Edge of Eternity has Precision Strike 2+. What does that mean? If I read it correctly, it doesn't make you hit on a 2+, but it changes any and all hits to Precision Strikes since the Precision Strike rule modifies hits.

Sounds about right. Did you read the relevant rule in the BRB? Precision Strikes normally requires a 6+ in the absence of a number in parens. Precision Strike (2+) requires a 2+ to get the strike. In effect, since a 1 is always a miss, Zarathusa (or whoever is carrying the Edge of Eternity) ALWAYS gets to pick who takes the wound.

The question would be: What about a unit that requires a 3+ to actually hit, what happens if you combine that with Precision Strike (2+)?

The way I read it is that a 2 is still a miss, because Precision Strike only applies to hits and it does not turn them into hits.

No, it does not. The rule is not "Precision Strike (2+)", stop saying it is. Here is an actual picture of the rule.



Precision Strike (2+) != Executioner (2+). Unless GW says it does, but at this point, they're not the same thing.

Requizen wrote:
No, it does not. The rule is not "Precision Strike (2+)", stop saying it is. Here is an actual picture of the rule.



Precision Strike (2+) != Executioner (2+). Unless GW says it does, but at this point, they're not the same thing.

True, you can definitely point out that that wording is technically nonsensical.

...But not really a big enough semantic technicality to get annoyed over.

so it hits on a 2+ . but it causes Precicion strike on a 6+?

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
so it hits on a 2+ . but it causes Precicion strike on a 6+?

It gains the precision strikes rule on a 2+ rather than causes a precision strike on a 2+, if you want to be weird about semantics.

The sensible read is Precision Strikes 2+ because that would actually mean anything.

Its just worded weird. But I guess it makes some sense now

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
so it hits on a 2+ . but it causes Precicion strike on a 6+?

No, you hit on a 3+ (depending on the WS).
But as long as your To Hit is a 2 or higher, a To Hit of 6 will be a Precision Strike.
That's basically what it says, which makes no sense at all.
This is RAI with big neon letters, so we can just assume that it's Precision Strike on a 2 or higher instead of a 6.

The interesting question is:
WS4 versus WS4 with this Relic.
I roll a 3.
Does the attack miss or does it automatically hit because it's a Precision Strike?

The way I read the Precision Strike rule is that it does not turn a miss into a hit, so a 3 would be a miss and you can't roll To Wound.
That just happens to be the most balanced interpretation too

I just noticed, the precision rules are in the BRB errata with a slight wording change if it helps clear things either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 169 - Precision Strikes, rules text
Replace the first sentence with the following:
‘If a model with this special rule, or attacking with a weapon with this special rule, rolls a 6 To Hit with a melee attack, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.

Basically I would interpret it that you hit at your normal roll (generally 3+ or 4+), but anything that's not a 1 is a Precision Strike. Which doesn't make sense, because you can't hit on a 2+ without some sort of special rule like Kharn, but it's likely to catch fringe cases like that anyway.

Hit normal, always Precision. That seems right.

But if they wanted to say "all your hits are Precision", they have wording available for that (i.e. Scout Sergeant Telion and Illic Nightspear).

The wording seems... lacking. What Codex or Suppliment is this item from? (for those of us who don't know)

 Quanar wrote:
But if they wanted to say "all your hits are Precision", they have wording available for that (i.e. Scout Sergeant Telion and Illic Nightspear).

The wording seems... lacking. What Codex or Suppliment is this item from? (for those of us who don't know)

Shield of Baal, Exterminatus.

This isn't the first time Necrons have pointlessly had an ability defined as "Gain this USR", Sephulcural Scarabs grant IWND to Tomb Stalkers and Sentry Pylons if purchased, instead of just saying "May purchase It Will Not Die".

It's flavourful!
And be honest, even Telion and the Vindicare had people discussing the rules.

Kangodo wrote:
The question would be: What about a unit that requires a 3+ to actually hit, what happens if you combine that with Precision Strike (2+)?

The way I read it is that a 2 is still a miss, because Precision Strike only applies to hits and it does not turn them into hits.

It's a little silly, but you're right. A 2 would be a miss, so the Precision Strike bit wouldn't matter. If there was some other rule in play that allowed the bearer to hit on a 2 or higher, then that 2 would be a Precision Strike.

To be honest, it might have been easier to just give the Edge of Eternity a rule saying all hits are considered Precision Strikes. That's the practical effect of Precision Strikes (2+).

Also note the actual rule doesn't have the (2+) part as that is just a typo in the digital Edition. Which probably explains why it doesn't function as a rule.

How do you know it's a typo? Was there an errata?

Nope but the rule doesn't exist in the actual written book and as discussed here has no practical application or even explanation of how it works. So we have to treat it as a typo until an FAQ or Errata comes out as it is not in the actual rules.

