71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Unless I'm missing something, Eldar can still summon Daemons. I see in the new codex it specifically lists Sanctic Daemonology as being allowed to all the Eldar Psykers, but doesn't list Maelific Daemonology. While, at first glance, this may seem to indicate that they can no longer summon Daemons, the core rulebook says:
"Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the
Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline.
Each time a Psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline
he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers."
So, since the core rulebook says they CAN take Maelific Daemonology, and the new Codex doesn't say they CAN'T take it, they can technically still summon Daemons RAW, right?
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Codex trumps rulebook... Nice try though.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
Seems to be 'otherwise stated'.
14
Post by: Ghaz
The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
 Kriswall wrote:It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".
The latest edition of an army rulebook states what they can use, while not mentioning what they can't use. It's been this way since forever.
Whatever it says you can generate powers from in Codex: Eldar: Craftworlds, is what you can generate for the units in said book. The Base Rule Book always has it's rules for such stuff like that printed under it's release, and at the time, yes Eldar could indeed still use Malefic powers. New book trumps that.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
 SRSFACE wrote: Kriswall wrote:It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".
The latest edition of an army rulebook states what they can use, while not mentioning what they can't use. It's been this way since forever.
Whatever it says you can generate powers from in Codex: Eldar: Craftworlds, is what you can generate for the units in said book. The Base Rule Book always has it's rules for such stuff like that printed under it's release, and at the time, yes Eldar could indeed still use Malefic powers. New book trumps that.
Where is your "unless otherwise stated" wording? What in C: EC tells us we CAN'T use MD? BRB grants permission. C: EC doesn't have any wording to revoke said permission. This is very much a situation where we can because the Codex doesn't say we can't.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
It's otherwise stated because you're given the list of what you can draw powers of. In that list of what you can draw powers of, Malefic is not stated. Therefore it is stated otherwise.
Permissive ruleset. The BRB gave you permission to use it, the new codex, by omitting it from the list of where you can draw the powers from, means you no longer have permission to use it.
77814
Post by: xera32
 Ghaz wrote:The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.
The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
With that logic nothing can move, shoot, charge, fight, cast powers...seriously?
@OP, if they are given the option to roll on Malefic in their unit profile, then yeah, they can.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
The Base rulebook says that IN ADDITION to whatever psychic powers are listed for a psyker, all psykers can take Daemonology unless otherwise stated. In order to "trump" that, the new codex would need to state that they COULDN'T take it. It doesn't.
It's ASSUMED that they can't because it specifically lists Sanctic as being allowed, but listing Sanctic as being allowed is superfluous, because the base rulebook already allowed them to take sanctic even if they didn't list it. If, in the new codex, the farseers said: "Farseers generate their psychic powers from Telepathy, Divination, and Runes of Fate" No one would be arguing that they couldn't take either Sanctic or Maelific Daemonology. People are simply jumping to that conclusion because it lists Sanctic positively, but it didn't need to. Even if it DIDN'T say they could take it, they could take it unless otherwise stated. The base rulebook sets the standard by which all the codices must be interpreted. Yes, codices can override a rule in the rulebook, but in order to do so, it must somehow indicate that it's doing so.
No rule in the new Eldar codex forbids them from taking Maelific powers, and the base rulebook allows ALL psykers to take Maelific powers unless otherwise stated.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
It doesn't say 'in addition'.
It says, word for word:
'Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids faction, can generate powers on the Daemonology table' (BRB, Pg 28).
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
 Frozocrone wrote:It doesn't say 'in addition'.
It says, word for word:
' Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids faction, can generate powers on the Daemonology table' ( BRB, Pg 28).
Thank you. It means what it says.
Since that has come out, for every codex everywhere, it has been taken to mean exactly what it says. Unless they specifically counter that in a codex, or FAQ it, that hasn't changed. "All Psykers" means all psykers. Omission isn't "otherwise stated". The very definition of the word "Omitted"" is the opposite of "Stated".
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Ahh I do apologise you are right.
Case in point being SM Libby's rolling on Daemonology, despite not saying in their profile. Granted it's not a 7th ed Codex but still.
Trust GW to fail once again 
RAI is a different thing altogether (Immobilized and Jink being a case)
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
RAI, Indeed, I expect this will be FAQed once it's brought to enough attention.
94352
Post by: Roknar
RAW? Yes, most definitely.
RAI? No, most definitely.
73959
Post by: niv-mizzet
Roknar wrote:RAW? Yes, most definitely.
RAI? No, most definitely.
Agreed. It's another case where we are pretty sure we can tell what they meant to write, they just sucked at writing it.
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Indeed. Codex: Grey Knights for example states under "Purity of Spirit" in the Appendix section:
"Grey Knights Psykers can only generate Sanctic powers from the Daemonology discipline – they cannot manifest Malefic psychic powers from this discipline."
I'm not aware that Codex: Eldar Craftworlds has any similar restriction. Certainly it does not appear in the Appendix section in C: EC.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
This is a warning sign more then likely, I think at this point we all know that next edition (by which point every army should have a new codex) the rule book will omit that whole part about who can use demonology. The New Codex's specifically state where you can draw your powers from and that is it. So yeah RAW eldar can summon demons, RAI definitely not. And honestly if an eldar player wanted to be an idiot and summon demons I would let him because he would probably kill his psyker anyway :-p
79467
Post by: DanielBeaver
The intent is crystal clear. GW just sucks at writing rules.
92227
Post by: Ackoogin
Frozocrone wrote:
Case in point being SM Libby's rolling on Daemonology, despite not saying in their profile. Granted it's not a 7th ed Codex but still.
SM are granted permission by their FAQ.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
But at this point, why bother? It would be much quicker just to table the opponent with the CAD than to take the time with daemons.
14
Post by: Ghaz
xera32 wrote: Ghaz wrote:The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.
The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.
False. By giving the unit shooting weapons the codex says they can make shooting attacks.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Ghaz wrote:xera32 wrote: Ghaz wrote:The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.
The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.
False. By giving the unit shooting weapons the codex says they can make shooting attacks.
So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
 FlingitNow wrote:
So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?
While your point is good, I'd discourage you from engaging the trolls. The primary point is that the rulebook clearly states that all psykers get Daemonology, and that in order to counter that, all a codex must do is state otherwise. Omission is not stating otherwise, as the word "Omitted" is the exact opposite of "Stated". All these guys trying to say "They stated it directly, by stating something else" are clearly trolling. No one could have such a poor grasp of the English language and still be able to communicate clearly on such a forum.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
 BetrayTheWorld wrote: FlingitNow wrote:
So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?
While your point is good, I'd discourage you from engaging the trolls. The primary point is that the rulebook clearly states that all psykers get Daemonology, and that in order to counter that, all a codex must do is state otherwise. Omission is not stating otherwise, as the word "Omitted" is the exact opposite of "Stated". All these guys trying to say "They stated it directly, by stating something else" are clearly trolling. No one could have such a poor grasp of the English language and still be able to communicate clearly on such a forum.
The only argument they could have is it states Daemonolgy (Santic) thus clearly stating what Demonology they can take. But that is reaching at best. The argument holds for harlequins too. However the rule is clear that they don't get Malefic even if RaW they do.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Except that "The rule is clear" isn't true, because most tournaments follow RAW, so they would, in fact, be able to take Maelific in most tournaments, I'd think. Or perhaps you meant that RAI is clear, which I'd agree with. But most tournaments don't go with RAI unless they specifically state the ruling beforehand, as making a RAI call during the tournament could easily be viewed as favoritism, biased rulings, or any other number of unflattering titles.
Technically, so are Eldar, even though they don't have to be, since the rulebook already gives that permission and nothing else takes it away. As of the writing of this post, the Eldar FAQ is still posted on games workshops website and says this: "Any model with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot special rule may generate their powers from the Daemonology discipline in addition to the others listed in their Army List Entries."
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
When RaI is this clear most tournaments will rule with it. Heck plenty of tournaments make up rules on the fly. So many tournaments I go to make you roll to hit once for Psychic Shriek and then only apply the effect if you hit with no rules pack mention of those two rules being invented. Others limit army composition in all sorts of weird ways, limit 2++ rerolls to 4++, change invisibility etc.
I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Blah... Lazy good for nothing eldar players and their continued attempts to take their extremely broken eldar codex and break it more. Know what's worse than an eldar player in general? A cheating eldar player in general. You guys are the worst of the worst. If there was one army 40k could do without.. it's eldar. Erreta the idiots.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Blah... Lazy good for nothing eldar players and their continued attempts to take their extremely broken eldar codex and break it more. Know what's worse than an eldar player in general? A cheating eldar player in general. You guys are the worst of the worst. If there was one army 40k could do without.. it's eldar. Erreta the idiots.
The Codex isn't broken, just some units in it. Admittedly pretty much any unit is usable (but that's what a good Codex should be).
I'd also refrain from generalising players like that. Not all Eldar players are like that. Most certainly, you've got players of other races pulling garbage rules-lawyering to gain an advantage, even when RAI is clear. It's not just Eldar trickery.
Cheers to Ackoogin for the FAQ update
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
FlingitNow wrote:
I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.
I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Meh. Generalizing eldar losers is about the only fun thing to do other than not play with the.. as you see above, OP is wanting to break his codex more and will not listen to reason or truth otherwise. He wants so bad to be right he can't accept he is wrong. As all eldar players are.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.
