These appear to be changes made in the new fliers book.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=2

Amongst other things, IG Valkyries and Vendettas lose Scout and Deep Strike.

[With most, if not all, of this being for fliers, see the thread about Death from The Skies]

 Skinnereal wrote:
Amongst other things, IG Valkaries and Vendettas lose Scout and Deep Strike.

That's pretty significant, right? Not that Vendettas necessarily need any help but still...

Makes you wonder what the point of Death From The Skies is XD

GW's site needs updates, as the Valkyrie item page still lists those 2 rules.

Death From The Skies is now the only way to get rules for some of these units on paper, since WD for them is out of print.
Electronic updates are there in the codices, but we can now buy them in book for now, too.

One has to wonder if they bother reading through the faqs before updating them. The Eldar one has two different fixes for the same rule Intercept.


M.

Yeah,
The Ork FAQ invalidates the Ork WD flier update.
So the only valid rules for Ork fliers are the new £20 death from the skies or the £6 iPad download.

Panic...

Yeah. I noticed that the FAQ for the Stormtalon and Ork flyer entries basically read "Buy the limited edition deluxe FAQ"

I like the BA update.

"Page 38/94 – Stormraven Gunships, Skies of Blood.
Replace this rule with the following:

Skies of Fury:......"

They changed it so much they had to rename it? LOL

And I don't know why, but for some reason the way they're putting in entries that mention BT looks like it might get sucked into C:SM.

 Arschbombe wrote:
I like the BA update.

"Page 38/94 – Stormraven Gunships, Skies of Blood.
Replace this rule with the following:

Skies of Fury:......"

They changed it so much they had to rename it? LOL

It was the same rule with two different names in the BA and GK codex- with it added to the SM and BT codex as well, they updated the rule and picked a codex-neutral name for all the books to use.

Anyone find it funny they put out the Polish FAQs for Space Marines and Space Wolves as well as the english. Got me confused there for a moment thinking they broke something weird.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Yeah. I noticed that the FAQ for the Stormtalon and Ork flyer entries basically read "Buy the limited edition deluxe FAQ"

Death from the Skies is not Limited Edition.

Hopefully updating the FAQ and Errata will please the people who've been complaining that they would need to buy the new book to play their IG, BA, or other armies. The book is not limited edition and it appears to be optional (unless you don't already have the rules for your fliers, but hey, at least they're making the rules available again).

Both dark eldar flyers lost deep strike. As did the necron flyers.

Looks like everyone did. And Valkyries lost Scout. Not that they really needed it, what with the additional mobility of being a Flyer.

Looks like a streamlining of rules to reflect how GW sees flying units now.

Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

 Arrathon wrote:
Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

Looks like it. At least that's how I'm reading it too.

hmmm.... so many modeling possibilities. what ta do...what ta do..Now i need to take a look at the BT codex and see if i like it.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Looks like everyone did. And Valkyries lost Scout. Not that they really needed it, what with the additional mobility of being a Flyer.

Right, they couldn't use Scout anyway, as they don't start on the board.

They could have used Scout to Outflank before, which was extremely useful.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
They could have used Scout to Outflank before, which was extremely useful.

True, true.

Telion has a camo cloak and stealth, does this mean he gets a 2+ cover save when in 4+ cover? Does his unit of scouts get it as well without any upgrades?

Miguelsan wrote:One has to wonder if they bother reading through the faqs before updating them. The Eldar one has two different fixes for the same rule Intercept.


M.

They in fact, do not. The DA FAQ states a wargear fix in the army section for Azreal but out of 3 entries on that page...he's on the one before it. A month later they apparently still haven't noticed that.

I guess the fix was more important than the page number but yeah... bonkers.

Savageconvoy wrote:Yeah. I noticed that the FAQ for the Stormtalon and Ork flyer entries basically read "Buy the limited edition deluxe FAQ"

Your thing has new rules, you buy book yes? Doesn't seem to come out and say that for all of them though. Funny thing is looking at the dates and seeing who still lacks flyers...might've been a good occasion to fix that what with this book and all. Would have been interested then!

Mmmm now Tyranid FAQ are now in Polish....

And SW still don't have a flyer or anything to deal with flyers. Fun.

 Arrathon wrote:
Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

Except Codex > Rulebook right, so I do still have my Storm Ravens.

Also, GW FINALLY fixed that stupid argument with the Valks/Vendetta. We all knew scout was going away, which is now official. It also looks like they don't have any other change, so Death from the Skies shouldn't change AV/points cost.

I am still angry now that everyone gets the raven, it feels like it has much less flavor now. Changing the name of the rule hurts.

Also, why did almost every flyer in the game lose deepstrike?

So since the faq didn't change the foc slot of gk stormraven, the placement of the product on gw webpage is wrong ?