So what you're really saying is that there is a discrepancy between the printed book and the eBook. Either the printed book is correct and the eBook is a typo OR the printed book is a typo and the rule is just poorly written.

We can't assume the eBook has a typo in terms of RaW. Feel free to do so, but it's HYWPI.

The printed book is the official rules which you add errata to. One has rules that work the other does not. So do we go by the official rules that work or by the E-copy that doesn't work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaW the 2+ does not exist as it is not in the written rules or Errata.

And since when are the books the official rules?
The eBooks are just as official as the books.

The Executioner (2+) is obvious enough to play with.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The printed book is the official rules which you add errata to. One has rules that work the other does not. So do we go by the official rules that work or by the E-copy that doesn't work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaW the 2+ does not exist as it is not in the written rules or Errata.

Yeah... um... the eBooks are just as official as the printed books.

Oh! I need to play my Vindicare Assassin. Let me grab my official, printed copy of Officio Assassinorum. Um... can't find one. I guess there are no official rules?

Seriously. If GW/FW/BL sells it, it's official. The fact that there are differences between versions means their editors are garbage, but we knew that.

Granted some rules are only available via ebook until they get an official release and some never get the official release. But the actual Hardback and softback copies of the rules do not include the 2+ part so unless you have an errata with that part, it does not exist RaW. It is literally not in the rules.

It literally IS in the rules. It's in the eBook version. Whether or not you accept the eBook version as an official copy is irrelevant to whether or not it's an official copy.

Here's a hint. eBooks are official copies.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Granted some rules are only available via ebook until they get an official release and some never get the official release. But the actual Hardback and softback copies of the rules do not include the 2+ part so unless you have an errata with that part, it does not exist RaW. It is literally not in the rules.

Uhm.. What?
I have the eBook here and I can tell you that it is quite literally IN the rules.
An eBook is an official release, like it or not.

I have the official rules and I can tell you it is not in them. Now do you have an errata that changes my book?

I also have official rules and it is in there. Now do you have an errata that changes my book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm being snarky. There is a discrepancy between versions and there is no errata. You play with your current, up to date rulebook and I'll play with mine. We both play knowing that there is likely to be an errata, but not knowing what that errata will be.

I have the official rules and I can tell you it is not in them. Now do you have an errata that changes my eBook?

See what I did there?
It's Schrödinger's rule, until we get a FAQ it is both in and out the rules.

Exalted

Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

Guess what, my friend? Computers aren't going away anytime soon. Yes, eBooks can easily be doctored, but if you're questioning the basic integrity of the people you're playing against... find a new community. If I was playing you and you questioned my basic integrity, I would likely thank you for your time, pack up my things and go play with someone who doesn't assume I'm a liar because I didn't spend more and buy a hardbound copy of my rule book.

And to answer your question, I read the Executioner (2+) the same way you read your Executioner rule. It grants Precision Strikes. What does the (2+) do? As written, nothing. I suspect one of two things has happened....

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated.
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy.

We won't know whether option one or two is correct until we get an Errata.

As the 2+ isn't in the RaW of the official rules we should play by the official rules until we are told differently. I never said or implied computers should or could go away. I never questioned your integrity but if someone was telling me that the official rules are wrong and I should play by something not written in the official rules then I'm going to wonder why.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

It's not my problem that you don't want to believe official rule sources.

And what does it allow you to do? Well, I guess that is rather obvious.
It allows you to have Precision Strikes on a 2+ instead of a 6.

Kriswall I'm glad you agree both your options mean the 2+ is a typo.

Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So in summary;

RaW: 2+ doesn't exist.

RaTIE (Rules as Typo'd in Ebook): 2+ does nothing.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kriswall I'm glad you agree both your options mean the 2+ is a typo.

Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.

Dude, why are you bothering to post in a rules forum for a game where you don't even acknowledge that a very large number of rules sources are even official?

The core issue here is obviously that you have trust issues and don't trust the people you play with. Maybe go to therapy? Find a new hobby that doesn't require that you trust someone? I'm not trying to be combative, but if you don't have that basic foundation of trust for your opponent, then you're wasting your time.

Of course I think the 2+, or lack thereof, is a typo. GW either left it out by accident or put it in by accident. Executioner doesn't require a dice roll to grant the Precision Strikes USR, so saying Executioner (2+) doesn't mean anything. Executioner (2+) would grant the Precision Strikes USR just like Executioner by itself would. Once the model has Precision Strikes, he gains a benefit on a 6.

What I think is MOST likely is that GW intended Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and has no idea how to write rules.

Given only the information in the printed copy, I would say the model get Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6 as per normal.
Given only the information in the electronic copy, I would say RaW grants Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6, but that RaI is likely Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 2+.
Given both copies, I would say that an editor at GW made a mistake and that we will see an Errata at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I apologize if this comes off as rude. It's not an attack. You just have to have a basic level of trust for your opponent or... what's the point?