Nah intentionally breaking the rules is cheating, willful ignorance of the rules is still cheating. Yes RaW this works but the rules are clear, a lack of understanding of that shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of language and an inability to engage in human society.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
BetrayTheWorld wrote: FlingitNow wrote:
I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.
I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.
I wouldn't use the Eldar FAQ, as it's for an old Codex (and there is no such thing as Codex: Eldar now, only Eldar Craftworlds).
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
FlingitNow wrote: I'd challenge any TO who wouldn't allow it with the following information: the base rulebook AND the Eldar FAQ currently say they CAN take it, and the NOTHING says they can't. Unless the tournament rules specifically address this issue, there is no "ruling" to be made. The rules in the books and in the FAQ are clear. It's clearly NOT cheating. It's following the rules. Ruling against it without any house rule or prior adressing of the issue is what would be cheating.
Nah intentionally breaking the rules is cheating, willful ignorance of the rules is still cheating. Yes RaW this works but the rules are clear, a lack of understanding of that shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of language and an inability to engage in human society.
Alas you have described eldar players good sir. Exalt
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Doesn't the Daemon FAQ state Fateweaver can use Daemonology ?
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Malefic yes. BRB does state that Chaos Daemons can't roll on Santic.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Too bad for eldar... Such a shame too.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Meh. Generalizing eldar losers is about the only fun thing to do other than not play with the.. as you see above, OP is wanting to break his codex more and will not listen to reason or truth otherwise. He wants so bad to be right he can't accept he is wrong. As all eldar players are.
I actually have never summoned Daemons with my Eldar. I only brought this issue to Dakka to point out something that SHOULD be FAQed to be more clear, because the 2 reviews I've read on the new codex BOTH mentioned Eldar no longer being able to summon Daemons, and after receiving my codex, I saw that this was not specifically stated as being the case. I have a tendency to remember how things are worded, and I immediately recognized that, based on the wording of Daemonology in the rulebook, the writing of the new codex was not sufficient to accomplish the task that they were clearly attempting to accomplish, which was to make Maelific Daemonology something that Eldar didn't have access to. It would have been so simple to just say, "Eldar Psykers do not get access to Maelific Daemonology." But they didn't, and so they failed.
I'm not arguing to empower my codex. I am simply a butterfly, flapping my wings and hoping a tidal wave on the other side of the world results in a FAQ to fix this obvious oversight. As for your opinion regarding the "broken" Eldar codex, my response can be found here, in a section where such a discussion belongs: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/646186.page#7787024
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It's not an oversight - eldar can't summons daemons.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
That's not what any of the books or the FAQs say.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
So being explicitly told you have access to santic daemonology isn't enough evidence?
The eldar FAQ is for the old codex, and irrelevant.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
They're specifically told they have Sanctic. They are not specifically told they don't have Malefic. The BRB states that, unless otherwise indicated, they have access to Malefic.
While it's possible, even likely, that it was intended by GW for the absence of specific mention of Malefic to mean they can't cast from it, the current wording of their rules around that discipline requires us to interpret that writing in that way, but such an interpretation is as valid as interpreting it the other way.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
 Psienesis wrote:They're specifically told they have Sanctic. They are not specifically told they don't have Malefic. The BRB states that, unless otherwise indicated, they have access to Malefic.
While it's possible, even likely, that it was intended by GW for the absence of specific mention of Malefic to mean they can't cast from it, the current wording of their rules around that discipline requires us to interpret that writing in that way, but such an interpretation is as valid as interpreting it the other way.
It is not merely possible it is blatantly obviously the case. Yes a literal translation of the written word leads to a different interpretation. But if someone asks you "Can you please tell me the time?" Do you respond simply with "Yes" and wonder why they don't see that as the answer to their question?
Yes RaW they and Harlequins have access to Malefic. But we all know the RaI (the OP even admits as such) and anyone trying to abuse the loop whole is cheating. There is no need to FAQ an issue that is so obvious. Particularly given the number of genuine issues that are actually outstanding.
94352
Post by: Roknar
I just want to remind you that the very Thread title concerns itself with RAW.
So however obvious RAI is, it has no effect on RAW.
Besides that though, saying there is no need to faq it is a slippery slope. What is obvious to one, may not be to another.
Regardless though, if RAI is not in line with RAW there is a need to faq or update. The presence of more important issues doesn't change that.
In addition, it might be as Ghazkuul said. It may well be a glimpse into 8th edition. And I don't see where the the whole cheating thing came from. OP only pointed out one of the many issues as far as I'm concerned. Issues that one needs to be aware of before they can be fixed.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
RAW they can use malefic.
Flingitnow is correct though. The RAI is plain as day here.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Following the rules as they are written is never cheating. Trying to house rule something to the way we THINK it is supposed to be, without prior notice that this is the house rule, is cheating. I agree that it's relatively obvious what they meant to write. That's not what they wrote.
When it comes to rules interpretations, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. How obvious does something have to be, intentions-wise, before we accept it as the rule? Well, there is a clear answer to that, that avoids unpleasant arguments: It needs to be the written rule, or a previously established house-rule.
Most fair TOs and gaming groups I know use this policy: If a rule dispute comes up that is not addressed, we will always go with the rules as written. If the group consensus is that this was not the intention, or that this rule is completely disruptive to the game, we will thereafter establish a house rule that alters or clarifies the issue that caused said rules dispute. To do so in the middle of the game is not fair. If their book, all FAQs, and our own published rules didn't address the issue before that, no ruling will change the RAW until the end of the event or game they're currently involved in.
There is no other way that doesn't trod the grey path. In a game with rules, to avoid arguments and unpleasantness, there is no room for grey. It must be black and white. It must be RAW or house-ruled.
94352
Post by: Roknar
Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Roknar wrote:Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.
I agree there are a lot of rules conflicts, but it is our job as TOs to establish rulings on those grey areas to eliminate them, making it black and white in our own house rules, until such time as GW does it in a FAQ, or a new edition comes out. 
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
BetrayTheWorld wrote:Following the rules as they are written is never cheating. Trying to house rule something to the way we THINK it is supposed to be, without prior notice that this is the house rule, is cheating. I agree that it's relatively obvious what they meant to write. That's not what they wrote.
When it comes to rules interpretations, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. How obvious does something have to be, intentions-wise, before we accept it as the rule? Well, there is a clear answer to that, that avoids unpleasant arguments: It needs to be the written rule, or a previously established house-rule.
Most fair TOs and gaming groups I know use this policy: If a rule dispute comes up that is not addressed, we will always go with the rules as written. If the group consensus is that this was not the intention, or that this rule is completely disruptive to the game, we will thereafter establish a house rule that alters or clarifies the issue that caused said rules dispute.
There is no other way that doesn't trod the grey path. In a game with rules, to avoid arguments and unpleasantness, there is no room for grey. It must be black and white. It must be RAW or house-ruled.
So I'm guessing during 5th & 6th you played that Wraith units could not shoot nor assault anything unless you agreed a house rule first? In fact the same was true for Helmeted Marines and about 90% of models in the game? In law what is important the letter ( RaW) or the spirit ( RaI) of thelaw? And that is law where prison sentences are potentially on the line, so for a game of toy soldiers we can live with a much wider margin of error. Following RaW can absolutely be cheating if you are intentionally breaking the rules you are cheating end of story. You admit you know what the rules are (what GW meant as we all know in this case) so intentionally breaking that rule is by definition cheating.
94352
Post by: Roknar
You say that like he's encouraging the use of RAW, when he's not. At least as far as I can tell.
He's only pointing out that there is a problem that needs to be adressed. To take your law example: If an old law is still around that no longer fits the current cultural model, then you wouldn't accuse the person that points out that problem of trying to bend the law either would you?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Roknar wrote:You say that like he's encouraging the use of RAW, when he's not. At least as far as I can tell.
He's only pointing out that there is a problem that needs to be adressed. To take your law example: If an old law is still around that no longer fits the current cultural model, then you wouldn't accuse the person that points out that problem of trying to bend the law either would you?
Pointing it out is one thing. Saying politicians should waste tax payers money resolving a non-issue is another. Arguing that the law should be enforced until that pointless endeavour takes place (which IS what he is suggesting) is entirely another.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
Right, in our local gaming group, I am going to be pointing this issue out so that we can house-rule it to be what our interpretation of RAI is. That doesn't change the fact that RAW, it is legal to take Maelific, and should be addressed by GW when they release a new FAQ.
As for the spirit of the law, that is not how we roll here in the United States. Here, the law is the law, and judges and jurists are instructed not to make rulings based on how they THINK the law should be interpreted, but rather to make their determinations based solely on what the law IS. It's a major difference in how our cultures look at things. There would be hellfire and brimstone if someone important was imprisoned or otherwise punished for violating the "spirit" of the law while strictly adhering to the word of the law. Such a situation could likely make an unimportant person wealthy and important overnight, here.(EDIT: Because they'd win when they sued for millions.)
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
BetrayTheWorld wrote:Right, in our local gaming group, I am going to be pointing this issue out so that we can house-rule it to be what our interpretation of RAI is. That doesn't change the fact that RAW, it is legal to take Maelific, and should be addressed by GW when they release a new FAQ.