(Atm the gk stormraven is in the heavy support slot of grey knight page)

 Nasakenai wrote:
Telion has a camo cloak and stealth, does this mean he gets a 2+ cover save when in 4+ cover?

Yes.

 Nasakenai wrote:
Does his unit of scouts get it as well without any upgrades?

As long as Telion is alive, his unit has Stealth. However, the further +1 camo-cloak bonus applies only to Telion unless you purchase camo-cloaks for the rest of the squad.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

I loled

 Shadelkan wrote:
And SW still don't have a flyer or anything to deal with flyers. Fun.

Well they get more than Tryanids who can't even use the ADL.

But yeah its all pretty rubbish:

Space Marine and Ork players have to but a expensive direct only book to get a couple of new units as the FAQ invalidate the previous publications.

Everyone else gets the shaft

anyone happy ?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
And I don't know why, but for some reason the way they're putting in entries that mention BT looks like it might get sucked into C:SM.

Funny, I didnt see anything remotely close to suggesting that.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Everyone else gets the shaft

anyone happy ?

Yea and no, in that order. From every ork and space marine player on the forum.

 ceorron wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Everyone else gets the shaft

anyone happy ?

Yea and no, in that order. From every ork and space marine player on the forum.

*raises hand*

I'm happy. Stormtalons became Flyer(Hover) which I'm very happy about and getting access to StormRavens is great news. I'm also happy that I will soon have the rules for the Dakka Jet and Bommerz because nobody around here has the White Dwarf with the rules and keeps getting them wrong.

Judging from the FAQs, i'm guessing Stormtalons get Strafing Run and lose Hover Strike. (And just get normal hover mode)

Which makes them better.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

What RAW are you reading? Nothing in that paragraph FAQs the BA/GK codexes.

Aw man, why are they taking out the Deep Strike rules on flyers? I just recently got some Night Scythes and was looking forward to plopping them down with Phased Reinforcements.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

What RAW are you reading? Nothing in that paragraph FAQs the BA/GK codexes.

The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars

That's the part he's joking about. It'll be a running joke for a while, as GW poorly wrote this, as RAW only those two codexes can use the two models, but RAO (Rules as obvious) means those two in additions. Kroothawk is having fun with this. But I can see actual people argue that GK and BA are no longer able to take them-those people should be avoided in public places.

Except it does not say that?

It says if they are not in already your Codex - which for example the GK Stormraven is - you can't have them except in C:Sm and C:BT

Its pretty clear??.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Except it does not say that?

It says if they are not in already your Codex - which for example the GK Stormraven is - you can't have them except in C:Sm and C:BT

Its pretty clear??.

Unfortunately it is a valid interpretation of what's written according to the English Language but it's a case of there being two equally valid ways to read that paragraph because GW doesn't get lawyers to proof read their stuff for them.

However because the Blood Angel and Grey Knight FAQs don't remove the unit entries from the books they can still be taken because an entry in a different armies FAQ doesn't override the content of their codex.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Except it does not say that?

It says if they are not in already your Codex - which for example the GK Stormraven is - you can't have them except in C:Sm and C:BT

Its pretty clear??.

But the way it's written can appear differently.

No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex.

This is where I find out what I can field

The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

And this is worded to possibly imply that the exception is that the Storm talon and Stormraven are the exceptions to what I can field, as they are available only to Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templar.

Exactly. We all know what it's supposed to mean, but GW fails at writing.

 Happygrunt wrote:

Also, why did almost every flyer in the game lose deepstrike?

To limit flyer angle of approach I'm assuming. Both deepstrike and outflank provide you tremedous freedom to maximize the number of turns your fliers can attack. It makes it much harder to angle fors units already on your half the board, especially if you end up with length wise board edges.

Rob451 wrote:

Unfortunately it is a valid interpretation of what's written according to the English Language but it's a case of there being two equally valid ways to read that paragraph because GW doesn't get lawyers to proof read their stuff for them.

Yes, and if there is a sensible interpretation and an inane interpretation, half of Dakka feels obligated to stick with the inane one and start countless threads about it on YMDC, even though we all understand perfectly well what they actually meant.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, and if there is a sensible interpretation and an inane interpretation, half of Dakka feels obligated to stick with the inane one and start countless threads about it on YMDC, even though we all understand perfectly well what they actually meant.

YMDC threads argue the validity of the rules from a RAW perspective only. I don't think many of the players would use the rules in a terrible way, such as denying vehicles invul saves. And again, nobody here is really saying that they are going to stop their GK and BA opponents from using the Storm talon and Stormraven. They just point out that the FAQ is written in a stupid manner.

There is no failed English at all. It says you can usually only pick units listed in the codex, the exceptions being Stormravens/talons in SM and BT.