Kriswall, snide insults aside, you stated that the 2+ in the ebook is a typo:

I suspect one of two things has happened.... 

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated. Means it is a typo
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy. Means the 2+ after Executioner is a typo (that would still need to be corrected

So you agree that the Ebook has a typo. Then why are you even arguing to ignore the official rules for what you agree is in a typo in a digital copy? The rules are clear, your projection of trust issues is your problem and has no place here. RaW the 2+ does not exist at the moment it may do in the future, but heck Marines may be T5 in the future doesn't mean I can try to play them at T5 now.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kriswall, snide insults aside, you stated that the 2+ in the ebook is a typo:

I suspect one of two things has happened.... 

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated. Means it is a typo
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy. Means the 2+ after Executioner is a typo (that would still need to be corrected

So you agree that the Ebook has a typo. Then why are you even arguing to ignore the official rules for what you agree is in a typo in a digital copy? The rules are clear, your projection of trust issues is your problem and has no place here. RaW the 2+ does not exist at the moment it may do in the future, but heck Marines may be T5 in the future doesn't mean I can try to play them at T5 now.

Before we continue, as an act of good faith, please provide me with the official rules source for the following. I can't find printed copies on Games-Workshop.com, but I'd really like to include them in a very official way that will appease mistrusting opponents.

1. Kharn's Butcherhorde
2. Kranon's Helguard
3. The Unrelenting Hunt
4. Officio Assassinorum
5. Strike Force Ultra
6. Any of the multitude of Formations from the Rising Leviathan series
7. The Helbrute formations
8. Tyrannic War Veterans
8. Cypher, Lord of the Fallen
9. Eldar Ghost Warriors
10. Adeptus Astartes Storm Wing
11. Tau Firebase Support Cadre
12. Be'Lakor
13. Heck what about anything in either Codex: Adepta Sororitas or Codex: Legion of the Damned?
14. MORE THINGS

Or how about this instead? Provide me with any single rules quote from one of your official sources saying that eBooks and Interactive Editions are intended to be viewed as unofficial sources.

Furthermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to help you out...

Small Rulebook, page 116, "Army List Entries" Section - "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."

So, your "official" source only requires that the rules source be a "Games Workshop publication".

Guess what? Quoted from the eBook... "Shield of Baal: Exterminatus © Copyright Games Workshop ", Looks like the eBook is a GW publication! It's official!

Quite frankly, dismissing e-books as "unofficial" is non-sense. Such an opinion will make any discussion of this nature end in a disagreement of premises.

Premise 1: E-books aren't official, therefore anything contained therein is worthless.

Premise 2: E-books are official, and when they contradict a written publication, 2 equally valid perspectives are generated.

So assuming that Premise 2 is accurate, which I believe is the case, we can try to determine what Precision Strike [2+] means, in the context of the e-book.

I expect the wording is a typo, and that it will likely be FAQ'd or Errata'd, but I also buy Lottery tickets. Trying to determine what the rule as written means is difficult, as I'm unaware of a precedent. I am also unaware of a caveat similar to what FNP has, in which the value may be default or specific. My assumption would be that any to hit roll of a 2+ is treated as a precision strike, assuming the roll hits. While unusual, it is possible for a model to hit on a 2+ in close combat. Kharn can do so, and others could do so if they had high enough weapon skill and a +1 to hit modifier... somehow.

If the attack misses, it misses. Precision Strike changes the rules for a SUCCESSFUL hit, to allow the attacker to choose whom the attack resolves against. Thus, a roll of a 2 would typically miss, but the rule supports the rare occasion in which a 2+ would hit.

That's my interpretation, anyhow.

Futhermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.

No the 2+ is a typo in the ebook that is a guarantee as Executioner (2+) means nothing. You yourself said it is at best in the wrong place. So the official rules do not have the 2+ rule and the ebook has a typo. The official rules may also have a typo. Heck it might have lots of typos perhaps Tyrannocytes are supposed to be T10, or W5 & T6. We don't know but until an errata comes out the official rules don't contain the 2+ there is a 2+ typo (as we both agree you yourself said it is in the wrong place) in the ebook. Why should we over rule the official rules for a typo not present in the official rules?

Sorry but that is not RaW. Please mark your posts as HYWPI or RaI if you want to discuss your 2+ rule.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Quite frankly, dismissing e-books as "unofficial" is non-sense. Such an opinion will make any discussion of this nature end in a disagreement of premises.

Premise 1: E-books aren't official, therefore anything contained therein is worthless.

Premise 2: E-books are official, and when they contradict a written publication, 2 equally valid perspectives are generated.

So assuming that Premise 2 is accurate, which I believe is the case, we can try to determine what Precision Strike [2+] means, in the context of the e-book.

