In 6th edition I have always outflanked my Vendettas/Valkyries, it has been pointed out this may be the wrong interpretation of the rules since the new IG FAQ came out.
So to those with a better grasp of the rules please explain if a Vendetta/Valkyrie could outflank pre- IG FAQ and can it outflank post- IG FAQ .


IG Codex(pg 56) Valkyrie Assault Carrier Special Rules; Deep Strike, Scout

Rulebook (pg 41) Last line of Scout Special Rule "This also confers the Outflank special rule"

But with the IG FAQ worded as follows which is the argument against outflank for Vendetta/Valkyrie

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or
Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect.

I'd say the Outflank still applies.
We're not told to remove the rule completely (as some errata do), just that the Scout has no effect.
Scout rules don't work with the flyer reserve rules, so it makes sense that it has no effect.
The rule isn't removed, so could still apply outflank, just the Scout rule itself has no effect.

while the scouts rule does nothing. it still grants outflank which does.

the answer to the FAQ question does not remove the scouts rule's ability to grant outflank to the unit, just that a valk/vendetta cant use scouts to come onto board turn one.

Paitryn wrote:
while the scouts rule does nothing. it still grants outflank which does.

the answer to the FAQ question does not remove the scouts rule's ability to grant outflank to the unit, just that a valk/vendetta cant use scouts to come onto board turn one.

Actually IIRC it says exactly as it does nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or
Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect.

Gaining outflank would sadly be an effect.

and veterans can embark and subsequently outflank on a vendetta?

I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

Snapshot wrote:
I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

As much as I'd like to agree with you with the questions as asked it does nothing.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

As much as I'd like to agree with you with the questions as asked it does nothing.

Then why not just remove the rule? There are several examples of other rules removed from units because they serve no purpose.

 grendel083 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

As much as I'd like to agree with you with the questions as asked it does nothing.

Then why not just remove the rule? There are several examples of other rules removed from units because they serve no purpose.

And still other rules that do nothing that are still in place

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

As much as I'd like to agree with you with the questions as asked it does nothing.

Yeah, I could be wrong, but it just seems that the context of the FAQ question is about the core capabilities of Scouting with the 6" deployment during Turn 1. It's not at all clear to me that they mean the answer to also deny Outflank. We need a FAQFAQ I guess.

I was told the FAQ in other languages clarifies this dispute better. Can anyone from France/Germany/etc confirm this?

The FAQ says it has no effect so it can no longer outflank. It's not the same as saying it can no longer make a scout move but still outflank.

grendel083 wrote:I'd say the Outflank still applies.
We're not told to remove the rule completely (as some errata do), just that the Scout has no effect.
Scout rules don't work with the flyer reserve rules, so it makes sense that it has no effect.
The rule isn't removed, so could still apply outflank, just the Scout rule itself has no effect.

Paitryn wrote:while the scouts rule does nothing. it still grants outflank which does.

the answer to the FAQ question does not remove the scouts rule's ability to grant outflank to the unit, just that a valk/vendetta cant use scouts to come onto board turn one.

Snapshot wrote:I think if they'd wanted to remove the Scout rule from the Vendetta they would have done so. The purpose of the FAQ is to simply clarify that since the Vendetta must start in Reserves, it can't deploy in Turn 1, and therefore can't make the usual 6" re-deploy move.

The Vendetta still has the Outflank USR courtesy of Scout. It probably would have been easier to make an Amendment such as "replace the Scout USR with the Outflank USR".

Please explain why the section of the Scout rule that provides Outflank is not an "effect" but the section that allows you to make Scout moves is. If the Outflank rule said "Units with the Scouts rule also have this rule" I would agree with you, but I don't see any rules-based justification for declaring that one part of a rule is an "effect" and another part isn't, and thus that when a rule has "no effect" some of it still counts.

 amrogers3 wrote:
I was told the FAQ in other languages clarifies this dispute better. Can anyone from France/Germany/etc confirm this?

You mean like when the new Chaos Daemons FAQ came out; and they told us that Flamers/Screamers had no invul save?

No effect is fairly easy to discern. If it did something that would be an effect. If it does nothing it has no effect.

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
In 6th edition I have always outflanked my Vendettas/Valkyries, it has been pointed out this may be the wrong interpretation of the rules since the new IG FAQ came out.
So to those with a better grasp of the rules please explain if a Vendetta/Valkyrie could outflank pre- IG FAQ and can it outflank post- IG FAQ .