The person who only reads the part of the paragraph which reads: '...which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars' and ignores everything else is the one who is failing at basic English.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

And this is worded to possibly imply that the exception is that the Storm talon and Stormraven are the exceptions to what I can field, as they are available only to Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templar.

Only if you ignore the fact that both parts of that sentence do actually have something to do with each other and it IS refering to Stormravens/talons in the context of the SM and BT codexes.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Exactly. We all know what it's supposed to mean, but GW fails at writing.

More like people failing at English comprehension.

That's how it's intended to be read. The problem is that is states that you can choose units in your army listing, with the exception of the storm talon and Stormraven (i.e. they are in your army list, but you can't take them) which are available to C;SM and C:BT.

It can be read either way. I know you want to read it one way, and nobody is arguing that that isn't the proper way it should be interpreted. It's just another entry in the list of confusing FAQ issues.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I know you want to read it one way, and nobody is arguing that that isn't the proper way it should be interpreted.

Then job fething done! It doesn't need to be any clearer.

Would you rather they worded it like this for people who have no comprehension skills? Complete with caps and different coloured type for the instant messaging generation.

No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex. THAT FULL STOP DENOTES I HAVE NOW ENDED THAT SENTENCE AND AM STARTING A NEW ONE. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, (THAT COMMA MEANS I AM NOW GOING TO GIVE MORE MEANING, IN THIS CASE CONTEXT, TO WHAT I JUST WROTE) which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. I HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP.

 Breotan wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Exactly. We all know what it's supposed to mean, but GW fails at writing.

More like people failing at English comprehension.

More like people failing at interpreting emoticons

No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are also available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

Fixed, job's a good 'un.

 Glorioski wrote:
Would you rather they worded it like this for people who have no comprehension skills? Complete with caps and different coloured type for the instant messaging generation.

No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex. THAT FULL STOP DENOTES I HAVE NOW ENDED THAT SENTENCE AND AM STARTING A NEW ONE. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, (THAT COMMA MEANS I AM NOW GOING TO GIVE MORE MEANING, IN THIS CASE CONTEXT, TO WHAT I JUST WROTE) which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. I HOPE THAT CLEARS THINGS UP.

Just leaving out the 'only' would serve the same function without the hyperbole.

Or you could leave it as it is.

Drakmord wrote:
Aw man, why are they taking out the Deep Strike rules on flyers? I just recently got some Night Scythes and was looking forward to plopping them down with Phased Reinforcements.

I wonder why FMCs didn't loose deep strike. Unless I'm missing something.

I really wish that game designers had to take a TECHNICAL writing class of some kind AND that it was legitimately reviewed by players (peer reviewed). It would make all the difference. Christ almighty.

Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

 Leth wrote:
Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

That's assuming the complaint of a poorly worded FAQ isn't valid and we are complaining just to complain. FAQ issues are a recurring theme and just warrants the complaint.

It's not like people are looking for things to rage over. I was hoping that the FAQs were going to include useful updates. Instead I saw ads and the standard poorly worded FAQ. If I didn't see those issues, are you saying I'd just go looking for something to be upset about?

Wow, I have zero reason to buy this book because I play Space Wolves, and still don't get the flyers.

SetantaSilvermane wrote:
Wow, I have zero reason to buy this book because I play Space Wolves, and still don't get the flyers.

They'll get one eventually.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Did i read it correct that Black templars can take the Strom talon as well as the raven?

Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and Stormtalon
Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles in the Reference
section. Does this mean that every Space Marine Chapter now has
access to these vehicles as well (i.e . Space Wolves, Blood Angels,
Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)
A: No – you may usually only select units and vehicles that are
available in the army list section of your codex. The two
exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,
which are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space
Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for using these
Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies compendium

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

No. Just no.
Is the Storm Raven part of the army list section of the BA and GK codices still? Then you may select is as usual.
Does making an exception to make them available to armies chosen from Codex: SM and Codex: BT say anything about them only being available to those two books?
The exception is to "you may usually only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex.
Another exception to that rule is the Night Spinner for the Eldar, which is not in the Eldar codex.

Trying to claim that RaW says Ba and GK don't get Storm Ravens now is wrong, and only trying to cause confusion for a laugh.

MajorWesJanson wrote:


Trying to claim that RaW says Ba and GK don't get Storm Ravens now is wrong, and only trying to cause confusion for a laugh.

no, the rules book should say every single case when a rule or change does or does not apply on every page for every rule, we need a 5000 page rulebook

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

No. Just no.
Is the Storm Raven part of the army list section of the BA and GK codices still? Then you may select is as usual.
Does making an exception to make them available to armies chosen from Codex: SM and Codex: BT say anything about them only being available to those two books?