As for the spirit of the law, that is not how we roll here in the United States. Here, the law is the law, and judges and jurists are instructed not to make rulings based on how they THINK the law should be interpreted, but rather to make their determinations based solely on what the law IS. It's a major difference in how our cultures look at things. There would be hellfire and brimstone if someone important was imprisoned or otherwise punished for violating the "spirit" of the law while strictly adhering to the word of the law. Such a situation could likely make an unimportant person wealthy and important overnight, here.
I imagine that is reality spirit of the law is just as important in legal practice in America. But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters?
94352
Post by: Roknar
Fair enough.
But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Roknar wrote:Fair enough.
But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...
In an ideal world RaI = RaW however for that to be the case the language would have to be written to a legal standard and you'd needs law degree to understand the rulebook. GW has shown no interest in resolving actual issues asking them to solve non-issues likes this just justifies their idea that it's our fault for failing to comprehend...
94352
Post by: Roknar
FlingitNow wrote:Roknar wrote:Fair enough.
But I don't it's asking much if a single word would suffice to fix the issue. Then again, they can't even be bothered to take down the old faq soooo...
In an ideal world RaI = RaW however for that to be the case the language would have to be written to a legal standard and you'd needs law degree to understand the rulebook. GW has shown no interest in resolving actual issues asking them to solve non-issues likes this just justifies their idea that it's our fault for failing to comprehend...
That statement just fills me with an overwhelming desire to bash on GW lol, but I don't wan to derail the thread.
82832
Post by: Inevitable_Faith
Roknar wrote:Black and white rules would be a godsend. Unfortunately Warhammer is basically double rainbow levels of gray.
This right here, oh man am I in stitches! Love it dude, enjoy the exalt. While I do dearly love this game I agree they could use some help in the rules-writing and play-testing areas.
I'd say the OP made a good point with this thread though, RAW it does seem they can still use Malefic, however RAI seem pretty clear. The OP even acknowledges the difference, good on ya bud. Nice catch dude, I'll never use the malefic tree for my eldar since I'm a RAI player (beer and vodka infused gummy worms games only, I don't do competitive play) but it's funny to see these little holes all the same.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
FlingitNow wrote: But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters.
Many things are factors. First, I'd say the most important is who is reading them. If two cultures inherently view things differently, with one always looking for the "spirit" of the rule, and the other always looking to the "letter" of the rule, then whether intention matters or not is solely dependent on the reader, with all other potential factors being non-factors in that particular case. The reason the "letter of the law" is a more fair interpretation is that it doesn't require the reader to guess at what the law may be. What might be clear to one person due to the culture they grew up in may be completely unclear to another, without specifically spelling it out. Therefore, the only logical way to handle it is to spell out the rules directly so everyone is playing the same game.
Imagine walking out your front door tomorrow morning and immediately being arrested and shuttled off to prison. When you ask why, you're told you aren't allowed to leave your house between 6am and 6:05. It's not actually written in the law that this is the case, but "you should have known better" because "everyone knows this", even though it's not actually in the law, it's the "spirit of the law" as determined by other people, and even though we can't be bothered to actually write that law down, you're going to suffer the consequences as if it were actually the law/rule.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
BetrayTheWorld wrote: FlingitNow wrote: But ludicrous legal systems aside, in the country where these rules are created what matters.
Many things are factors. First, I'd say the most important is who is reading them. If two cultures inherently view things differently, with one always looking for the "spirit" of the rule, and the other always looking to the "letter" of the rule, then whether intention matters or not is solely dependent on the reader, with all other potential factors being non-factors in that particular case. The reason the "letter of the law" is a more fair interpretation is that it doesn't require the reader to guess at what the law may be. What might be clear to one person due to the culture they grew up in may be completely unclear to another, without specifically spelling it out. Therefore, the only logical way to handle it is to spell out the rules directly so everyone is playing the same game.
Imagine walking out your front door tomorrow morning and immediately being arrested and shuttled off to prison. When you ask why, you're told you aren't allowed to leave your house between 6am and 6:05. It's not actually written in the law that this is the case, but "you should have known better" because "everyone knows this", even though it's not actually in the law, it's the "spirit of the law" as determined by other people, and even though we can't be bothered to actually write that law down, you're going to suffer the consequences as if it were actually the law/rule.
Cool fictious examples apart how would you feel if everyone in America with a gun was arrested because they didn't have Bear arms? Rules can be difficult to know from either a RaW our a RaI perspectiveso let's not pretend that RaW is anymore knowable than RaI. Here RaI is abundantly clear you even admit that, so RaW has no value. Discussing this from an interest language perspective can be enjoyable debate but pretending this non issue is an issue does nothing to help. It just clouds actual issues.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
FlingitNow wrote:
RaW has no value. Discussing this from an interest language perspective can be enjoyable debate but pretending this non issue is an issue does nothing to help. It just clouds actual issues.
This is where you and I will simply never agree, because here, TOs house rule things or follow RAW, period. So discussion of RAI is completely irrelevent. Apparently they don't follow the rules where you're from, and that's ok. To each his own.
If a TO around here ever made a ruling in the middle of a tournament that was clearly NOT RAW, I would work tirelessly to ensure they were never viewed as a legitimate TO ever again. The most basic tenant a good, unbiased TO needs to understand, is that you must follow RAW any time there isn't an established house rule or errata. I brought this situation up here specifically to facilitate TOs being able to institute house rules before this issue comes up, and in hopes that with enough TOs establishing this house rule, GW would reactively clarify this in their eventual FAQ.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
If you know the intent then doing otherwise is trying to enforce a loophole.
99
Post by: insaniak
BetrayTheWorld wrote:The most basic tenant a good, unbiased TO needs to understand, is that you must follow RAW any time there isn't an established house rule or errata..
I think you'll find a good many TO's who would disagree with you there.
The most basic tenet a good, unbiased TO needs to understand is that, ultimately, it's a game.
There are any number of situations in 40K where the RAW leads to silliness or breaks the game, where it would be perfectly reasonable for the TO to rule in favour of what makes the most sense for the game. And as the TO, that's entirely within their remit.
94352
Post by: Roknar
I disagree with that. The only thing you can rely on when two parties are at odds, is the rule as written.
That doesn't make it less of a douche move depending on the context, but in a formal enviroment such as a tournament the rules are law. If the TO didn't catch that mistake then you can't blame the player for adhering to the agreed upon rules. It was the TO's fault for not preparing accordingly.
In this specific case, the intent seems to be clear, but a tournament has to rely on watertight rules. And unless they come up with an exception to the rulebook, an eldar player is specifically allowed to cast malefic. This could provide a player with a legitimate strategy that relies on malefic if the TO does not previously rule it out. In such a competitive setting, it should not even come as dick move. Rather it would be a reward for diving real deep into the rules.
Of course in any other situation you would have to have a major case of "that guy" to even consider using malefic. But the context here is tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course it would depend on the judge and I would assume most would just decide to not allow malefic even if they just discover it at that moment given how likely it is to be forbidden by RAI. But like I said, I wouldn't blame a judge if they decided to allow it and then fix that for following tournaments.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It can depend how some reads a rule and what they think it means taking a blind eye to everything else.
94352
Post by: Roknar
The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:
We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.
And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.
I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.
Currently, just about everybody else gets to cast malefic, so maybe they thought it would be fair to leave it for the moment.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Roknar wrote:The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:
We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.
And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.
I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.
Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...
Facetious arguments are facetious.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
FlingitNow wrote:
Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...
Facetious arguments are facetious.
That's not even close to the argument he's making. The argument is that you should follow the rules. Simple, effective.
You're arguing that their "INTENT" is clear, so you must rule in a manner that is inconsistent with the written rules. Then, above, you make an illogical jump to an argument about something else that it doesn't say in the book at all, and try to compare his argument to that. The truth is, your example above is a better argument against your own position, as the position you're arguing for doesn't have any written rules to support it. We're just supposed to assume that's what they meant, and go with it, even though the actual rules say otherwise.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
No he was responding to tue guess that it was written with 8th edition in mind.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
The FAQS for SM and Fateweaver state they can roll on Malefic... So there is precedent .
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
BetrayTheWorld wrote:But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.
But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
When you deal with absolutes like RAW, you don't have to concern yourself with defining things like "reasonable doubt". When trying to defend your position, you have to ask yourself, "How much doubt is reasonable?" If you're 99% sure of something, and 1% unsure, you're speculating by going with what it most likely is. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. When interpreting RAW, you don't have that problem. The rule says what the rule says.
94352
Post by: Roknar
FlingitNow wrote:Roknar wrote:The thing with intents is that we we don't know for certain.
I wouldn't be surprised if GW's take on this was:
We're writing this rule with 8th in mind, when they won't be able to cast malefic anymore. So what if you can still cast it in 7th? Let them have it for now.
And assuming that was the case, it would not only be allowed via BRB, but if the TO decided to allow, they would in fact unwittingly be applying the rule with the "correct" intent.
I`m 99% sure GW screwed up and simply don't care enough to release a FAQ, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow malefic until some future time.
Cool so you're OK with my marines being T10 because I'm 99% sure that I am not hallucinating when I look at their stat line and see a 4, but it is remotely possible that the intent is to allow marines to be T10 until some future time...
Facetious arguments are facetious.
I'm pretty sure RAW is 100% clear here. They have Toughness 4.
And we both agree that eldar can cast malefic using RAW.