I expect the wording is a typo, and that it will likely be FAQ'd or Errata'd, but I also buy Lottery tickets. Trying to determine what the rule as written means is difficult, as I'm unaware of a precedent. I am also unaware of a caveat similar to what FNP has, in which the value may be default or specific. My assumption would be that any to hit roll of a 2+ is treated as a precision strike, assuming the roll hits. While unusual, it is possible for a model to hit on a 2+ in close combat. Kharn can do so, and others could do so if they had high enough weapon skill and a +1 to hit modifier... somehow.

If the attack misses, it misses. Precision Strike changes the rules for a SUCCESSFUL hit, to allow the attacker to choose whom the attack resolves against. Thus, a roll of a 2 would typically miss, but the rule supports the rare occasion in which a 2+ would hit.

That's my interpretation, anyhow.

The issue is that it's not Precision Strikes (2+), it's Executioner (2+). Executioner doesn't require a roll for anything the way that Precision Strikes or Feel No Pain would. Executioner just grants Precision Strikes.

Executioner (2+) and Executioner by itself are functionally the same. They both simply grant Precision Strikes, which in turn grants a benefit on a to-hit roll of a 6.

I SUSPECT that GW INTENDED for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+), which would definitely grant a benefit on a to-hit roll of a 6. This would make sense in the context that this is a Necron Relic and not some random piece of wargear.

Ultimately there are two debates. The first is whether or not the 2+ as written in the eBook does anything. I don't think it does, but I think GW probably thinks it does. The second is whether or not the eBook is even an official source. Of course it is. Fling can't get past the fact that it's not a physical book and is steadfastly ignoring the 2+ while trying to use semantics to get me to admit that I think the eBook is wrong. Something is wrong. Only the authors know what!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Futhermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.

No the 2+ is a typo in the ebook that is a guarantee as Executioner (2+) means nothing. You yourself said it is at best in the wrong place. So the official rules do not have the 2+ rule and the ebook has a typo. The official rules may also have a typo. Heck it might have lots of typos perhaps Tyrannocytes are supposed to be T10, or W5 & T6. We don't know but until an errata comes out the official rules don't contain the 2+ there is a 2+ typo (as we both agree you yourself said it is in the wrong place) in the ebook. Why should we over rule the official rules for a typo not present in the official rules?

Sorry but that is not RaW. Please mark your posts as HYWPI or RaI if you want to discuss your 2+ rule.

I don't think you know what official means. I quoted a rule from one of your print books stating that any GW publication can contain rules. So you're just being a troll at this point. Provide quoted rules as I've done or concede. Your own stated argument is that you won't consider eBooks official because you don't trust that your opponent isn't modifying the content. That's a personal issue and not a wider game issue. From a wider standpoint, we work from the premise that everyone is being honest and that we are examining what GW actually wrote and not what Johnny McLiarman wrote.

And what happens if GW releases an Errata adding the (2+) into the printed book and an FAQ stating that Executioner (2+) grants the Precision Strikes USR with the benefit on a 2+? Then there is no type in the eBook. The only typo would be in the printed book.

I don't know GW's intent. You don't either.

RaW we both agree that the piece of Wargear grants Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6+. RaI, as ALWAYS is unclear.

I've demonstrated that RaW, any GW publication can contain legal rules for unit entries. I've demonstrated that the eBook is a GW publication. RaW, eBooks are offical rules sources.

Unless you're willing to argue RaW and post rules citations for your beliefs, please append HIWPI to all further implications that eBooks aren't official.

I think a separate post should be made in YMDC for the eBook vs Print Book discrepancy problem.

It's something that impacts more issues than just this one.

col_impact wrote:
I think a separate post should be made in YMDC for the eBook vs Print Book discrepancy problem.

It's something that impacts more issues than just this one.

Feel free. I predict it will degenerate into meaningless bickering as both sources are legal and official. The only answer is better editing and more timely FAQs/Erratas from GW.

And what happens if GW releases an Errata adding the (2+) into the printed book and an FAQ stating that Executioner (2+) grants the Precision Strikes USR with the benefit on a 2+? Then there is no type in the eBook. The only typo would be in the printed book. 

Well that would mean there is a typo in the ebook as it should be Executioner still and Precision Strikes (2+) (which would still need clarification to work RaW, as there is no explanation of what precision strikes 2+ means, is it you hit on 2+ and get precision strikes on those hits or just all successful hits that are 2+ are also precision strikes in which case simply stating all hits are precision strikes would actually be the clearer way to word it).

Also I haven't said ebooks are unofficial. But the printed books are official and are the location of RaW. The ebooks are simply transcribed versions of the official rules and sometimes contain discrepancies with the official rules, but without an FaQ they don't over rule the official rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Granted some rules are only available via ebook until they get an official release and some never get the official release. But the actual Hardback and softback copies of the rules do not include the 2+ part so unless you have an errata with that part, it does not exist RaW. It is literally not in the rules.