Yes. The FAQs for C:SM and the BRB are different. The BRB FAQ says:

BRB FAQ 1.3 wrote:No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

(emphasis mine)

That quite clearly says that armies other than Codex Space Marines and Black Templars do not get the Stormtalon or Stormraven. Furthermore, it's not actually in conflict with the codex-specific FAQs (which omit the "only") at all - the codex FAQs state that those two armies may take the units but make no mention of any others not being able to take them. The BRB, on the other hand, is very specific and unambiguous on that point: that only Codex marines and Black Templars may take them.

I think we can all agree it's an obvious mistake (and maybe it was actually picked up in editing and just not corrected in the BRB version) but the BRB FAQ is pretty clear on the matter as written.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

No. Just no.
Is the Storm Raven part of the army list section of the BA and GK codices still? Then you may select is as usual.
Does making an exception to make them available to armies chosen from Codex: SM and Codex: BT say anything about them only being available to those two books?

Yes. The FAQs for C:SM and the BRB are different. The BRB FAQ says:

BRB FAQ 1.3 wrote:No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

(emphasis mine)

That quite clearly says that armies other than Codex Space Marines and Black Templars do not get the Stormtalon or Stormraven. Furthermore, it's not actually in conflict with the codex-specific FAQs (which omit the "only") at all - the codex FAQs state that those two armies may take the units but make no mention of any others not being able to take them. The BRB, on the other hand, is very specific and unambiguous on that point: that only Codex marines and Black Templars may take them.

I think we can all agree it's an obvious mistake (and maybe it was actually picked up in editing and just not corrected in the BRB version) but the BRB FAQ is pretty clear on the matter as written.

It doesn't sat that at all. GK and BA have the Storm Raven in their codex army list. All armies can pick units from their codex army list. The only exception to this are SM and BT who are able to take those units from OUTSIDE their army list.

You're ignoring what the second sentence is talking about in relation to the first sentence. It's saying there are two exceptions to being able to pick units from your codex army list.

 yakface wrote:

BRB FAQ 1.3 wrote:No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex. The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

It doesn't sat that at all. GK and BA have the Storm Raven in their codex army list. All armies can pick units from their codex army list. The only exception to this are SM and BT who are able to take those units from OUTSIDE their army list.

You're ignoring what the second sentence is talking about in relation to the first sentence. It's saying there are two exceptions to being able to pick units from your codex army list.

1.) We all know what is intended, so this discussion is just for fun.
2.) Yakface, your reformulation is a good expression of what is intended, but certainly not of what is written. Written is that Storm Raven and Storm Talon are exceptions of what units you may select for your army. And it is explicit that you may only take Storm Raven and Storm talon for SM and BT according to this FAQ. Saying that something else is intended is okay, saying that something else is written is wrong. Exchange the second "only" to "also" and everything would be fine.

You started this for fun but all you are doing now is proving that you can't read the paragraph properly.

Kroothawk is definately right as far as RAW goes.

RAW in 40k is an excercise in futility.

I love reading stuff like this thread and snickering. Reminds me of why I'm glad I dumped GW for a game company that apparently uses technical writers so that language and rules are tight and require very little errata....

 Kroothawk wrote:

1.) We all know what is intended, so this discussion is just for fun.
2.) Yakface, your reformulation is a good expression of what is intended, but certainly not of what is written. Written is that Storm Raven and Storm Talon are exceptions of what units you may select for your army. And it is explicit that you may only take Storm Raven and Storm talon for SM and BT according to this FAQ. Saying that something else is intended is okay, saying that something else is written is wrong. Exchange the second "only" to "also" and everything would be fine.

No it absolutely does not say that, full stop.

Let's read it again, and I'll break it down. First sentence:

No – you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex.

What does that say? You may only select units and vehicles available in the army list section of your codex. Because remember the question is whether or not players are able to take units that are listed in the summary of the rulebook but not actually in their respective codex.

And since BA and GK players actually have the Stormraven in their codex, that is a unit/vehicle in their codex and they are therefore allowed to take it.

Now onto the second sentence:

The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

It mentions 'two exceptions'...but two exceptions to what? The answer is the first sentence. These are the two exceptions to the clarification that 'you may only select units and vehicles that are available in the army list section of your codex.'


So when you put it all together, you get:

The two exceptions to only being allowed to take units/vehicles from your codex army list are the Stormtalon and Stormraven, but only in armies chosen from the SM and BT codexes.


So what it does not say is that ONLY BT and SM armies can take Stormtalons and Stormravens. It says that only those two codexes are able to make the exception of taking units from outside what is in their codex army list (to take the Stormtalon and Stormraven).