The rules are clear and we can both work with them. There is no room for argument ( let's just pretend that actually holds true for all rules for the sake of the discussion). This is what you want for a tournament. A rule-set all player can agree on. Whether or not you agree with the rule is a different matter entirely. But the rules say eldar can cast malefic. Period. So you can safely make a list with malefic psykers for your tourny list.
RAI has no place in a tournament because it creates rules that are ambiguous.
HOWEVER, there is nothing wrong with the tournament adding rules, such as 1 LOW, or changing rules to better suit their needs. Or in this case changing the rules to prevent eldar from casting malefic.
But this has to be done before hand, in order to create an even ground for all players to build their lists. In this context, the vast majority agree that is a rule change that benefits the game.
But the fact remains that intent is entirely subjective for all those outside of the GW rules team. Subjective rules make for very rocky gameplay. You don't want that.
GW allowing Malefic for the time being is just as legitimate an intent as is is them preventing malefic in the current codex. It's up to the TO to decide which intent benefits the game/tourney.
As you pointed out, as far as RAI is concerned, somebody could say: The lore has a space marine being super soldier killer machines. T4 has to be a misprint, obviously that has to be 40.
And so that person would be in conflict with the RAW and might contest a have them match their version of RAI. You don't agree with him and so you fall back to the only thing you can agree on.... RAW. Maybe some 40k movie was released and the tourney actually makes marines into the monsters they are portrayed as....nothing wrong with that.
The OP's post was so that any TO can settle the matter before the tournament and create a set of rules that either include malefic or not, whichever they go with. Technically there's nothing wrong with either.
As far as rules discussions go, RAI is worthless. RAI is really no different to any other Houserule. Which are totally fine, but again, everybody has to agree on them.
If you/the TO decides that RAI is to deny malefic and then adds that to the tourny rules, then it becomes RAW for that tournament and there is no room for error again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: FlingitNow wrote: BetrayTheWorld wrote:But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.
But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.
You realize you're actually agreeing with him here?
Your saying the TO is house ruling that malefic is forbidden and he said: BetrayTheWorld wrote: any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata.
He's just saying that the house rule should be determined in advance and not on the fly.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
^ Exalted. Well said.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
FlingitNow wrote: BetrayTheWorld wrote:But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.
But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.
Intent is always a guess unless you either wrote the rules or spoke directly to the person who wrote the rules. If you bother reading literally ANY Black Library book featuring psychic powers, you'll know that any sort of dabbling in the warp runs the risk of causing a breach and opening a doorway for daemons to come through. Would the average Eldar psyker actively try to summon daemons? Probably not. Would some of them? Sure. Maybe they're down to a last resort and have to stop the dirty Mon-Keighs any way they can. Given this, the intent could very well be that ANY psyker has the option to summon daemons unless they've been conditioned not to and have hexagrammatic wards inscribed onto the inner faces of their armour keeping warp critters at bad (Grey Knights).
92977
Post by: Lythrandire Biehrellian
Sorry if this was said, but the eldarncodex came after the BRB. The BRB says that all psyckers may chose daemonology, and use either malefic powers or sanctic powers. It then later says that a codex will list what powers are available to them in their description.
BRB says we get daemonology, says we get to chose a tree, we look in our codex, which was written after the publication of the BRB and see that we are allowed to choose sanctic specifically.
Nothing is stopping the raw that we get daemonology. The only time the two aspects of this discipline are treated as separate is for the purposes of psychic focus. We have the discipline, but our codex tells us what side of it.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
Kriswall wrote: FlingitNow wrote: BetrayTheWorld wrote:But either way is speculation. That's why any TO worth his salt uses RAW unless he has established house rules or errata. No matter how sure you are with speculation, you're just guessing. Can't go wrong with RAW.
But it is not guessing. That is the point, the intent here isn't a guess it is known beyond all reasonable doubt. Any TO worth they salt will go with the rules and say no to Malefic. I doubt a single TO that runs a tournament attended by more than 20 people would rule Malefic can be used by Eldar or Harlrequins.
Intent is always a guess unless you either wrote the rules or spoke directly to the person who wrote the rules. If you bother reading literally ANY Black Library book featuring psychic powers, you'll know that any sort of dabbling in the warp runs the risk of causing a breach and opening a doorway for daemons to come through. Would the average Eldar psyker actively try to summon daemons? Probably not. Would some of them? Sure. Maybe they're down to a last resort and have to stop the dirty Mon-Keighs any way they can. Given this, the intent could very well be that ANY psyker has the option to summon daemons unless they've been conditioned not to and have hexagrammatic wards inscribed onto the inner faces of their armour keeping warp critters at bad (Grey Knights).
Didn't Eisenhorn summon a daemon? If not, don't ruin it for me. Just finished the second book last night.
94352
Post by: Roknar
thanks 
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
This is where you and I will simply never agree, because here, TOs house rule things or follow RAW, period. So discussion of RAI is completely irrelevent. Apparently they don't follow the rules where you're from, and that's ok. To each his own.
Anyone else love when someone says "Follow the rules" while engaging in behavior that is not following the rules of YMDC? I think it's pretty special.
Don't tell people how to play the game. You want to argue a specific stance, that's fine. You're doing that, and stating which stance you're arguing, and saying it's your interpretations of RAW. Cool. That's following the YMDC rules.
However, telling people they are doing it wrong by arguing RAI, especially when they are very clear that's their arguments, is rude and against the tenants of the forum. Also assuming your interpretation of what the rules are is the only way they could ever possibly be interpreted is just logical fallacy.
Clearly a lot of people feel like the BRB saying Eldar got all Daemonology powers was because at the time, the latest Eldar book was out and the BRB was necessary to give any army those powers. Those same people also feel like the new book, by not mentioning malefic powers, means you can't do malefic powers anymore because new book trumps previous rulebooks regarding how to play said army, including the BRB.
It's not a hard side to understand. Being rude as hell about it isn't making your position any stronger, nor does it weaken the other sides. Get over yourself. "PLAY IT THIS WAY OR YOU SUCK AT ENGLISH" is just asinine. There's no need for that behavior.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Well firstly only With deal in absolutes
You said I agree on RaW, well you've admitted you agree on RaI so to an extent that is irrelevant. If you want RaW to win because it is an absolute I'm going to want absolute proof. First step is prove absolutely that we are not all hallucinating when looking at the book.
Then you claim RaI has no place in tournaments, from this comment I know you don't go to tournaments. Because RaI is absolutely rife in tournaments. For instance Far sight Enclave armies are there without Shadowsun and Aun'va (due to the cannot not include wording). No one allows you to move your models vertically and claim wobbly model. No one plays that destroyer weapons do nothing. Go back an Edition and no tournament played that FMCs didn't have Relentless or Smash but instead the undefined Relentless Smash rule which therefore does nothing. These are just some of the RaW silliness from the top of my head that we all ignore. In order to actually play a game you have use RaI, heck in the roll off if you both roll the same number twice you can't continue the game (hence why we treat roll again differently to reroll yet no RaW supports that stance).
94352
Post by: Roknar
That's exactly my point, tournaments change the rules.
They may changed them based off of RAI or just for fun, but they make those changes part of the rule-set of the tournament, therefore turning the RAI rules into RAW rules for that tournament. You know the changes they make in advance.
Whether or not malefic is allowed for any given tournament is something you would want to know ahead of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That doesn't stop a judge from using RAI on unforeseen matters that come up, but you'd want to keep those to a minimum.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Roknar wrote:That's exactly my point, tournaments change the rules.
They may changed them based off of RAI or just for fun, but they make those changes part of the rule-set of the tournament, therefore turning the RAI rules into RAW rules for that tournament. You know the changes they make in advance.
Whether or not malefic is allowed for any given tournament is something you would want to know ahead of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That doesn't stop a judge from using RAI on unforeseen matters that come up, but you'd want to keep those to a minimum.
Nope those are issues that don't appear in rules packs. I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't). RaI is accepted in lots of areas without prior agreement, particularly when RaI is so blatantly clear or RaW is broken. The aim should be play as close to RaI as possible (in other words play by the rules as much as possible), RaW is simply a method for interpreting the rules and not one that the rules are designed to be used with. RaW has its uses but is certainly not the default.
94352
Post by: Roknar
You're right that I don't go to tournaments, but if I did, I would expect an extensive rules pack, so maybe that's just me then. I suspect that some areas/specific events would offer such a pack though.
Though from what you say, I gather the majority run on social contracts, in which case the RAI is clear and this is pretty much a non issue. Just like you say.
Still, for those exceptions, it is a matter worth noting. And it would appear that OP is indeed playing in an environment where RAW trumps RAI.
90694
Post by: Unahim
You can't only look at this one example. If you go by RAI once, you have to give it credit every time. Or will you then start arguing degrees of certainty about the RAI? Who makes the call then? Where does it end?
Strict adherence to RAW is the only way to play the game with (relative) strangers. In your own local meta, sure, house rule away. And we will be.
(Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar. Seems you need to state this these days, because people have an us vs. them mentality now, so you can't agree with -anything- an Eldar says without being one!) Automatically Appended Next Post: FlingitNow wrote:Roknar wrote:I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't).