This sure makes it sound like you think eBooks aren't official since you basically are showing them as temporary placeholders until such time as they get an official release.

I apologize if I misunderstood.

Feel free to confirm that eBooks are indeed official rules.

The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

So then both the eBook and the paper book are official rules, correct?

I don't understand how the eBook wouldn't be official. Everything has been moving to online printing for awhile now. (I mean this as most material for any game)... They update the eBooks to be current whereas you can only pull the current FAQ from the errata section of the blacklibrary.

If this is intended, this would make the edge of eternity insane. However I still feel that it is a typo.

As for precision strikes.. If this was Executioner (2+) wouldn't it be safe to assume that precision strikes (5+) (which I believe belial or deathwing knights has) would mean your precision strikes happen on a 5+ vs the normal 6+? just like a fnp (5+) could be a 6+ or a 4+.

Whacked wrote:

If this is intended, this would make the edge of eternity insane. However I still feel that it is a typo.

How is precision strikes 2+ insane? FYI - It doesn't get around Look Out, Sir rolls.

Oh, I don't mean like insanely overpowered. I just meant it would be awesome to pick out their character they don't want to have in a challenge and instant death him/force him to roll for LOS constantly. (Instant death when paired with Solar Theramsite)

Whacked wrote:
Oh, I don't mean like insanely overpowered. I just meant it would be awesome to pick out their character they don't want to have in a challenge and instant death him/force him to roll for LOS constantly. (Instant death when paired with Solar Theramsite)

Right, and since its LOS 2+ only one out of six actually manages to land on the independent character and 1 out of 2 on the character. This is actually all quite tame.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

ebook is a printed and published copy. I have no idea why you keep saying ebook is some fake version. ebook is not a pdf where someone scan it on bit torrent. ebook is a digital version of what gw printed and published just they use digital format instead of paper as a median. Printed on a screen and publish on gw website. you should read the statement from gw when you purchase an ebook, the wording change but all said this is an official copy of the codex/rules/etc. GW still pocket your money from ebook.

RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

FlingitNow doesn't seem to consider an eBook to have been published because... reasons? He has yet to provide any rules reason.

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

It isn't in the eBook then? I see it listed in the newest Battlescribe update (obviously this isn't an Official Source) but I'm just curious as I don't want to torrent eBook or buy it for that matter.

 Kriswall wrote:
FlingitNow doesn't seem to consider an eBook to have been published because... reasons? He has yet to provide any rules reason.

I've not said that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whacked wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

It isn't in the eBook then? I see it listed in the newest Battlescribe update (obviously this isn't an Official Source) but I'm just curious as I don't want to torrent eBook or buy it for that matter.

It is not in the official rules published by GW in either Hardback or Softback form.

Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

No, he can't. He's shoving his fingers in his ears and pretending that's fact instead of actually accepting his statement might be wrong.

Guys just use common sense. If a unit/ IC/WG has no frills precision strike it follows the USRs in the BRB. The rule procs on a 6 (or a 5; don't have the book handy).

2+ is just short hand for "all hits are precision strikes", since nobody ever hits anything on a 1, even though 2's miss in melee. It's that simple. Any hits you make can target a specific target, as if you rolled a 6.

If 2+ meant all hits refer to the standard USR of 6's are precision, then how is there any difference whatsoever between a normal PS and a 2+PS? There would be none. It would mean a weapon with sniper rule functions identical to a 2+ PS. Does that make sense to you? People mix up this same rule with the Vindicare. I also point out whether someone thinks the Vindicare has the same shooting skills as an Eldar ranger for 12pts.

An easy reference to parallel is poison. 2+ poison translates to "wounds on a 2+".

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?

I would prefer not to drive 2.5 hours nor leave the country to ask a store clerk something that you cannot verify coming from the parent company. Especially since the last time I was at a GW store the clerks told people they could charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons. So yeah. I don't put much faith in GW red shirts.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?

So I can go down to my local GW store and ask to see their open copy of Codex: Legion of the Damned? That's awesome.

I've already posted the rules in from the BRB stating that unit entries come in a variety of GW publications. I've posted the copyright info showing that the the eBook version is a GW publication. I've demonstrated using rules that the eBook version is an officially sanctioned (by the printed BRB itself) source of rules for unit entries. Can you do the same to demonstrate your point?

Nobody agrees with you. That should tell you something.

What I say is that:

There is a discrepancy between two official sources.

In one source, the rule-as-written doesn't actually function, and in fact cannot even really be parsed without departing from the language of the game.

In the other source, it makes perfect sense and isn't even in contention.

I would utilize the second source.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.

So in summary;

RaW: 2+ doesn't exist.

RaTIE (Rules as Typo'd in Ebook): 2+ does nothing.