IG Codex(pg 56) Valkyrie Assault Carrier Special Rules; Deep Strike, Scout

Rulebook (pg 41) Last line of Scout Special Rule "This also confers the Outflank special rule"

But with the IG FAQ worded as follows which is the argument against outflank for Vendetta/Valkyrie

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or
Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect.

I'd say that you still have the Special Rule Scout, but that it has no effect since it is being applied to a Flyer. The Outflank comes with the Scout ability.

The FAQ question is asking what it can do on turn 1. Outflank doesn't happen on turn 1. I'd say it can still outflank since the FAQ doesn't address anything happening on turn 2+

Kevlar wrote:
The FAQ question is asking what it can do on turn 1. Outflank doesn't happen on turn 1. I'd say it can still outflank since the FAQ doesn't address anything happening on turn 2+

Considering there is 2 different questions in the FAQ this isn't true.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or
Vendetta?

Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)

A: It has no effect.

It may not have been the intention, but as it is I also read it like that. The first question is answered (it has no effect), so the second one, which goes into more detail, does not need to be. For what it's worth, if you were to translate the ruling from the German FAQ, it would be 'The special rule Scout has no effect whatsoever'.

cheers

 amrogers3 wrote:
I was told the FAQ in other languages clarifies this dispute better. Can anyone from France/Germany/etc confirm this?

This is never an approach that holds water. GW's design team work in English, what the products get translated to mean is down to some translators in house or some external company.
English is the gold standard for working out the rules, if you are using a Frech/German codex and have an issue you can look to the english to get a clarification but not the other way round. You don't look at a reflection on a lake to get a better look of a mountain.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


A: It has no effect.

[On turn one...]

Which is how the question is phrased.

If they totally got rid of the scout rule they would have just used an errata.

Kevlar wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


A: It has no effect.

[On turn one...]

Which is how the question is phrased.

If they totally got rid of the scout rule they would have just used an errata.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or
Vendetta?

Funny that it starts with this. Nothing about turn 1. Even has proper sentence structure, a massive accomplishment for GW all in all.

Than we get the second sentence, again GW's grammar here is quite good.

Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)


Two seperate questions with one set answer.

A: It has no effect.


If it gives them outflank it has an effect. The FAQ states it has none.

By the context of both those questions they are referencing the redeployment part of the Scout rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
By the context of both those questions they are referencing the redeployment part of the Scout rule.

I don't see it that way.

By context; two questions asked; one answer given.

Apply answer to both questions.

The first question only has a clear context in relation to the second question.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? (Not much context here, but the second question must be related as they both have the same answer).

Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56) (And there is your context about the scout move portion of the rule).

 DeathReaper wrote:
The first question only has a clear context in relation to the second question.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? (Not much context here, but the second question must be related as they both have the same answer).
Plenty of context to the answer, no effect.
Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56) (And there is your context about the scout move portion of the rule).

How much context does the answer have to just the second question?
Significantly less than the first.



Either way you look at it, RAW Scout rule has no effect. Otherwise you'd be going against the FAQ.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The first question only has a clear context in relation to the second question.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? (Not much context here, but the second question must be related as they both have the same answer).
Plenty of context to the answer, no effect.
Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56) (And there is your context about the scout move portion of the rule).

How much context does the answer have to just the second question?
Significantly less than the first.



Either way you look at it, RAW Scout rule has no effect. Otherwise you'd be going against the FAQ.

You dont get many games do you? The intent of the FAQ is clear and dry that they are talking about using the scout special rule to forgo the automatic reserve for fliers. In the book it doesn't say my models cant be placed on the bottom side of the board but that they just have to be on the board... does that mean I can place them underneath the board and claim my objectives as long as its less then 3" thick? Abbadon has every mark of chaos but also has different marks of chaos does that mean the leader of chaos cant join marked units? In a csm army it doesnt specify when i decide whether or not a unit of cultist is plague zombies... so turn 4 they are now plague zombies.... See how stupid this can get if you look too much into it?

Take note these are meant to be radical as I view the argument as radical....

As for your argument:
When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

 Tomb King wrote:


You dont get many games do you?

You don't have much respect do you?