The RAW only says what you're claiming if you willfully ignore the structure of the two sentences together.

yeah,

 yakface wrote:
It says that only those two codexes are able to make the exception of taking units from outside what is in their codex army list (to take the Stormtalon and Stormraven).

So orks can't take dakka jets/bommers... RAW?

Panic...

 Panic wrote:
yeah,

 yakface wrote:
It says that only those two codexes are able to make the exception of taking units from outside what is in their codex army list (to take the Stormtalon and Stormraven).

So orks can't take dakka jets/bommers... RAW?

Panic...

"The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships."

Is the Dakka Jet/Bommer part of the two exceptions that says Stormtalon and Stormraven? No.

 Panic wrote:
yeah,

 yakface wrote:
It says that only those two codexes are able to make the exception of taking units from outside what is in their codex army list (to take the Stormtalon and Stormraven).

So orks can't take dakka jets/bommers... RAW?

Panic...

No, remember the question is can any SM codex take any of the vehicles listed in the rulebook summary section. So the answer is regarding SM codexes, nothing else.

People often want to treat FAQ answers as rules, which they are not. They are answers to questions, so you cannot ignore the question when reading the answer.

yeah,
I was also poking fun at a lose bit of text with the RAW stick...
But people are correct GW just has to phrase things better to keep clarity- which is the purpose of the FAQ.

It would have bee easier if they just said No -
All Chapters use their codex army lists as normal.

Panic...

Guys, I know you like trolling but when Yakface starts calling you out over your misinterpretation, it's time for you to quit.

So in RAW,

Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

means

Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are NOT only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

I see your point , but I guess, we have to agree to disagree here.

 Kroothawk wrote:
So in RAW,

Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

means

Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are NOT only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

I see your point , but I guess, we have to agree to disagree here.

And yet you're still reading selectively...and in this case you've actually physically removed the section of the sentence that invalidates your point.

The Stormtalon and Stormraven are the TWO EXCEPTIONS. Two exceptions from what? The exceptions from the previous sentence that says players may only select units from their codex army list.

So the Stormtalon and Stormraven are the only two exceptions to this (of SM vehicles), but only in SM and BT armies.


It seriously cannot be read any other way without completely ignoring the part about those two being the exceptions (as you did in your post).

No matter what, nothing in the second sentence invalidates the ruling in the first sentence that players may only select units from their codex army list, which for BA and GK codexes, includes the Stormraven.

Sorry fella but the exception means that the rule stating you can only select from your codex does not apply to stormravens and storm talons. They then assert that storm talons and ravens may only be selected by space marines and black Templars. It is not an exception for codex's it is an exception that applies to two specific miniatures. It then makes clear the circumstances in which you may select those two miniatures in an army.

This is obviously not what is intended but it is what they have written. I think the level of debate alone proves that this is poorly worded and needs a rethink.

In summary:(trying to decipher the debate about SM and such)

Codex: SM and Codex: BT get to use Stormravens and Stormtalons now, yes?

Codex BA and Codex GK get to use Stormravens as indicated in their codex, yes?

@byte rules as intended yes that is indeed correct.

 yakface wrote:
The two exceptions to only being allowed to take units/vehicles from your codex army list are the Stormtalon and Stormraven, but only in armies chosen from the SM and BT codexes.

That's incorrect.
According to the FAQ, this is how the sentence should be structured:

The two exceptions to only being allowed to take units/vehicles from your codex army list are the Stormtalon and Stormraven, which are only available in armies chosen from the SM and BT codexes.

That's using the actual words from the second sentence (quoted below) instead of how it should have read.

The two exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships, which are only available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars.

You changed the sentence when you dropped the word "available".

From the new errata for Death from the Skies.

Page 68 – Army List, Stormraven Gunship, Grey Knights
Stormraven Gunship.
Change first sentence to read ‘Stormravens in detachments
chosen from Codex: Grey Knights are Fast Attack and must
replace their stormstrike missiles with mindstrike missiles
(pg 64).

Can i ask a question...You guys know what their saying in these faq's.. You know ba and gk do not loose their fliers..so..what exactly is this argument about? It's arguments like these that are pushing me from the game (GW themselves mostly). I am a player that plays by what the rules says..Not what is intended..not what majority thinks it is.. or what it implies. 99.9% of the time.. honestly..the rules are not complicated to read, nor do they have hidden meanings. These long debates and hidden meanings come from us the players who try and shoehorn in our own ideas and meanings. -shrugs- Just my opinion which means nothing to anyone but me but... honestly guys..Sometimes i wonder if the other gaming communities are like us arguing about rules. Just my two cents, I'll go back to lurking.

 Arrathon wrote:
Can i ask a question...You guys know what their saying in these faq's.. You know ba and gk do not loose their fliers..so..what exactly is this argument about?