So? RAW you cannot take an invulnerable save, I've never seen that stop anyone.
The intent is just as clear as with Inv-saves, so there shouldn't be a problem.

So do we agree that an official source has it as 'Executioner (2+)' ánd that the intent is quite obvious?

The other option for resolution of two equally official sources is that the player whose army it is plays what he owns.

col_impact wrote:
The other option for resolution of two equally official sources is that the player whose army it is plays what he owns.

Yup. If I bring my army and I have my codex with me and it's an official publication with no FAQs or Erratas available, I play using the rules in the book. You play with your codex.

So? RAW you cannot take an invulnerable save, I've never seen that stop anyone. 
The intent is just as clear as with Inv-saves, so there shouldn't be a problem. 

So do we agree that an official source has it as 'Executioner (2+)' ánd that the intent is quite obvious?

in the official rules the 2+ doesn't exist RaW. As for intent the fact that the 2+ isn't in the rules gives clear intent that it does nothing. If there was a 2+ on Executioner the intent would not be clear. Precision shots 2+ likewise doesn't have a clear intent resolution as functionally it would work the same as all hits are precision strikes but how they word that is covered by several other incidences (like Pathfinders, Illic, Vindicare). So if the 2+ was there (which it isn't) then the most likely intent is that you hit on a 2+, which may or may not all be precision strikes. As the 2+ in the typo is located on Executioner they could well mean that you hit on a 2+ and have the precision strikes rule. Or you precision strike on any 2+ or you precision strike on any successful hit of a 2+.

One thing is abundantly clear that the typo in the ebook is meaningless without further information from both a RaW & RaI perspective. So why not just play by the official rules that don't contain the currently meaningless 2+ typo?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

I'm not going to play by rules that differ from the official rules without prior agreement. So you can't expect to change the official rules without an FaQ, Errata or without us agreeing to a houserule before the game.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

I'm not going to play by rules that differ from the official rules without prior agreement. So you can't expect to change the official rules without an FaQ, Errata or without us agreeing to a houserule before the game.

They are official rules. GW made them. That's what makes them official.

I have the official rules and there is no 2+ in them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I have the official rules and there is no 2+ in them.

I have the official rules and the 2+ is there

They're both official

Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

So, can you stop with the trolling now or do you want us to call in a moderator?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

GW is terrible at writing rules and has several instances of non-functioning rules (see psychic units, Vehicle LoS on Flyers, flamer templates) or rules with no determinable answer on how to function (HoW vs Chariots, Walker Transports locked in combat, FMC coming with the Deep Strike USR, Psychic Shriek and rolling to hit).

Considering how bad GW's rules are normally, what's to say the typo'ed digital rule isn't correct? (plus the 2+ could get explained in the new necron codex)

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

When the new dex comes out the issue may be resolved. Until then just follow the RaW.

Debating with FlingitNow is a waste of time. He doesn't cite rules and repeats the same beliefs over and over with no backup other than is own HIWPI. I suggest we all put him on ignore.

The electronic copy is clearly official and there is a clear error in publishing... whatever that error may be. From a RaW standpoint, the (2+) is both in and not in an official rules source.

I, for one, believe that GW intended to grant Precision Strikes (2+), but had both a missing bit in the OLDER published rules as well as poor writing. That is HIWPI.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Mod should really lock this since it's devolved to a "yes it is, not it isn't" argument.

 CrownAxe wrote:
GW is terrible at writing rules and has several instances of non-functioning rules (see psychic units, Vehicle LoS on Flyers, flamer templates) or rules with no determinable answer on how to function (HoW vs Chariots, Walker Transports locked in combat, FMC coming with the Deep Strike USR, Psychic Shriek and rolling to hit).

Did you ever notice how the BRB only tells you how to take Armour Saves?
Step by step it tells you to throw a dice, compare it to the Armour save and what happens then.
It does not tell you that Cover and Invulnerable should be taken in the same way, so technically they cannot be taken at all.

I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry when I read that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When the new dex comes out the issue may be resolved. Until then just follow the RaW.

How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

2 versions don't have the meaningless typo. One does simple weight of evidence should be enough. But some people want to interpret the rules a certain way regardless of the RaW.

So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Kangodo wrote:
How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

The issue (to my understanding) is that Edge of Eternity lets you precision strike on 2+ which is odd since as a melee weapon you hit on at best 3+.

It might have been written with the new codex in mind (which i'm pretty sure it is since it doesn't take the time to explain how relics are taken) and their might be ways to hit on 2+ in the new codex.

How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

Executioner could become a standard Necron rule that certain weapons have and be explained better giving us a precedent to work with. Or it could be that they release a FAQ/Eratta for Exterminatus in line with the Codex update.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

2 versions don't have the meaningless typo. One does simple weight of evidence should be enough. But some people want to interpret the rules a certain way regardless of the RaW.