This is a forum in which we're currently discussing RAW or sometimes HIWPI (of which should be noted)

As to answer your question, no I don't get in many games. Than again my work schedule prevents it. Even than though I get in 3+ a week. Why?

Simply because I don't make assumptions about other people.

When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

It only took what? Most of 5th ed. to errata Target Priority?

Regardless if you wish to allow the Vendetta to outflank that is simply (HIWPI)

Allowing it to outflank goes directly against the FAQ.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


You dont get many games do you?

You don't have much respect do you?

This is a forum in which we're currently discussing RAW or sometimes HIWPI (of which should be noted)

As to answer your question, no I don't get in many games. Than again my work schedule prevents it. Even than though I get in 3+ a week. Why?

Simply because I don't make assumptions about other people.

When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

It only took what? Most of 5th ed. to errata Target Priority?

Regardless if you wish to allow the Vendetta to outflank that is simply (HIWPI)

Allowing it to outflank goes directly against the FAQ.

I guess we can save 10 pages and agree to disagree! As for the reason I made my comment about games is the jump you made in the intention of the faq(filling in any vagueness with what you wanted it to be) seemed to favor a certain play style. I have respect... lol it kind of comes with my career selection. I suppose the only reason there is in argument on it is because it wasn't clarified enough. Though the intent of the faq is obviously listing what it references to when it states "it has no effect!" How you interpret that is your own choice but you might find the majority disagreeing with your assessment.

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


You dont get many games do you?

You don't have much respect do you?

This is a forum in which we're currently discussing RAW or sometimes HIWPI (of which should be noted)

As to answer your question, no I don't get in many games. Than again my work schedule prevents it. Even than though I get in 3+ a week. Why?

Simply because I don't make assumptions about other people.

When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

It only took what? Most of 5th ed. to errata Target Priority?

Regardless if you wish to allow the Vendetta to outflank that is simply (HIWPI)

Allowing it to outflank goes directly against the FAQ.

I guess we can save 10 pages and agree to disagree! As for the reason I made my comment about games is the jump you made in the intention of the faq(filling in any vagueness with what you wanted it to be) seemed to favor a certain play style. I have respect... lol it kind of comes with my career selection. I suppose the only reason there is in argument on it is because it wasn't clarified enough. Though the intent of the faq is obviously listing what it references to when it states "it has no effect!" How you interpret that is your own choice but you might find the majority disagreeing with your assessment.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta?

If they had A) not used the word effect here, or B) been clear that they only wanted it to apply to the scout move. I'd gladly agree, or better yet there would be no arguement.

Considering the answer states it has no effect, you also have to look at the primary question.

Yes though, I'll play it my way and you can play it yours.

P.S. : It was just a lil jab for a jab (no harm, no foul)

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


You dont get many games do you?

You don't have much respect do you?

This is a forum in which we're currently discussing RAW or sometimes HIWPI (of which should be noted)

As to answer your question, no I don't get in many games. Than again my work schedule prevents it. Even than though I get in 3+ a week. Why?

Simply because I don't make assumptions about other people.

When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

It only took what? Most of 5th ed. to errata Target Priority?

Regardless if you wish to allow the Vendetta to outflank that is simply (HIWPI)

Allowing it to outflank goes directly against the FAQ.

I guess we can save 10 pages and agree to disagree! As for the reason I made my comment about games is the jump you made in the intention of the faq(filling in any vagueness with what you wanted it to be) seemed to favor a certain play style. I have respect... lol it kind of comes with my career selection. I suppose the only reason there is in argument on it is because it wasn't clarified enough. Though the intent of the faq is obviously listing what it references to when it states "it has no effect!" How you interpret that is your own choice but you might find the majority disagreeing with your assessment.

Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta?

If they had A) not used the word effect here, or B) been clear that they only wanted it to apply to the scout move. I'd gladly agree, or better yet there would be no arguement.

Considering the answer states it has no effect, you also have to look at the primary question.

Yes though, I'll play it my way and you can play it yours.

P.S. : It was just a lil jab for a jab (no harm, no foul)

How many of the faq's would result in a different outcome if you only applied half the question?

As for the jab its fine im used to it.

 Tomb King wrote:
When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

You're implying that FAQs cannot change rules?

 Tomb King wrote:


How many of the faq's would result in a different outcome if you only applied half the question?

First off I'm applying both questions with one answer. It answers both fine.