RAW he totally can. The example in the psyker section has an astropath generating warp charges, and those can only be part of a unit. Clearly when the rules say "psychic unit = any unit with the psyker, psychic pilot, etc rule..." they mean that includes at least one of those guys. Just as I could say "A unit with a banner" and not need all of them to have a banner. Basic English. It's ambiguous, but you can read it like this just fine.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Unahim wrote:You can't only look at this one example. If you go by RAI once, you have to give it credit every time. Or will you then start arguing degrees of certainty about the RAI? Who makes the call then? Where does it end?
Strict adherence to RAW is the only way to play the game with (relative) strangers. In your own local meta, sure, house rule away. And we will be.
(Disclaimer: I do not play Eldar. Seems you need to state this these days, because people have an us vs. them mentality now, so you can't agree with -anything- an Eldar says without being one!)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote:Roknar wrote:I'm yet to see a rules pack that for instance states that when a Psyker joins a non-psyker unit he still generates warp charge and can still manifest powers (though RaW he can't).
RAW he totally can. The example in the psyker section has an astropath generating warp charges, and those can only be part of a unit. Clearly when the rules say "psychic unit = any unit with the psyker, psychic pilot, etc rule..." they mean that includes at least one of those guys. Just as I could say "A unit with a banner" and not need all of them to have a banner. Basic English. It's ambiguous, but you can read it like this just fine.
Arguments about the Psychic phase aside (yes they are broken) playing a stranger and insisting on RaW results in you jot being able to play a game. Strict adherence to RaW literally breaks the game. TOs don't go with RaW for that very reason. If you want to interpret the rules as a computer would interpret code, go ahead and the game is unplayable. For instance I enfeeble your Walker game breaks. The entire Psyker phase the game breaks. Last Necron codex I could use the Ghostark to add d3 Warhound Titans to my warrior units each turn. No one anywhere plays strict RaW. No one. No TO rules strict RaW all the time, and none have rules pack that go over every change to RaW that they'll play by. To be fair you could RaW break their rules pack unless they are legal professionals.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
SRSFACE wrote:Anyone else love when someone says "Follow the rules" while engaging in behavior that is not following the rules of YMDC? I think it's pretty special.
Don't tell people how to play the game. You want to argue a specific stance, that's fine. You're doing that, and stating which stance you're arguing, and saying it's your interpretations of RAW. Cool. That's following the YMDC rules.
However, telling people they are doing it wrong by arguing RAI, especially when they are very clear that's their arguments, is rude and against the tenants of the forum.
Actually, this entire thread since my initial post has been filled with people violating tenet 4 of YMDC. My OP was just talking about RAW, which I made clear. I even went on to say later, when responding to all the HYWPI and RAI arguments(The ones violating tenet 4), that I would be seeing to it that local games added house rules to prevent that from happening, as I think it is fairly clear that GW meant to disallow maelific to Eldar. The ONLY point we seem to disagree on, is that I believe it's unfair to players to alter RAW in the middle of a tournament, while FlingitNow thinks that's fine. If a player completely designs their army list around a rule in the book that you haven't house ruled, then you change it on him in the middle of the tournament when he doesn't have time to alter his list in response to your altering of the rules, that isn't fair. That's it. That's the only thing I've been disagreeing with. Changing the rules on the fly isn't playing by the rules. Saying so isn't being rude. It's how I would feel as a player if a TO did that to me. And as a TO, if any of my judges made that call to change ANY rule in the book from RAW to what they thought it would be without consulting me, they'd never be invited to assist with a tournament again. It's that important.
FlingitNow wrote:Well firstly only With deal in absolutes
You said I agree on RaW, well you've admitted you agree on RaI so to an extent that is irrelevant. If you want RaW to win because it is an absolute I'm going to want absolute proof. First step is prove absolutely that we are not all hallucinating when looking at the book.
Then you claim RaI has no place in tournaments, from this comment I know you don't go to tournaments. Because RaI is absolutely rife in tournaments.
It's not rife in tournaments around here, which I attend very often. I am both a TO, and primarily a tournament player. If I am not acting as the TO, about the only time I play these days is in tournaments. I'm not trying to be "cheeky" here. Your local meta sounds completely different than it is here. I seriously believe it is based around the cultural difference you demonstrated earlier, regarding the "spirit of the law". I know the spirit of the law is a big thing where you're from. Here, it isn't. Here, our laws are full of double-talk and loopholes that are constantly exploited by corporate America and lawyers. It is the culture we're from. Here, we follow the letter of the law in most cases. This is how large corporations work the system into paying zero taxes on a 300 million dollar profit without any legal repercussions. I'm not saying that the idea of "spirit of the law" is completely foreign to us. It's not, but it also isn't a major legal precedent as it is in your country. Because it's not a major part of our law, our country has set the stage for the prevailing attitude to be one of following the "letter of the law".
THIS ONLY APPLIES HERE, IN MY LOCAL META. NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO PLAY: That said, at the tournaments here, it would be considered TERRIBLE form to alter RAW in a way any more significant than adding a comma or something. When you actually have to add an entire sentence to the book in order to interpret the rule in the manner you are ruling, that is an erratta, and should be reserved for adding it to your standard tournament house rules in BETWEEN tournaments, NEVER in the middle of them. You'd lose the respect of your playerbase if you did so, as people would never feel comfortable building a list around the rules for your tournament, knowing those rules could just be changed on the fly if they were using a little-known rule from a book to do something awesome.
I actually won a tournament not too long ago using some obscure rules. The entire tournament was based around the relic mission, so I took a Macro Cannon Aquila Strongpoint with void shield, 4 heavy bolters, and an escape hatch. My list used a unit consisting of D-scythe wraithguard, Lelith Hesperax, and Eldrad(Hammerhand, Sanctuary, Gate of Infinity, Cleansing Flame, Banishment). Basically, turn 1 I'd use the escape hatch to claim the relic, positioning in a manner that kept me from being charged, then turn 2, i'd embark back into my AV 15 mighty bulwark, void-shielded building through the escape hatch that I placed next to the relic. I ultimately won that tournament based on several RAW rulings that were immediately thereafter altered in that particular group's house rules to ensure it never happened again. Do I begrudge them adding those house rules to stop me from doing something similar in the future? Not at all. They handled it exactly as it should be handled. They followed the rules until such time as it was appropriate to alter them more to their tastes. That's how we do things here. It's what stops people from getting upset over shades of grey rulings. In this case that we're discussing, it's fairly obvious, but there are plenty of other examples where the RAI is closer to 50/50, not really sure which way they intended it. And it's because of those that we have the local policy of always going RAW until such RAI debates are completely settled by having a local house rule.
69558
Post by: Ranumo
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
When you deal with absolutes like RAW, you don't have to concern yourself with defining things like "reasonable doubt". When trying to defend your position, you have to ask yourself, "How much doubt is reasonable?" If you're 99% sure of something, and 1% unsure, you're speculating by going with what it most likely is. It's an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. When interpreting RAW, you don't have that problem. The rule says what the rule says.
if this RAW is completely flawless and crystal clear. Why does some codexes have faq that they actuly CAN take Maelific Daemonology. We're talking about RAW to be flawless so I don't exactly understand why it has been put on faq before.
So I'm wondering out loud here.. why is your absolute RAW told how they work in faq if they are absolute RAW as you call them?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It's not rife in tournaments around here, which I attend very often. I am both a TO, and primarily a tournament player. If I am not acting as the TO, about the only time I play these days is in tournaments. I'm not trying to be "cheeky" here. Your local meta sounds completely different than it is here. I seriously believe it is based around the cultural difference you demonstrated earlier, regarding the "spirit of the law". I know the spirit of the law is a big thing where you're from. Here, it isn't. Here, our laws are full of double-talk and loopholes that are constantly exploited by corporate America and lawyers. It is the culture we're from. Here, we follow the letter of the law in most cases. This is how large corporations work the system into paying zero taxes on a 300 million dollar profit without any legal repercussions. I'm not saying that the idea of "spirit of the law" is completely foreign to us. It's not, but it also isn't a major legal precedent as it is in your country. Because it's not a major part of our law, our country has set the stage for the prevailing attitude to be one of following the "letter of the law".
Cool so you're a TO did your most recent rules pack cover the following and if not would you have ruled in favour of RaW.
Brotherhood of Psykers does something (it is based on units with the rule but no units have the rule only models).
Psykers joined to another unit are still psykers generate warp charge.
Roll again and reroll are separate things.
You can't move your model vertically and have it hovering over the board using WMS to count it as being there.
Farsight Enclaves detachments don't HAVE to include Shadowsun or Aun'va (in fact they can't).
Units can't overwatch with ALL their weapons and grenades.
Destroyer Weapons do something (currently you roll on the table for each model hit but models are never hit by shooting attacks only units).
If I enfeeble a Walker the game breaks.
If my opponent passes a FnP against a wound that was caused by a weapon that allows no saves I win because they cheated ( FnP is not a save so they get the roll if they pass it the wound counts as saved thus breaking the no saves rule).
95127
Post by: beardothewise
My mind may be stuck in last edition, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Doesn't specific access to Sanctic simply allow them the ability to peril on only double sixes instead of any doubles? This wouldn't restrict what disciplines they can take, but only make them better at manifesting Sanctic powers.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It is obvious the OP is a troll looking for reactions. I am checking out of this one .