Actually, some people want to know which official source has the error. You've already made up your mind that the eBook has the error and that the printed copy is correct. We have no confirmation that this is correct. YOU have no confirmation that this is correct, or presumably you would have posted it. Circumstantial evidence could go either way. For one, the (2+) doesn't really seem to do anything. Then again, GW regularly writes rules that don't seem to do anything, yet we play with the all the time. Another main point is that the Ebook is the more recent source. GW would have been able to make changes up until the day before it was posted. They clearly ADDED in the (2+) AFTER the book went to the printer. This is pretty compelling evidence that the (2+) was intentional and accidentally left out of the printed copy.

FlingitNow... you have no evidence that you are correct. You have already made up your mind, refuse to acknowledge that GW publications are official and are effectively arguing RaI and not RaW. If you'd like to continue contributing to a RaW discussion, please provide rules citations demonstrating that electronic copies aren't offical. If you can't or won't and wish to continue contributing, please mark all future comments as either RaI or HIWPI.

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

We have FOUR formats and it's present in TWO of them. You obviously don't understand how the eBook releases work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

So we have 4 sources.
2 of them tell us the 2+ shouldn't belong there (I will just trust you that BOTH books have it without the 2+)
2 of them tell us that there should be a 2+.

That's it.
Nothing more.
It's not meaningless.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

So, to make sure I understand, your entire argument can be boiled down to "I have no evidence for THIS situation, but this is how it has worked for OTHER situations, so I THINK this is how it should work this time also"?

I'm marking my posts as RaW because I posted rules from the BRB showing that the eBook is an official source. Can you point me to the post where you cited rules to support your position?

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

So, to make sure I understand, your entire argument can be boiled down to "I have no evidence for THIS situation, but this is how it has worked for OTHER situations, so I THINK this is how it should work this time also"?

I'm marking my posts as RaW because I posted rules from the BRB showing that the eBook is an official source. Can you point me to the post where you cited rules to support your position?

Those same posts illustrate that Exterminatus is an official source. Are you now contesting it is not?

RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule and that is it. That is what Exterminatus actually says in all Editions. If you want to have a HYWPI or RaI discussion on the weapon please mark your posts as such.

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

As written the 2+ is meaningless RaW your post seems to concede this. Unless you'd like to explain what that 2+ does RaW? Otherwise what is even the point of this post?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

As written the 2+ is meaningless RaW your post seems to concede this. Unless you'd like to explain what that 2+ does RaW? Otherwise what is even the point of this post?

Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick!

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+.

You have stated over and over that the physical copy should be considered accurate because it's the only official rules source. I DISAGREE with you on this. You HAVE NOT cited ANYTHING to support your position. Please cite literally ANYTHING to support your position. NOBODY agrees with you and you either CANT or WON'T support your position with cited rules. It makes for a VERY WEAK argument.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?

I never stated that.

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+. 

So RaW we agree that Edge of Eternity simply gives Precision Strikes. This is correct yes? So are we now onto discussing RaI or HYWPI as you concede that my argument all along that RaW only gives Precision Strikes is correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?

I never stated that.

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries?

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes?

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI?

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+. 

So RaW we agree that Edge of Eternity simply gives Precision Strikes. This is correct yes? So are we now onto discussing RaI or HYWPI as you concede that my argument all along that RaW only gives Precision Strikes is correct?

I don't think you've been reading my posts. We've agreed on what the 2+ does for most of this thread. The issue is that the 2+ is a valid rule until such time as an FAQ/Errata is posted.

Kangodo wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

No, I mocking one of Fling's argument that digital rules aren't official because they can be edited and calling out his hypocrisy of then posting a digital scan of the rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

No, I mocking one of Fling's argument that digital rules aren't official because they can be edited.

Yeah. It was tongue in cheek. FlingitNow (paraphrased) said that he doesn't trust eBooks because the content can be easily modified and then used a page from an eBook in an attempt to prove a point. It was an internally inconsistent move that weakens his position from a debate standpoint.

Crown... I, for one, chuckled.

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries? 

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes? 

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI? 

I can confirm GW publications are official rules sources.

I can confirm that in Exterminatus there is no mention of a 2+ rule. I can confirm that I have been told the ebook copy of the rules contains a non-functional 2+. An image was provided by another poster that showed this typo. I do not know if the typo is across all ebooks or all editions of the ebook. I know it is not present in the official hard back or soft back rules.

I can confirm I do not work for the GW design team in any capacity. I can confirm the 2+ typo is not in the official hard back or soft back rules and has not been added by Eratta or FAQ.

 FlingitNow wrote:

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries? 

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes? 

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI? 

I can confirm GW publications are official rules sources.