Secondly, show me another FAQ with multiple questions, and just 1 answer.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
When a rule is no longer valid or needed it is entered in the errata, or amendment section of an faq. If their is a specific question regarding a rule it is listed in the faq portion of an faq. If they wanted the vendetta to have no more effect such as Tau: Target Priority Test etc... they would of listed it in the proper section the one that removes or adds rules not the one that clarifies them.

You're implying that FAQs cannot change rules?

They can change the ways rules are interpreted and the way they function but they dont remove a rule's complete function while leaving the rule through faq usually it is done through amendments or errata's.

RAW - no

RAI - yes

How I would play it - I guess I'd give them outflank, since I'd only be playing people who didn't spam them to begin with.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


How many of the faq's would result in a different outcome if you only applied half the question?

First off I'm applying both questions with one answer. It answers both fine.

Secondly, show me another FAQ with multiple questions, and just 1 answer.

Didnt have to go far see space marines page 3.

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


How many of the faq's would result in a different outcome if you only applied half the question?

First off I'm applying both questions with one answer. It answers both fine.

Secondly, show me another FAQ with multiple questions, and just 1 answer.

Didnt have to go far see space marines page 3.

\

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange the rule
Combat Tactics for another one, when must I decide which to use? Does
it have to be on the army list or can I decide before each game? (p51)
A. It needs to be on the army list.

See how it effects both questions.

Now apply the Vendetta FAQ using the same method.

Ooh, ooh better one:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Can a Tyranid Broodlord (which has BS 0) use a witchfire psychic
power that doesn’t require a roll To Hit? If not, is he able to re-roll the
psychic power because he cannot use it? (p40)
A: No to both questions.

and

Q: Can a Mycetic Spore be subject to a Tank Shock and, if so, can it
still choose whether to Death or Glory or simply move out of the way?
(p54)
A: Yes, but it must choose to make a Death of Glory attack as it
cannot move for any reason once it has entered the battle.

One more.

Q: Tyranid Special Characters. Are Tyranid Special Characters
considered to be special versions of the standard creatures of their type
for the purposes of using psychic powers, biomorphs and special rules?
For example, is the Swarmlord considered to be a Hive Tyrant for the
purposes of using Hive Tyrant psychic powers? Similarly, is
Deathleaper considered to be a Lictor for the purposes of Chameleonic
Skin and Pheromone Trail, is the Doom of Malan’tai considered to be a
Zoanthrope for the purposes of Warp Field, is Old One Eye considered
to be Carnifex for the purposes of Living Battering Ram and are
Ymgarl Genestealers considered to be Genestealers for the purposes of
Brood Telepathy? (p56-61)
A. Yes in all cases.

In hindsight, I think I proved your point...

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:


How many of the faq's would result in a different outcome if you only applied half the question?

First off I'm applying both questions with one answer. It answers both fine.

Secondly, show me another FAQ with multiple questions, and just 1 answer.

Didnt have to go far see space marines page 3.

\

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange the rule
Combat Tactics for another one, when must I decide which to use? Does
it have to be on the army list or can I decide before each game? (p51)
A. It needs to be on the army list.

See how it effects both questions.

Now apply the Vendetta FAQ using the same method.

I see your straight and I show my flush:

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange the rule
Combat Tactics for another one, when must I decide which to use?
A: It needs to be on the army list

Wait that doesnt make sense.... lets try:

Does it have to be on the army list or can I decide before each game? (p51)
A: It needs to be on the army list

That makes since but what is it in reference too?

See my point? Its in 2 questions but is one complete statement.

 Tomb King wrote:
Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange the rule
Combat Tactics for another one, when must I decide which to use?
A: It needs to be on the army list

This makes perfect sense. Since it needs to be on the army list you decide when building your army, as that is when things are added to your army list.

It seems pretty apparant to me they are only referencing the scout move rule and scout deployment. Outflank is an entirely different rule which is never brought up in the scope of the question asked.

Nope, unless a vendetta has the outflank rule too then the FAQ reads that there is no benefit from the scout rule. Outflank is part of the benefits of the rule.

Kevlar wrote:
It seems pretty apparant to me they are only referencing the scout move rule and scout deployment. Outflank is an entirely different rule which is never brought up in the scope of the question asked.

Except that Vendettas don't have Outflank. They have Scout, which normally grants Outflank, except that their Scout rule does nothing, so it doesn't grant Outflank.