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
With Dozer. Thread needs to be locked. I think the original question was answered anyway.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
 Dozer Blades wrote:It is obvious the OP is a troll looking for reactions. I am checking out of this one .
Agreed.
91541
Post by: DoomShakaLaka
I'm pretty sure RAW is clear on this. I play Space Marines, and could care less if Eldar can summon daemon armies. (Never trusted those xenos anyways!)
It should and will be left up to the individual TOs to decide whether or not Eldar will have access to maelific.
Remember at the end of the day talk it over with your opponent, and try to be reasonable. Its still just a game.
90084
Post by: Whacked
FlingitNow, can you PM me why you believe it is "cheating" to summon daemons with Eldar?
If I remember the wording, it says that "Spiritseer generates his powers from this, that, and this."
If the rulebook says 'Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids faction, can generate powers on the Daemonology table' (BRB, Pg 28).
Then the RAW seems clear, and it doesn't really seem like cheating to me.
Not trying to troll, I play Necrons and played my friends Eldar at a tournament today. They don't need daemons to be competitive in anyway and if you're running daemons you aren't winning the game.
14
Post by: Ghaz
I'll use the Shadowseer from Codex Harlequins as an example:
Shadowseers generate their powers from the Phantasmancy, Daemonology (Sanctic) and Telepathy disciplines.
Why state that they can generate their powers from Sanctic if the rulebook already allows them to do so? If its a reminder, why did they specifically mention Sanctic and not Malefic? The only reason I can see for the rule to specifically mention one set of powers is because that is the only set of powers they were meant to have. Any other explanation would require the author to either forget or remember in mid-sentence that the rulebook automatically gives them both Sanctic and Malefic and he didn't bother to correct himself in multiple codices. I find that highly unlikely.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Ghaz wrote:I'll use the Shadowseer from Codex Harlequins as an example:
Shadowseers generate their powers from the Phantasmancy, Daemonology (Sanctic) and Telepathy disciplines.
Why state that they can generate their powers from Sanctic if the rulebook already allows them to do so? If its a reminder, why did they specifically mention Sanctic and not Malefic? The only reason I can see for the rule to specifically mention one set of powers is because that is the only set of powers they were meant to have. Any other explanation would require the author to either forget or remember in mid-sentence that the rulebook automatically gives them both Sanctic and Malefic and he didn't bother to correct himself in multiple codices. I find that highly unlikely.
Why not state it? They may just want to reinforce that not only is Sanctic Daemonology something that just about anyone can use, but that it's something the Eldar psykers regularly use. It may be as simple as that. Eldar psykers still have access to Malefic Daemonology per the BRB, but it's not something they'd regularly use, so it's not listed in the Codex. But then, my theory is also just a theory, as is yours.
We have RaW to fall back on and RaW gives us permission to use Malefic Daemonology ( BRB), Sanctic Daemonology ( BRB), Sanctic Daemonology (C:Eldar), etc, etc.
The new Eldar Codex doesn't say otherwise, so we assume that we are still able to use Malefic. Saying otherwise would involve a note that they can't use Malefic, similar to the Grey Knights.
14
Post by: Ghaz
The problem is that they only stated one of the two powers. If it was a reminder, it would list both Sanctic and Malefic.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Ghaz wrote:The problem is that they only stated one of the two powers. If it was a reminder, it would list both Sanctic and Malefic.
Actually, it would just say Daemonology, since Daemonology is technically a single discipline.
The original poster is right in the sense that Eldar can generate powers from Daemonology as all non-tyranid psykers are allowed to do so, but they can't summon daemons since their unit entries explicitly state they only generate sanctic powers and summoning is malefic.
94352
Post by: Roknar
Ghaz wrote:I'll use the Shadowseer from Codex Harlequins as an example:
Shadowseers generate their powers from the Phantasmancy, Daemonology (Sanctic) and Telepathy disciplines.
Why state that they can generate their powers from Sanctic if the rulebook already allows them to do so? If its a reminder, why did they specifically mention Sanctic and not Malefic? The only reason I can see for the rule to specifically mention one set of powers is because that is the only set of powers they were meant to have. Any other explanation would require the author to either forget or remember in mid-sentence that the rulebook automatically gives them both Sanctic and Malefic and he didn't bother to correct himself in multiple codices. I find that highly unlikely.
Except that GW do this all the time. They don't seem to consider one edition to be a self contained cycle. They keep writing codices with future or experimental rules in mind and keep changing their vision from one codex to another. In addition to that, they don't seem to feel the need to manage their existing rules/codices. So the author forgetting that there is a rule in the current edition? Not at all unlikely, or simply not caring, because they have a different rule set in mind and don't consider that gamebreaking enough to disallow malefic via an errata or faq. Which to me is the same as allowing it.
This wouldn't be nearly as bad if they just made the rules free and available per digital download, but hell will freeze over before that happens.
14
Post by: Ghaz
So GW was getting ready for the next edition a mere three months after the release of 7th edition? I find that highly unlikely, yet Codex Grey Knights was released just three months after 7th edition dropped and their codex specifically says "Daemonology (Sanctic)". While the RAW may be one thing, this is one of the few instances I believe the RAI is crystal clear and would definitely be the way I would play it and would advise others to play it as well.
94352
Post by: Roknar
This is GW we're talking about lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I trust them with just about any kind of madness.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Guys, Eldar can't summon as per RAW. Here are the two relevant rules:
"a Psyker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him."
&
"Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline."
The second rule does not state that they generate powers from BOTH Malefic and Sanctic, only from Daemonology. The Eldar's unit entry states that they DO generate powers Daemonology, but specifies that this is Daemonology (Sanctic). Both rules are satisfied, but Eldar can't summon because their unit entry doesn't allow them to use the Malefic portion of Daemonology.
14
Post by: Ghaz
And GW doesn't plan that far in advance. Them forgetting their own rules and intending for them to only have access to the psychic disciplines listed in their army list entry fits GW modus operandi better than saying that they're planning for some future edition.
94352
Post by: Roknar
It goes on to say that each time they can choose to generate powers from either sanctic or malefic, so that doesn't really change anything. I don't know why they insisted on on making one discipline with two sub disciplines when they could just have referred to one or the other. It serves naught but to complicate things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghaz wrote:And GW doesn't plan that far in advance. Them forgetting their own rules and intending for them to only have access to the psychic disciplines listed in their army list entry fits GW modus operandi better than saying that they're planning for some future edition.
heh, you have point.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Roknar wrote:It goes on to say that each time they can choose to generate powers from either sanctic or malefic
Except that the Eldar codex overturns that part of the rule by explicitly stating which subset of Daemonology powers you can generate from. And since the codex trumps the BRB, you can only generate from Sanctic.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Glad to see this debacle is finally starting to wind down .
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Actually, this entire thread since my initial post has been filled with people violating tenet 4 of YMDC.
Is that an excuse for you to engage in that behavior?
No, it's not. A whole lot of headache could have been avoided if you simply made it clear it's your interpretation of RAW, and when people replied with RAI, you said "I can see why you would infer that intent, but I am not arguing intent."
Civility, man. I'm guilty of breaking it a lot, but at least I try and hold myself accountable for prior mistakes and learn from them.
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
SRSFACE wrote: BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Actually, this entire thread since my initial post has been filled with people violating tenet 4 of YMDC.
Is that an excuse for you to engage in that behavior?
No, it's not. A whole lot of headache could have been avoided if you simply made it clear it's your interpretation of RAW, and when people replied with RAI, you said "I can see why you would infer that intent, but I am not arguing intent."
Civility, man. I'm guilty of breaking it a lot, but at least I try and hold myself accountable for prior mistakes and learn from them.
Then maybe you should read the entire thread, because I responded to their breaking the discussion on RAW with civility and politeness, even agreeing with their interpretation of RAI, but simply saying that I think it would be unfair to make a RAI call in the middle of a tournament, rather than before it when players can be prepared for a non RAW ruling that effects army list building. For having this opinion, I have been attacked as, and I quote: "Lazy good for nothing eldar player", "a cheating eldar player", "the worst of the worst", "idiot", "eldar loser", "rude", and finally, "troll".
So, after all that direct name calling towards me, that is clearly unwarranted in a civil, adult discussion, you chose MY post to single out and say you thought I was being uncivil? I question your judgement, sir, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
I think we are all saying the same thing here. I think we are all saying who cares about eldar, they can't summon daemons, QQ otherwise, end of discussion. Amiright
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Pain4Pleasure wrote:I think we are all saying the same thing here. I think we are all saying who cares about eldar, they can't summon daemons, QQ otherwise, end of discussion. Amiright
Nope. We are not all saying the same thing here.
From a rules as written standpoint, the Eldar Codex doesn't say they can't use Malefic Daemonology (MD). In other words, the BRB says they can and the Codex doesn't state otherwise. Stating otherwise would involve something like "can't use MD".
All of the debate points about "why would GW write this a certain way" or "why would they only mention one and not the other" are red herrings. Unless a codex states otherwise, all psykers may generate powers from Malefic and Sanctic Daemonology. Under the current 7th Edition rules, having the Eldar Codex say that a psyker can use Sanctic Daemonology is redundant. They would be able to use SD even if it wasn't listed for the same reason they can use MD... the BRB gives permission.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Or unless gw say otherwise... Which they did since I emailed them asking if eldar could use malefic.. to which they said no.. that it states in the rulebook they can use sanctic not malefic.. still wanna argue?