Many people enjoy debating for the sake of the debate.

It's arguments like these that are pushing me from the game (GW themselves mostly). I am a player that plays by what the rules says..Not what is intended..not what majority thinks it is.. or what it implies. 99.9% of the time

So you play by what's written but debates over what's written are driving you from the game?

.. honestly..the rules are not complicated to read, nor do they have hidden meanings. These long debates and hidden meanings come from us the players who try and shoehorn in our own ideas and meanings. -shrugs- Just my opinion which means nothing to anyone but me but... honestly guys..Sometimes i wonder if the other gaming communities are like us arguing about rules. Just my two cents, I'll go back to lurking.

I would bet that you're not playing by what the rules say most of the time. You're playing by the obvious rules as intended. Because playing by the letter of the RAW results in an unplayable game.

Actually, yes i do play by whats in my rulebook..not what is interpreted by the masses. Actually, Everyone at my local shop plays by the rulebook, and our games are just fine.and no rules as written is not a unplayable game..it IS the game. You don't buy a 80.00$ rule book to use the rules inside as to what you think they mean.

I agree with it is human nature to argue/debate so you got me there.

It's not so much the debates, its the slick LANGUAGE who try and get away with what they think the rules should mean. It's just not that fun anymore to me.

And again, i was just adding my two cents, not looking for a spitting contest.

@Arrathon it's really simple if the rules where written in an unambiguous way then there would be no room for debate. Blame the rule writers not the gaming community.

 Byte wrote:
From the new errata for Death from the Skies.

Page 68 – Army List, Stormraven Gunship, Grey Knights
Stormraven Gunship.
Change first sentence to read ‘Stormravens in detachments
chosen from Codex: Grey Knights are Fast Attack and must
replace their stormstrike missiles with mindstrike missiles
(pg 64).

It's not even out yet and already has an errata? GW is quality at it's finest.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@Arrathon it's really simple if the rules where written in an unambiguous way then there would be no room for debate. Blame the rule writers not the gaming community.

No modern game of any complexity exists without FAQs and debate.

 Arrathon wrote:
Actually, yes i do play by whats in my rulebook..not what is interpreted by the masses. Actually, Everyone at my local shop plays by the rulebook, and our games are just fine.and no rules as written is not a unplayable game..it IS the game. You don't buy a 80.00$ rule book to use the rules inside as to what you think they mean.

So where do Hive Guard, helmeted Marines, Zoanthropes, and other models without eyes draw line of sight from?
Cite the page in the rulebook please. You must be able to since you play by what's in there.

And again, i was just adding my two cents, not looking for a spitting contest.

I'm not either. I'm just trying to show you that things are not as absolutely clear as you pretend.

Most folks find that there are at least a few ambiguities and holes they need to patch in the rules for everyday play. Some folks don't even think about it and remember it later.

Part of the point of discussing rules on the internet is that we can highlight problem areas and confusing bits and not be surprised if/when we run into someone in the real world who interprets them differently than we do.

It's a mistake to assume that someone on the internet genuinely plays a rule in a stupid or nonfunctional way just because they point out that (in their opinion, at least) there's a problem with the way it's written. Most of the guys who focus on RAW in rules discussions are perfectly willing and happy to agree with their opponnents to tweak things in a real life game to run smoothly.

@pretre correct but that doesn't invalidate my point.

@mannahnin very well put indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Arrathon wrote:
Actually, yes i do play by whats in my rulebook..not what is interpreted by the masses. Actually, Everyone at my local shop plays by the rulebook, and our games are just fine.and no rules as written is not a unplayable game..it IS the game. You don't buy a 80.00$ rule book to use the rules inside as to what you think they mean.

So where do Hive Guard, helmeted Marines, Zoanthropes, and other models without eyes draw line of sight from?
Cite the page in the rulebook please. You must be able to since you play by what's in there.

And again, i was just adding my two cents, not looking for a spitting contest.

I'm not either. I'm just trying to show you that things are not as absolutely clear as you pretend.

See...now your being silly.. if someone across the table for me told me that a space marine model with a helmet on has no line of sight id probably tell them to get off my table. It's Stuff like what you've said(the eye thing)..that are beginning to make me not enjoy this game, because yes..i have come across players who think literally that way..and yes..i am the type of person to say..pack your gak and go to a different table.Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site. Now i will go back to lurking, thank you for helping make my coffee time interesting

 Arrathon wrote:
.Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site.

Main rulebook page 8 wrote:For one model to have line of sight to another, you must
be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to
any part of the target's body (the head,torso,arms orlegs).

The problem you are having, Arrathon, is differentiating between arguing RAW on the internet and actual play. For the most part, arguing RAW on the internet is an academic process to determine what the actual rules say. It allows us to understand the rules and know what to expect when playing people from different clubs and geographic locations. Most people who argue the rather out there RAW issues tend to play them a bit differently when actually on a table.

