Errata, Codexes, and the BRB and which parts are considered RAW?

No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

They are not and you and the MODS can pretend they are, but they will not have that weight in actual games or tournaments. So you are then left with HYWPI, which is fine but it is not RAW.

Nemesor Dave is entirely correct again!

Except they DO have that weight in actual games and tournaments. Exactly the same weight as any other rule.

TOs can choose to change any rule they want. Same with you and your opponent in a normal game. That doesn't mean they aren't RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:Except they DO have that weight in actual games and tournaments. Exactly the same weight as any other rule.

TOs can choose to change any rule they want. Same with you and your opponent in a normal game. That doesn't mean they aren't RAW.

It does mean they are not RAW. RAW is RULES as written. FAQs are not rules. There for they can only be applied to specific questions. You are free to use them for arguments as to what the Rules are Intended(RAI) to be. Still not RAW.

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

rigeld2 wrote:No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

Insaniak a mod here disagrees with you. "The FAQs are not RAW, because the FAQs are not rules."

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers.

As it stands now there are only three things.

Codex:
The Codex which tells you LoS is an army wide rule that works as long as Imotekh was included in your army. This allows rolling for nightfight even if Imotekh has been removed from play.

FAQs:
The FAQ which answers a specific question. Regardless of the exact wording - it allows you to re-roll the roll for nightfight if a chrono cryptek is in Imotekhs unit. No other conditions apply.

Another FAQ says that rolling to continue nightfight is not required but optional.

So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Really? This again. The FAQs are relevant to a rules discussion because they show now to interpret the rules, it is necessary and prudent to view the codex/brb in the context of these to b consistent, all the FAQ discussed relate directly to the lots ability presented, go reread my post I outlined your actual rules argument there for you on pg 7

This avenue of argument is fruitless and just hurts your own credibility

rigeld2 wrote:
Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Only when specifically addressed.

Happyjew wrote:So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Again something specifically addressed in the FAQ.

NecronLord3 wrote:
It does mean they are not RAW. RAW is RULES as written. FAQs are not rules. There for they can only be applied to specific questions. You are free to use them for arguments as to what the Rules are Intended(RAI) to be. Still not RAW.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Again something specifically addressed in the FAQ.

So FAQs both are and are not RAW.

rigeld, we now have Schrödinger's FAQ in regards to YMDC tenets.

Schrödinger's FAQ in regards to YMDC tenets states that FAQs are both RAW and not RAW whenever it is convenient.

rigeld2 wrote:Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

I agree Insaniaks opinion doesn't decide the issue, but as a Mod he does speak for the board, its tenets and his opinion does matter on what is considered RAW regarding this message board.

What he says is true - FAQs are not rules.

Your question is difficult to answer and keep the proper distinctions. Errata changes rules. FAQs change gameplay. If your question about gameplay is answered by a rule that is contradicted by a FAQ, gameplay is changed according to the FAQ. FAQs by definition do not change RAW.

As strange as it may be, FAQs answer how a rule should be interpreted, even if that means the FAQ directly contradicts the rule.

Nemesor Dave wrote:A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers.

This is not precisely accurate.

The FAQs quite often answer questions other than the ones they are specifically answering, by giving us an insight into how certain rules interactions should work. There have been any number of situations where we have assumed that an FAQ answer for this situation should also apply to that similarly written situation, for the sake of consistency.

Of course, GW often muddy that a little by ruling similar situations differently for different armies... but they're getting better at not doing that recently.

rigeld2 wrote:Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

I should point out that my post about the FAqs and the Tenets wasn't intended to seal the rules discussion, just to explain the framework around which rules discussions on this board are based. And on that, the opinion of the moderators does hold more weight than yours.

No offense taken, though

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Technically no because, again, the FAQs are just clarifying what the rules mean. So where an FAQ answer is in apparent contradiction to what the rules actually say, you can take that as the FAQ changing the rules, or you can take it as the rules as written not saying precisely what the studio meant them to say. A subtle difference that can change how the rules are perceived rather hugely.

NecronLord3 wrote:They are not and you and the MODS can pretend they are, but they will not have that weight in actual games or tournaments.

It's not a matter of us 'pretending' anything. Back when GW first started applying the 'studio house rules' tag to their FAQs, we ran several polls to judge how Dakka users perceived the FAQs. The result was that the vast majority of Dakka users (which includes many tournament players and tournament organisers) see the FAQs as an 'official' part of the rules. Most tournaments do weight them just as heavily as the actual rulebook... I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a tournament rules package that says that the GW FAQs would not be used for that event.

As a result, and to stomp on the all-too-often de-railing of rules threads by the vocal minority who were more interested in arguing about the validity of the FAQs than in discussing the rule in question, we included the statement about the FAQ's being 'official' rules material in the Tenets.

As I said before, you are more than welcome to ignore them in your own games... but for the purposes of rules discussions here, the FAQs are just as valid as the rulebook, because that's the way most people actually play the game... so ignoring them is really pretty pointless in the scope of what this forum is actually for.

insaniak wrote:

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Technically no because, again, the FAQs are just clarifying what the rules mean. So where an FAQ answer is in apparent contradiction to what the rules actually say, you can take that as the FAQ changing the rules, or you can take it as the rules as written not saying precisely what the studio meant them to say. A subtle difference that can change how the rules are perceived rather hugely.