I can confirm that in Exterminatus there is no mention of a 2+ rule. I can confirm that I have been told the ebook copy of the rules contains a non-functional 2+. An image was provided by another poster that showed this typo. I do not know if the typo is across all ebooks or all editions of the ebook. I know it is not present in the official hard back or soft back rules.

I can confirm I do not work for the GW design team in any capacity. I can confirm the 2+ typo is not in the official hard back or soft back rules and has not been added by Eratta or FAQ.

Can you type, and I quote, "I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is an official rule in this official rules source."? We aren't talking about what it does, but I would very much like you to acknowledge that as of today, it is a valid rule in a valid, official rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also confused that you can confirm the 2+ isn't in Exterminatus when you posted a screenshot showing that it is.

I'm also confused that you can confirm the 2+ isn't in Exterminatus when you posted a screenshot showing that it is.

As I already pointed out that was someone else's screen shot.

Please find attached confirmation that the 2+ rule is not present in Exterminatus.

Can you type, and I quote, "I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is an official rule in this official rules source."? We aren't talking about what it does, but I would very much like you to acknowledge that as of today, it is a valid rule in a valid, official rulebook.

I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Exalted! hahahahhaa

But really guys, Fling is just trolling. He has nothing useful to say, GW likely meant to give executioner always precision strikes. The more you feed the troll, the more his ego flares.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you want I can tailor the "official" paper copy to say something that it didn't before. A few years of papercraft and card making teaches you a lot about fixing printing mistakes without being noticed.

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

All editions agree that Executioner exists and gives PS. One edition has the additional and non functional 2+ this is contradicted by all the other editions so without further information we can not conclude whether the 2+ is an official rule or not. If going by most recent then that is the physical copy as the digital is available for download before the shops are open to get a physical copy. However both have the same release date so in reality they are both simultaneous in their recentness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the truth? Executioner does not have the 2+ in it in the official rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

All editions agree that Executioner exists and gives PS. One edition has the additional and non functional 2+ this is contradicted by all the other editions so without further information we can not conclude whether the 2+ is an official rule or not. If going by most recent then that is the physical copy as the digital is available for download before the shops are open to get a physical copy. However both have the same release date so in reality they are both simultaneous in their recentness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the truth? Executioner does not have the 2+ in it in the official rules.

We are ignoring the "truth" because it's YOUR truth that you made up and haven't been able to provide any rules based evidence for.

You have admitted that the Exterminatus eBook is an official release. You have admitted that the 2+ wording is in the eBook, i.e., in an official release. You then jump off the rails and say that the rule isn't an official rule despite being present in an official release.

Why are YOU ignoring that the 2+ wording is currently in an official release? What specific part are you having a problem with? I'll make an attempt to explain it as though I were talking to a five year old. That way, there shouldn't be any confusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would recommend this thread just be closed down by a mod.

There are quotes demonstrating RaW that the eBook is an official source. The opposition consists of one person who refuses to participate in a debate in a constructive way and won't post any rules based evidence despite numerous requests. RaI is unclear (as it always is). Decide among your play group how to play this.

I've posted a photo of the RaW that Executioner does not have a 2+ on it. Granted is apparently does on the ebook version. So we can't say it is an official rule as a curremt version of the rules says it is not part of the rules. Also as it stands RaW all it does is at best make Executioner not work for ebook users at all (as there is only explanation of the rule Executioner not Executioner 2+).

The issue is resolved based on which source of rules the necron player has in his possession at his games.

If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

col_impact wrote:
The issue is resolved based on which source of rules the necron player has in his possession at his games.

That might be problematic as people often don't have a source in possession for these non-Codex rules

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

The difference is that most people aren't going to complain over something that is so obvious as this.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

The difference is that the 2+ IS in the eBook. It MAY be that GW intended it to do something, but wrote the rule poorly. We can't know the intent, but saying that the 2+ isn't in the official rules is juvenile and wrong.

You repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge that the 2+ is in an official source. That's the issue. The issue is that you are picking and choosing which GW publications you'd like to consider as official. You are allowed to do this, but it's a house rule and HYWPI. As such, your beliefs and opinions have no place in a RaW debate.

Kriswall what does the 2+ do RaW? What was factually incorrect in my post? Does the 2+ do something RaW? Or are the Hard back & Soft back editions not official rules?

The difference is that most people aren't going to complain over something that is so obvious as this.

I agree no one is going to complain about ignoring what is so obviously a typo. Thank you for finally conceding your argument.

So, really it does nothing. No matter which way you spin it, it does nothing until GW speaks up and fixed it in favore of which ever way.

The only thing going on in this thread is a troll pulling everyone along by saying an official source of rules is not official because it's digital. And people either foolish enough to argue with him even though the 2+ debate has been figured out, or people who are just feeding the troll for the sake of feeding the troll.


In any event, this should probably be locked as it's just a silly pissing contest at this point.

I agree.