 Arrathon wrote:
[See...now your being silly.. if someone across the table for me told me that a space marine model with a helmet on has no line of sight id probably tell them to get off my table. It's Stuff like what you've said(the eye thing)..that are beginning to make me not enjoy this game, because yes..i have come across players who think literally that way..and yes..i am the type of person to say..pack your gak and go to a different table

And that's my point. Playing by the absolute RAW leads to an unplayable game. You have to use some level of RAI to be able to play at all.

Also,it says from the models line of sight.. not the models EYES line of site. Now i will go back to lurking, thank you for helping make my coffee time interesting

Page 8 BRB wrote:For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs).

No, it really does say "eyes".

Arrathon- your not the only one that shares your opinion. Well said. Thank you.

However, the rule book and army books do contain errata. The interpretation is the crux of your point.

What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the Internet that a pretty obvious joke about pretty much anything can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

FTFY.

Welcome to the Internet!

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

 Byte wrote:

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?
Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

I was. See?

 Byte wrote:

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Problem is... they weren't joking.

Not sure if srs...

It was really quite clear it was satire on WAACs willingness to read out of context and GW's terribad writing facilitating this.

I've found reading this thread to be a huge waste of time. It almost make the online dakka community look like a bunch of fools. It almost makes GW look smart by continuing to spite us all.

 Ledabot wrote:
I've found reading this thread to be a huge waste of time.

Which you have then compounded by taking more time to post about it... Well done, that man.

I'm just happy the Telion thing got cleared up... looks like I'm paying for cloaks on m'scouts again.

Wasn't the telion thing fixed multiple FAQs ago?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

That's assuming the complaint of a poorly worded FAQ isn't valid and we are complaining just to complain. FAQ issues are a recurring theme and just warrants the complaint.

It's not like people are looking for things to rage over. I was hoping that the FAQs were going to include useful updates. Instead I saw ads and the standard poorly worded FAQ. If I didn't see those issues, are you saying I'd just go looking for something to be upset about?

Pretty much. Instead of saying "hey although they are not where i want them to be yet i am happy to see gw is trying to improve". It is always about how much they suck and are not as good as other companies. No matter how they try to change for the better they are still told they are crap. When people cant applaud an improvement or at least an attempt then yes i say you are doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

Do i wish the typos werent there in the first place? Sure. However the fact that they are jumping on it right away within days now shows an improved dedication To pleasing the customer.

text removed.
Reds8n

I don't see how this is an improvement. Would have been much more efficient if they would have reprinted the WD issue and made that available to every store like a regular release. Or if they wanted to update it they could have updated it through a FAQ/ errata.

However they pulled another GW. Since some of us need those rules they figured "hey we already have em by the balls, might as well squeeze a little harder". So they reprint the rules and charge more than double and while their at it decide to through the rules into a reprint of a supplement that won't sell well to make sure it does. Win win for GW. Not so much for us.

I would consider them improving if they would sell us the product we want without trying to swindle me every time I buy something. " here's your new car sir, o and by the way you'll need to buy the keys separately for extra cost and oops we don't seem to have them in stock so we'll have to order them, that's another 10$ for the shipping" Thank you GW, can I have some more abuse. I need it I've been a baaad boy. <--sarcasm for the impaired.

 Leth wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Wouldn't stop people, just give them something else to bitch about.

That's assuming the complaint of a poorly worded FAQ isn't valid and we are complaining just to complain. FAQ issues are a recurring theme and just warrants the complaint.

It's not like people are looking for things to rage over. I was hoping that the FAQs were going to include useful updates. Instead I saw ads and the standard poorly worded FAQ. If I didn't see those issues, are you saying I'd just go looking for something to be upset about?

Pretty much. Instead of saying "hey although they are not where i want them to be yet i am happy to see gw is trying to improve". It is always about how much they suck and are not as good as other companies. No matter how they try to change for the better they are still told they are crap. When people cant applaud an improvement or at least an attempt then yes i say you are doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

Do i wish the typos werent there in the first place? Sure. However the fact that they are jumping on it right away within days now shows an improved dedication To pleasing the customer.

For the (very) premium price we pay well-written rules and timely, accurate patching is the bare minimum of what should be expected. While I am glad to see that GW (seems to be starting) to do the second the lack of a common vocabulary is inexcusable and the quality of rules-writing is overall fair at best.

GW is not a slightly "special" child who needs to have each one of their C- papers posted on the refrigerator because "hey, at least it isn't a D!".