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Or unless gw say otherwise... Which they did since I emailed them asking if eldar could use malefic.. to which they said no.. that it states in the rulebook they can use sanctic not malefic.. still wanna argue?
GW Emails shouldn't be relied on as per Tenet #2
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Or unless gw say otherwise... Which they did since I emailed them asking if eldar could use malefic.. to which they said no.. that it states in the rulebook they can use sanctic not malefic.. still wanna argue?
You're the only one currently arguing. Your attitude earlier in the thread is evidence of this. All name calling and throwing your e-weight around.
Chill out dude, it's an internet forum for discussing the rules of a game of toy soldiers.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Well won't lie, while I see why it's in place do to trolls, it's aLao dumb due to some people "ie me" who aren't trolling :/ regardless. I would tell an eldar player to f off if he even brought daemon models in the same box as his eldar. Let alone only his eldar
Edit : e- weight? Chill out? I was never angry? I apologize that you wasted your time thinking so. I was Simply speaking on behalf of the anti eldar committee. No for reelz though.. if you really thought I was throwing around weight or angry I feel bad that sarcasm and blatant bordem escapes you
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Well won't lie, while I see why it's in place do to trolls, it's aLao dumb due to some people "ie me" who aren't trolling :/ regardless. I would tell an eldar player to f off if he even brought daemon models in the same box as his eldar. Let alone only his eldar
That sounds like some pretty aggressive emotion driving some pretty aggressive language... again over a disagreement on the rules of a game of plastic toy soldiers.
Edit : e- weight? Chill out? I was never angry? I apologize that you wasted your time thinking so. I was Simply speaking on behalf of the anti eldar committee. No for reelz though.. if you really thought I was throwing around weight or angry I feel bad that sarcasm and blatant bordem escapes you
Riiight...
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Blah... Lazy good for nothing eldar players and their continued attempts to take their extremely broken eldar codex and break it more. Know what's worse than an eldar player in general? A cheating eldar player in general. You guys are the worst of the worst. If there was one army 40k could do without.. it's eldar. Erreta the idiots.
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Meh. Generalizing eldar losers is about the only fun thing to do other than not play with the.. as you see above, OP is wanting to break his codex more and will not listen to reason or truth otherwise. He wants so bad to be right he can't accept he is wrong. As all eldar players are.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Mr. Shine, I'm sorry are you obssessed with some random person on the internet who is interested in toy soldiers? Kinda a weird fetish.. but I won't judge. To each their own.
87872
Post by: chadbrochill17
The rulebook doesnt expressly forbid me from taking 47 D cannons on my wraith knight so i think ill go do that. *rolls eyes*
-Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -
99
Post by: insaniak
chadbrochill17 wrote:The rulebook doesnt expressly forbid me from taking 47 D cannons on my wraith knight so i think ill go do that. *rolls eyes*
You have misunderstood the argument.
The issue is that that rulebook says that you can do something unless a codex specifically says you can't. Not that the rulebook doesn't forbid it.
So Eldar are given permission to use Malefic powers by the rulebook... and nothing in the codex removes that permission.
So, as stated by the rulebook, that means that they can use Malefic powers.
It's not a matter of the rulebook not saying you can't. It's a matter of the rulebook saying you can, but the codex just expecting us to assume that you can't,
27529
Post by: confoo22
 insaniak wrote:So Eldar are given permission to use Malefic powers by the rulebook... and nothing in the codex removes that permission.
The sentence under Psyker for the unit entry that says "(Unit Name) generates powers from Daemonology (Sanctic)" coupled with the sentence " a Psyker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him," from the BRB is what removes that permission. The codex lists out what disciplines are known to the Eldar and it specifies that they can only draw powers from Sanctic. It really doesn't matter what the rulebook says about generating Malefic powers because the codex, which overrides the BRB, is explicitly telling you which subset of Daemonology powers you are generating from, therefore it excludes the subset you are not given permission to generate from.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
confoo22 wrote: insaniak wrote:So Eldar are given permission to use Malefic powers by the rulebook... and nothing in the codex removes that permission.
The sentence under Psyker for the unit entry that says "(Unit Name) generates powers from Daemonology (Sanctic)" coupled with the sentence " a Psyker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him," from the BRB is what removes that permission. The codex lists out what disciplines are known to the Eldar and it specifies that they can only draw powers from Sanctic. It really doesn't matter what the rulebook says about generating Malefic powers because the codex, which overrides the BRB, is explicitly telling you which subset of Daemonology powers you are generating from, therefore it excludes the subset you are not given permission to generate from.
Incorrect.
BRB - "Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline."
The new Codex: Eldar does not state otherwise. Stating otherwise would involve "cannot generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline" or something similar. Being told I can use Daemonology (Sanctic) isn't the same as being told I can't use Daemonology (Malefic).
If you were correct, no psyker in the game would be able to use Daemonology (Malefic) unless it was specifically listed in their unit entry. What about Tigurius? His unit entry states that he "generates his powers from the Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis and Telepathy disciplines." Clearly, the BRB adds Daemonology to that list. I'm curious to know your stance on this.
Does Tigurius have access to Daemonology (Malefic)? If so, why doesn't the Eldar psyker? It's an identical issue.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Kriswall wrote:BRB - "Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline."
The new Codex: Eldar does not state otherwise. Stating otherwise would involve "cannot generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline" or something similar. Being told I can use Daemonology (Sanctic) isn't the same as being told I can't use Daemonology (Malefic).
If you were correct, no psyker in the game would be able to use Daemonology (Malefic) unless it was specifically listed in their unit entry. What about Tigurius? His unit entry states that he "generates his powers from the Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis and Telepathy disciplines." Clearly, the BRB adds Daemonology to that list. I'm curious to know your stance on this.
Does Tigurius have access to Daemonology (Malefic)? If so, why doesn't the Eldar psyker? It's an identical issue.
It's not identical in the least. Space Marine FAQ has an amendment that specifically allows any model with the psyker special rule to generate from Daemonology discipline. It also does not break it down by specific subset, it simply says Daemonology, therefore he's allowed to generate from either subset. All 6th edition codexes except for Tyranids received amendments in their FAQs saying that they may do so.
Also, you're being told otherwise because there's already a rule in the BRB stating that a unit can only generate powers from disciplines that they know. Their unit entry lists disciplines that they know and specifies that it's Daemonlogy (Sanctic). Automatically Appended Next Post: To break it down even further, the "unless otherwise stated" statement in that rule simply says that all psykers can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. However, that wording does not apply to the specific subsets (i.e., it does not say "unless otherwise stated all psykers can generate from either Malefic or Sanctic"). Because of that, the unit entry doesn't have to specifically state that you can't use Malefic in order to deny you permission. You're already fulfilling the requirement that the psyker is generating from Daemonology, but you are specified that it's only the sanctic portion of the discipline.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
confoo22 wrote: Kriswall wrote:BRB - "Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline."
The new Codex: Eldar does not state otherwise. Stating otherwise would involve "cannot generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline" or something similar. Being told I can use Daemonology (Sanctic) isn't the same as being told I can't use Daemonology (Malefic).
If you were correct, no psyker in the game would be able to use Daemonology (Malefic) unless it was specifically listed in their unit entry. What about Tigurius? His unit entry states that he "generates his powers from the Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis and Telepathy disciplines." Clearly, the BRB adds Daemonology to that list. I'm curious to know your stance on this.
Does Tigurius have access to Daemonology (Malefic)? If so, why doesn't the Eldar psyker? It's an identical issue.
It's not identical in the least. Space Marine FAQ has an amendment that specifically allows any model with the psyker special rule to generate from Daemonology discipline. It also does not break it down by specific subset, it simply says Daemonology, therefore he's allowed to generate from either subset. All 6th edition codexes except for Tyranids received amendments in their FAQs saying that they may do so.
Also, you're being told otherwise because there's already a rule in the BRB stating that a unit can only generate powers from disciplines that they know. Their unit entry lists disciplines that they know and specifies that it's Daemonlogy (Sanctic).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To break it down even further, the "unless otherwise stated" statement in that rule simply says that all psykers can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. However, that wording does not apply to the specific subsets (i.e., it does not say "unless otherwise stated all psykers can generate from either Malefic or Sanctic"). Because of that, the unit entry doesn't have to specifically state that you can't use Malefic in order to deny you permission. You're already fulfilling the requirement that the psyker is generating from Daemonology, but you are specified that it's only the sanctic portion of the discipline.
I was unaware of the Space Marine FAQ. I retract the statement. Fortunately, the example was simply an example and doesn't change my point.
Since you seem like the expert here, please provide page and paragraph from the new Eldar Codex specifically and unambiguously telling me that Eldar psykers CAN'T use Daemonology (Malefic) and thus overriding the permission granted in the BRB. Thanks. I eagerly await your citation.
35714
Post by: gwarsh41
Man, 5 pages later and its the same exact argument word for word.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
 gwarsh41 wrote:Man, 5 pages later and its the same exact argument word for word.
What's your point? This is the way MOST arguments work when two parties interpret a statement differently. The issue has yet to be resolved and so it continues. Failure to respond is frequently seen as passive agreement, so these things tend to go on and on until a mod locks the thread with a standard "work it our with your opponent" disclaimer.