In many cases, what you're saying is 100% correct.

Then you have things like the Venomthrope FAQ to throw all that in the gakker.
The rulebook is completely unambiguous. The Venomthrope is absolutely contradictory. Which means it changes the rules.
The Venomthrope raises a question or two about how to handle charges through not-terrain now.

Also, SitW - so they meant for it not to work for a little while, now they mean for it to work? :p

Which still does not apply as the permissive use of LotS which is given on the codex and never contradicted by an FAQ. RAW still allows the use of LotS in reserve and icing on the cake the INAT FAQ agrees, which the majority of venues, here, use.

Where is there permission for Imotekh to roll the dice while in reserve, or dead?

None as it is not required. You roll the dice not your models.

Further supported by the INAT FAQ, for those of us using it.

◊NEC.55F.05 – Q: Does ‘Lord of the Storm' apply even if Imotekh starts the game in reserve? If Imotekh is killed, does Night Fighting immediately end? A: ‘Lord of the Storm' does still apply when Imotekh starts the game in reserve. If he is killed while the Night Fighting rules are in effect, then these rules continue until the start of the next game turn (unless the opposing army also contains Imotekh) [clarification].

NecronLord3 wrote:None as it is not required.

This is correct, however...

You roll the dice not your models

...is a meaningless distinction.

In general, NecronLord3, if we're going to respond to nosferatu, you don't answer the questions he asks, because their premises are flawed. You attack the flawed premise - in this case, that you're required to have separate permission for each roll, instead of permission to use the ability as a whole.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:[The FAQs quite often answer questions other than the ones they are specifically answering, by giving us an insight into how certain rules interactions should work. There have been any number of situations where we have assumed that an FAQ answer for this situation should also apply to that similarly written situation, for the sake of consistency.

This isn't even a "theoretical" - it's the case here, ie, for using abilities from reserve. The only general rules (or "words written", without getting into whether they're formally "rules" or not) we have that deal with this, even tangentially, are from the BRB FAQ we've quoted a few times now:

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

This is a question about using an ability when starting from reserve and then deploying. We generalize it to mean that you can't use an ability from reserve unless specifically stated otherwise. But this is it, and I mean there's nothing else available on general ability usage from reserve. We don't have much choice but to apply it to similar situations.

Randall Turner wrote:This is a question about using an ability when starting from reserve and then deploying. We generalize it to mean that you can't use an ability from reserve unless specifically stated otherwise. But this is it, and I mean there's nothing else available on general ability usage from reserve. We don't have much choice but to apply it to similar situations.

Randall Turner wrote: Of course there isn't. Actions or die-rolls aren't allowed from reserve. Abilities are allowed from reserve.

So Psychic powers, like Psychic communion can be used while in reserve?

NecronLord3 wrote:You roll the dice not your models

I guess this means my units can fire while in reserve because, after all, I roll the dice, not my models.

The rule for Imotekh does indeed state that Night Fighting is automatic for the first turn, however beyond that you have zero permission to extrapolate anything else. Per the BRB FAQ, you do not have explixit permission to use it from Reserves beyond the first turn. You can try and surmise that permission, but the BRB FAQ is worded so that you need explicit permission.

NecronLord3 wrote:None as it is not required. You roll the dice not your models.

Further supported by the INAT FAQ, for those of us using it.

◊NEC.55F.05 – Q: Does ‘Lord of the Storm' apply even if Imotekh starts the game in reserve? If Imotekh is killed, does Night Fighting immediately end? A: ‘Lord of the Storm' does still apply when Imotekh starts the game in reserve. If he is killed while the Night Fighting rules are in effect, then these rules continue until the start of the next game turn (unless the opposing army also contains Imotekh) [clarification].

Lol. So i get to shoot while off board as well now? After all I roll the dice, not the models.

So, either you have opened up a whole new tactical element to the game OR the sheer gak you will make up has just rezched a nrw low.

INAT has no place here

DeathReaper wrote:So Psychic powers, like Psychic communion can be used while in reserve?

Are they given permission to do so? Yeah, I didn't think so. Logic fail.

Brother Ramses wrote:The rule for Imotekh does indeed state that Night Fighting is automatic for the first turn, however beyond that you have zero permission to extrapolate anything else. Per the BRB FAQ, you do not have explixit permission to use it from Reserves beyond the first turn. You can try and surmise that permission, but the BRB FAQ is worded so that you need explicit permission.

Which we have. The qualifying condition for employing LotS is "inclusion of Imotekh in the army", period. That inclusion gives you permission to use the power from the moon, for all it cares. ie, as Actinium sez re: "2 craps":

Actinium wrote:<snip> The faq may say he and his or hers or its or theirs as much as it likes, it only qualifies that a chronometron can effect the roll not how when or why you make the roll which is still as outlined in the codex as: 'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game' and 'Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn.'

There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh, it only cares if Imotekh is in the army list at all <snip>

Which is probably why INAT allows it, ya think maybe?