They why do you pay it if you don't think you are getting your value? That sounds like the C- child right there. I am not going to buy something if I don't expect to get my value out of it as is. Now could they be better? sure but when you compare something you compare everything, not just one aspect that is better elsewhere. You compare the entire package.

If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service. Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

Leth wrote:
If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

My assumption is that GW does (all joking aside) read forums. They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be. They would end up accidentally hanging themselves while trying to tie their shoes.

Leth wrote:
If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service.

Ah yes, the roolzboyz, the real reason they got disbanded was they totally had too many good ideas!

Leth wrote:
Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

A shareholder revolt is a fantasy. It's never worked.

Leth wrote:
Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be.

I continue to theorize that this is the sum of all of their problems. They are more clueless than we could ever imagine. My theory: Everything people attribute to big evil GW and their evil business practices is actually them being that oblivious and dumb.

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:

Leth wrote:
If your goal was improvement then your methods are not an effective method towards that goal. However if your goal is to complain without changing anything then you are right on track.

My assumption is that GW does (all joking aside) read forums. They can't actually be as clueless as they let themselves be thought to be. They would end up accidentally hanging themselves while trying to tie their shoes.

Leth wrote:
If someone complains but does not do anything about it then they are complaining to complain. If it bothered me enough I would actually write the company, call customer service.

Ah yes, the roolzboyz, the real reason they got disbanded was they totally had too many good ideas!

Leth wrote:
Maybe form a coalition of gamers to invest in the company(it is publically traded) to get some say in business decisions. If you really wanted it to change you would do something that involved getting out of your chair. However if you expect change to just happen without doing anything then better start worshiping a giant bird because that's the best bet you got.

A shareholder revolt is a fantasy. It's never worked.

Leth wrote:
Also if you have the right to complain about something that you don't like why am I not allowed the same courtesy to complain about something that bothers me as well?

Not really sure how to respond to this. To begin with you'll have to show me where I said you aren't allowed to complain...

Had a whole post typed out, then realized that it was not on topic. Deleted the rest of it. Back to the FAQs.

Happy that they are updating quickly and looking for feedback. With the rapid release of books, as well as timely FAQs I feel that GW is taking steps in the right direction.

 Leth wrote:
Back to the FAQs.

This is a Good Idea.

 Kroothawk wrote:

According to RAW, Blood Angels and Grey Knights just lost their Storm Raven

You did not read that correctly or more acutely you have used faulty logic . You have denied the antecedent. Lets start with an example of how this kind of faulty logic looks. If I tell you that only US currency has George Washington's face on it you could make the logical argument.

'If the currency has George Washington's face on it, then it is US currency."

If you then looked at a 20 dollar bill with Alexander Hamilton's face on it and used the logic 'The face on the currency is not George Washington's. Therefore, the currency is not US currency.' Clearly the logic is faulty. This logic only works when you deny the consiquent. For this logic to be valid the argument form would need to be inverted to look like this.

'If it is US currency, then the currency has George Washington`s face on it.'

And for the argument to take that form i would have needed to tell you something completely different.

The FAQ response states that the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available to armies chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars. Without any language specifically denying the availability of the units to any army chosen from any other codex the argument must take the following logical form.

'If the army is chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars, then the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available.'

Your logic would follow as 'The army is not chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Templars. Therefore the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are not available.' Like the currency example this logic is only valid if we invert the argument but to do so would require language in the FAQ stating those units are available ONLY to armies chosen from either of those two codex.

Some might argue that the response does limit those two units to armies chosen from those two codex because it lists the Stormtalen and Stormraven Gunships availability to be an exception to the standard that only units in your codex are available to your army. An exception to a standard does not invalidate the standard. For example a 7-11 is open 24 hours a day except on Christmas. Not being open 24 hours a day on December 25th has no impact on it being open 24 hours a day any other day of the year. Not sure the name of this logical fallacy

Before any one makes the argument that this means these units are available to armies chosen from any codex remember you can't draw an affirmative conclusion from,a negative premise. Or in more basic terms, just because nothing says you can't do something does not mean you can.

Hope this helps

You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

Don't feed him. We all have our opinuion now. Further discussion in the YMDC forum.

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize that the sentence you quoted is missing the word "only" that is in the actual FAQ, right?

You are correct. I did not notice that somehow and have made an incorrect argument. The correct form of the argument is 'If the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships are available, then the army is chosen from Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Black Knights' which is the inverted argument you need for Kroothawk's logic to be valid.

I know all that was in English but I'm not exactly sure what I just read. Yesh

 Aqvila Invictis wrote:
What does it say about the quality of GW's rule writing that a pretty obvious joke about them can spawn a two page flame war because of the joke interpretations not being read as a joke by about half of the audience?

Good lord.

Would you say that your post was more RAW than RAI? That could explain the lack of humor.