 Kingsley wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
It seems pretty apparant to me they are only referencing the scout move rule and scout deployment. Outflank is an entirely different rule which is never brought up in the scope of the question asked.

Except that Vendettas don't have Outflank. They have Scout, which normally grants Outflank, except that their Scout rule does nothing, so it doesn't grant Outflank.

Look at the context of the question. Look at the answer. The question is only referencing the scout rule. The answer states the scout rule does nothing for the model. Nothing in the answer says to remove the scout rule from the model. Just that the scout rule does nothing for the model. It still has the scout rule, but since it must start deployed in reserve it can never use it. The rule is not removed however. So the model still has the scout rule and still has the outflank rule. The model can still legally outflank.

Kevlar wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Kevlar wrote:
It seems pretty apparant to me they are only referencing the scout move rule and scout deployment. Outflank is an entirely different rule which is never brought up in the scope of the question asked.

Except that Vendettas don't have Outflank. They have Scout, which normally grants Outflank, except that their Scout rule does nothing, so it doesn't grant Outflank.

Look at the context of the question. Look at the answer. The question is only referencing the scout rule. The answer states the scout rule does nothing for the model. Nothing in the answer says to remove the scout rule from the model. Just that the scout rule does nothing for the model. It still has the scout rule, but since it must start deployed in reserve it can never use it. The rule is not removed however. So the model still has the scout rule and still has the outflank rule. The model can still legally outflank.

No it cannot. You're only answering a single question.

This is another case of poorly worded FAQ answer.

By RAW, the wording removed Scout and Outflank.

By RAI and the context of the question, I believe it was intended just clarify that you cannot use a 6" inch move to redeploy from reserves onto the board. This is HIWPI.

^This. RAW is clear, no Outflanking. HIWPI (and what I believe is RAI), you can still outflank.

Fragile wrote:
This is another case of poorly worded FAQ answer.

By RAW, the wording removed Scout and Outflank.

By RAI and the context of the question, I believe it was intended just clarify that you cannot use a 6" inch move to redeploy from reserves onto the board. This is HIWPI.

Agreed. Any GT's rule on this yet?

Everyone on the internets is dumb,

obviously the RAW are that the Vendetta/Valkyrie have no effect, therefore.......

Plastic VTOL spaceships do not have a function......


how do you all not see this????????????

 RegulusBlack wrote:
Everyone on the internets is dumb,

obviously the RAW are that the Vendetta/Valkyrie have no effect, therefore.......

Plastic VTOL spaceships do not have a function......


how do you all not see this????????????

Yeah the "It" is kind of vague, and without referencing either question in the answer you are free to interpret it in many different ways. Still, nothing removes the scout rule. Nothing removes the outflank rule. "It" has no effect in the frame of the question only removes scout deployment.

Kevlar wrote:

 RegulusBlack wrote:
Everyone on the internets is dumb,

obviously the RAW are that the Vendetta/Valkyrie have no effect, therefore.......

Plastic VTOL spaceships do not have a function......


how do you all not see this????????????

Yeah the "It" is kind of vague, and without referencing either question in the answer you are free to interpret it in many different ways. Still, nothing removes the scout rule. Nothing removes the outflank rule. "It" has no effect in the frame of the question only removes scout deployment.

Again allowing it to gain outflank from Scout, would be an effect.

At this point though, threads kinda dead and we're both just arguing A vs B all day. Until something new comes along, you know how I read the FAQ, and I know yours.

People who think Vendettas still have Scout moves: please explain how "This rule also confers the Outflank special rule" is NOT an effect of the Scout rule.

 Kingsley wrote:
People who think Vendettas still have Scout moves: please explain how "Models with this rule also gain Outflank" is NOT an effect of the Scout rule.

The Context of the FaQ does not remove the scout rule, it just takes away the scout move.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
People who think Vendettas still have Scout moves: please explain how "Models with this rule also gain Outflank" is NOT an effect of the Scout rule.

The Context of the FaQ does not remove the scout rule, it just takes away the scout move.

The context of the FAQ says the Scout rule has no effect. I don't see any reason to apply this to some parts of the Scout rule but not others.

"Q: What effect, if any, does the Scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or Vendetta? Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6" onto the board? (p56)
A: It has no effect."

"Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6" onto the board" Clearly references the scout move part of the rule, The context tells us the scout move is what the FaQ is referencing.

No the context of the second question is about the scout move. The first question is far more broad in its scope.

"What effect, if any", is a very open question, the first part is a general question of it's effect while the second is a more specific situation.
The answer applies better to the first question as asked but gives an answer to both.

It is an open question, and if not for the context of the second and related question it would totally negate the scout rule.

However the second question puts context to the first, and we see that they are only talking about the scout move.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is an open question, and if not for the context of the second and related question it would totally negate the scout rule.

However the second question puts context to the first, and we see that they are only talking about the scout move.

You are seeing that the Asker was talking about the scout rule. The Answer did not specify and gave a very broad blanket answer that pretty much negated the Scout rule. Again, its a poorly worded FAQ answer that should not have been posted.

The IG flyers are the most undercosted overpowered in the game. It's about time GW reigned them in a bit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is an open question, and if not for the context of the second and related question it would totally negate the scout rule.

However the second question puts context to the first, and we see that they are only talking about the scout move.

I disagree. The answer to the FAQ makes no sense when applied solely to the second question in the FAQ entry:

Will this allow it to enter play in Turn 1 by redeploying 6"
onto the board? (p56)

The answer only makes sense when applied to the first question. By answering the first, you obviate the need to address the second. Hence no Outflank and no 6'' move. This reminds me a bit of the attempts to avoid allowing MSS to benefit from the ability of a weapon that has the Force USR. If you disallow the 6'' move but allow the Outflank how are you preventing the player from benefiting from the Scout USR?

-Yad

The most conservative ruling is the flyers gain no benefit whatsoever from the USR... blame GW for sloppy writing if you will but this is the RAW.

Because, in context, you are not allowed to use the scout move to move 6" onto the board.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because, in context, you are not allowed to use the scout move to move 6" onto the board.

No, really - that's not true. You're applying the context of the second question and ignoring the first.

Not at all, both questions compliment each other.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, both questions compliment each other.

No, actually you're pretty much ignoring the first question.

Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

Then why even print the second question?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

Nothing in the answer removed the scout rule from the model. To outflank the model only needs to have the scout rule. It has no need to be able to make use of the scout rule, which only covers turn 1 deployment.

Kevlar wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

Nothing in the answer removed the scout rule from the model. To outflank the model only needs to have the scout rule. It has no need to be able to make use of the scout rule, which only covers turn 1 deployment.

False. The model doesn't have Outflank, it has Scout which, as an effect, grants Outflank.
If the Scout rule has no effect, it can't grant Outflank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

Then why even print the second question?

Because pink elephants are cool? Why is that relevant?

This one is very clear.

It is relevant because the context of the second question modifies the context.

GW needs to FAQ this FAQ! Being serious now, I can see both sides of the argument and would say roll off.

DeathReaper wrote:It is relevant because the context of the second question modifies the context.

"Do you want an apple? Red or green?" "No." You don't get to ask, "Yellow?" as I've already said no.

Necrosis wrote:GW needs to FAQ this FAQ! Being serious now, I can see both sides of the argument and would say roll off.

Agreed.

Simply put each side of the argument is favoring one of the two questions over the other. As I stated further.. There are two questions but it is one complete statement. IMHO I believe it is only referencing the first turn scout move... otherwise they would of just taken the scout rule from the model.

How does anyone get RAI? If it was intended for the Vendetta to outflank, then why not just make an errata to add it to their rules.

 Tomb King wrote:
Simply put each side of the argument is favoring one of the two questions over the other. As I stated further.. There are two questions but it is one complete statement. IMHO I believe it is only referencing the first turn scout move... otherwise they would of just taken the scout rule from the model.

Saying a rule has no effect is taking it away.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
How does anyone get RAI? If it was intended for the Vendetta to outflank, then why not just make an errata to add it to their rules.

That argument swings both ways. If it was intended for the Vendetta to NOT outflank, then why not just make an errata to remove the scout rule?

i think that if my opponet said that i could NOT deploy my Vendetta's along either of my table edges, i would simply stop, reach across the table, and slap the crap out of them............

because. wait for it......... no where in the rules does it say i cannot slap the crap out of you.

and Booom goes the dynamite!!!!!!!

seriously, have they not been able to out flank prior to the "supposed" change?

 RegulusBlack wrote:
i think that if my opponet said that i could NOT deploy my Vendetta's along either of my table edges, i would simply stop, reach across the table, and slap the crap out of them............

because. wait for it......... no where in the rules does it say i cannot slap the crap out of you.

and Booom goes the dynamite!!!!!!!

seriously, have they not been able to out flank prior to the "supposed" change?

You could try, but nothing in the rules say he can't snap your arm either ^^ Or for that matter we play on tables that are about 4.5' high and 4' across, are you an Albatross?

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Outflanking is an effect given from the Scout(s) rule on the Vendetta.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

"You could try, but nothing in the rules say he can't snap your arm either"

have you seen the people that play this game, most couldn't snap a dorito in half.....wait check that, most know their way around a dorito better than the rules.

(pssst ithink its because doritos are cheaper.)

anyway sorry for being a little combatative, but really who is going to claim that the clear intention of the statement was "clarifying" that flyers with scout cannot enter play on turn one. thats it. anything else is arguing just to argue, any of these rules can be misconstrued, but who does that benefit in the long run. absolutely no one thats who.

i take this kinda personally as i purchased three of these stupid birds, at about 70 bucks a pop, plus lascannon upgrades, to actually give my army the "Air Assualt" feel that Vendetta's could bring to the table.
now 6th comes along and bammo i cant play them the same as before (at minimum 1 less turn on the table) now all the sudden they have to come in on the back. thats dumb and anyone that says otherwise is being silly.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

That's because it is an effect.

Scout Confers outflank

Conferring outflank being the effect.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

That's because it is an effect.

Scout Confers outflank

Conferring outflank being the effect.

Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

 Tomb King wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

The cause is the rule, the outcome is the effect. An effect of fearless is that you automatically pass leadership checks.
An outcome of scout is that you gain the outflank rule.

Have you heard of the term "Cause and effect"? Even by your admission there is a cause, having scout.

 Tomb King wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

rigeld2 wrote:
If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

Interestingly that would be the one thing that would remove outflank. And it is the one thing they did not do.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

Interestingly that would be the one thing that would remove outflank. And it is the one thing they did not do.

So granting Outflank is not an effect of Scout?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

Interestingly that would be the one thing that would remove outflank. And it is the one thing they did not do.

So granting Outflank is not an effect of Scout?

Not in the context of the FAQ question.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

Interestingly that would be the one thing that would remove outflank. And it is the one thing they did not do.

So granting Outflank is not an effect of Scout?

Not in the context of the FAQ question.

The second question doesn't limit the first question, and there's a single answer to both questions.

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?

Interestingly that would be the one thing that would remove outflank. And it is the one thing they did not do.

So granting Outflank is not an effect of Scout?

Not in the context of the FAQ question.

Actually it is. Two questions with one answer given. You must apply the answer to both questions not just the one of your choosing.

Looking at the main issue here of "is Outflank an effect of Scout"

5th edition I'd say yes, but the wording has changed a lot in 6th.

"This rule also confers the Outflank rule"

The rule confers Outflank. Not the effect of the rule.
Having the rule, even if it has no effect at all, confers Outflank.

... Conferring Outflank is an effect of the Scout rule.

EW models are immune to the effects of Instant Death. A wound with the ID rule removes all wounds. Are EW models susceptible to a wound with the ID rule? They're immune to the effects, but the rule is still there.

rigeld2 wrote:
... Conferring Outflank is an effect of the Scout rule.

EW models are immune to the effects of Instant Death. A wound with the ID rule removes all wounds. Are EW models susceptible to a wound with the ID rule? They're immune to the effects, but the rule is still there.

Exactly, the rule is still there despite the effects doing nothing (otherwise it wouldn't interact with FNP).
Conferring outflank requires the rule to be present, not the effects of the rule.
"This rule also confers the Outflank rule"

That's not a fair analogy, the effect on the model has been negated, the effect on other rules hasn't been negated.
It isn't a case of ID's rules limits FNP, FNP is limited by ID within it's own rules.

 grendel083 wrote:
Looking at the main issue here of "is Outflank an effect of Scout"

5th edition I'd say yes, but the wording has changed a lot in 6th.

"This rule also confers the Outflank rule"

The rule confers Outflank. Not the effect of the rule.
Having the rule, even if it has no effect at all, confers Outflank.

Conferring outflank would still be an effect though.

So no it does not have outflank because the Scout rule has no effect.