The core rulebook says you can do A unless told otherwise. The new codex sort of implies you can't do A, but doesn't actually say it. One side of the debate is perfectly willing to accept an implied restriction. The other side isn't willing to accept an implied restriction. This is a permissive rule set, so implied restriction generally aren't accepted in most circumstances. I'm honestly not sure why some people want to accept one here.
77623
Post by: Bhazakhain
This thread is ridiculous wishful thinking. How is it five pages long?!
What is the point of listing what you're allowed to use if you are going to use what's not there anyway? You might as well have all your Eldar psychers using pyromancy or biomancy and riding in Space Marine Land Raiders as a dedicated transport.
Things that aren't listed aren't an option. Also notice that malefic was present in the previous book and now is not present. Typo? Nope. Removed on purpose.
We have a good codex. We don't need ridiculous, unfluffy daemon summoning abilities.
Cite your evidence for the missing out of malefic as a typo and not a deliberate removal.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Kriswall wrote:Since you seem like the expert here, please provide page and paragraph from the new Eldar Codex specifically and unambiguously telling me that Eldar psykers CAN'T use Daemonology (Malefic) and thus overriding the permission granted in the BRB. Thanks. I eagerly await your citation.
A. There's no need to get snotty about it.
B. C'mon man, get serious here. If the game had to literally write a sentence for every little thing that you cannot do then the rules would be much more complex and longer than it needs to be. An understanding of how the rules interact should be enough to tell you everything you need to know in this situation. Your request is a red herring and you know it.
C. I've already demonstrated why, through a combination of the RAW in both the BRB and the Codex, you do not have permission to generate Malefic powers. So the onus is actually on you to cite a rule the overrides that and does actually gives you permission. And before you present the same argument, I've also told you why the Malefic portion is excluded while still allowing the psyker to generate Daemonology powers. So please cite the rule that gives a psyker permission to generate a power from a discipline that he does not know, in this case Daemonology (Malefic).
And let me put this back up here since you glossed over it in your last response: the "unless otherwise stated" part that rule simply says that all psykers can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. However, that wording does not apply to the specific subsets (i.e., it does not say "unless otherwise stated all psykers can generate from either Malefic or Sanctic"). Because of that, the unit entry doesn't have to specifically state that you can't use Malefic in order to deny you permission. You're already fulfilling the requirement that the psyker is generating from Daemonology, but you are specified that it's only the sanctic portion of the discipline.
11118
Post by: Thimn
Confoo22- You haven't provided any rules that prohibit using Malefic. You would need to cite a specific rule banning the Eldar from Malefic. Just because the book doesn't mention them being able to, is not a rule that outlaws it. We have a special rule in the rulebook allowing any psyker (out side of Nids) access.
Now GW probably means for the Eldar to not have access to Deamon summoning. That's a RAI fight though. What we have here is a 2 sets of books telling us what we can use and no rule prohibiting a rule out of the main rulebook. The Eldar can continue to summon deamons until we are given a rule otherwise.
The Rulebook gives Access to Damenolgy which gives you access to both sides of it. Just because in the codex it lists Santic doesn't exclude the Rulebook opening up Demonilgy and picking Malefic
27529
Post by: confoo22
Thimn wrote:Confoo22- You haven't provided any rules that prohibit using Malefic. You would need to cite a specific rule banning the Eldar from Malefic. Just because the book doesn't mention them being able to, is not a rule that outlaws it. We have a special rule in the rulebook allowing any psyker (out side of Nids) access.
I feel like you didn't actually read what I posted. Again, that rule does not apply to specific subsets of Daemonology. It allows all psykers to generate from Daemonology, which Eldar do, they just don't generate from Malefic powers because their unit entry states that they know Daemonology (Sanctic). So, again, the onus is on you to cite a rule that overrides both the BRB rule AND the codex unit entry in order to allow Eldar to generate powers from a discipline they don't actually know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thimn wrote:The Rulebook gives Access to Damenolgy which gives you access to both sides of it. Just because in the codex it lists Santic doesn't exclude the Rulebook opening up Demonilgy and picking Malefic
Except that the Malefic portion of the rule doesn't include the "unless otherwise stated" part that your entire argument hinges on. Therefore, the specification of Daemonology (Sanctic) overrides the use of Malefic powers.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
confoo22 wrote: Kriswall wrote:Since you seem like the expert here, please provide page and paragraph from the new Eldar Codex specifically and unambiguously telling me that Eldar psykers CAN'T use Daemonology (Malefic) and thus overriding the permission granted in the BRB. Thanks. I eagerly await your citation.
A. There's no need to get snotty about it.
B. C'mon man, get serious here. If the game had to literally write a sentence for every little thing that you cannot do then the rules would be much more complex and longer than it needs to be. An understanding of how the rules interact should be enough to tell you everything you need to know in this situation. Your request is a red herring and you know it.
C. I've already demonstrated why, through a combination of the RAW in both the BRB and the Codex, you do not have permission to generate Malefic powers. So the onus is actually on you to cite a rule the overrides that and does actually gives you permission. And before you present the same argument, I've also told you why the Malefic portion is excluded while still allowing the psyker to generate Daemonology powers. So please cite the rule that gives a psyker permission to generate a power from a discipline that he does not know, in this case Daemonology (Malefic).
And let me put this back up here since you glossed over it in your last response: the "unless otherwise stated" part that rule simply says that all psykers can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. However, that wording does not apply to the specific subsets (i.e., it does not say "unless otherwise stated all psykers can generate from either Malefic or Sanctic"). Because of that, the unit entry doesn't have to specifically state that you can't use Malefic in order to deny you permission. You're already fulfilling the requirement that the psyker is generating from Daemonology, but you are specified that it's only the sanctic portion of the discipline.
A. I wasn't being snotty.
B. I'm not asking for every little thing you can't do. You're telling me I can't do something. The core rules specifically and unambiguously tell me I can. I'm simply asking what wording you see in the new Codex that says I can't. The request most certainly isn't a red herring. This is the core of the debate. The core rules say I can do something. If you tell me I can't, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a rules citation. Is there a reason you won't provide one limiting access to Malefic?
C. You have done no such thing. The core rules tell me I can use Malefic Daemonology. I would argue that as this is a permissive rule set and I have clear and explicit permission from the core rules, the onus is on you to find wording granting a clear and unambiguous restriction. My can is clear. Your can't has yet to be quoted.
I appreciate what you're getting at in the last paragraph, but there is not support for that in the rules. The core rules tell me, in effect, that I can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline unless stated otherwise. The rules go on to say that "each time a psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline, he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers." The Eldar codex tells me that Eldar psykers can generate powers from the Daemonology (Sanctic) discipline... which is not a thing. The discipline is called Daemonology. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that Daemonology (Sanctic) refers to the Sanctic set of powers. Telling me that an Eldar psyker has access to the Sanctic set of powers is interesting, but ultimately redundant. The core rules have already told me that.
What we don't have is any wording anywhere in the codex telling me that Eldar psykers can't generate a power from the Malefic set of powers. Sure, it's sort of implied... maybe... BUT it's not actually written down anywhere. If you want to ban the Malefic set of powers, that's fine. Feel free to do so, but please understand that it will be a house rule. From a RaW standpoint, the core rules allow it and Eldar Codex doesn't disallow it.
27529
Post by: confoo22
Kriswall wrote:What we don't have is any wording anywhere in the codex telling me that Eldar psykers can't generate a power from the Malefic set of powers. Sure, it's sort of implied... maybe... BUT it's not actually written down anywhere. If you want to ban the Malefic set of powers, that's fine. Feel free to do so, but please understand that it will be a house rule. From a RaW standpoint, the core rules allow it and Eldar Codex doesn't disallow it.
I disagree and almost anyone else who understands how the ruleset interacts and works within itself will as well. I've shown how RAW actually denies you permission, but in the end I can't convince you of something that it's pretty obvious you don't want to be convinced about so I'm just going let it lie instead of typing the same thing over and over. What you need to understand, though, is that if you're entire argument in the face of evidence against boils down to "Show me the rule that says I can't," then it's pretty weak tea, and don't expect TOs to FAQ it because they will almost definitely not consider it a "house rule."
37809
Post by: Kriswall
confoo22 wrote: Kriswall wrote:What we don't have is any wording anywhere in the codex telling me that Eldar psykers can't generate a power from the Malefic set of powers. Sure, it's sort of implied... maybe... BUT it's not actually written down anywhere. If you want to ban the Malefic set of powers, that's fine. Feel free to do so, but please understand that it will be a house rule. From a RaW standpoint, the core rules allow it and Eldar Codex doesn't disallow it.
I disagree and almost anyone else who understands how the ruleset interacts and works within itself will as well. I've shown how RAW actually denies you permission, but in the end I can't convince you of something that it's pretty obvious you don't want to be convinced about so I'm just going let it lie instead of typing the same thing over and over. What you need to understand, though, is that if you're entire argument in the face of evidence against boils down to "Show me the rule that says I can't," then it's pretty weak tea, and don't expect TOs to FAQ it because they will almost definitely not consider it a "house rule."
First of all, I'm not interested in what TOs are going to do. Every decision a TO makes is a house rule for that particular tourney. I'm only interested in what the rules actually say. This is a RaW discussion, not a tournament FAQ discussion.
Secondly, you have yet to post a single quotation saying I can't choose powers from the Malefic set of Daemonology powers. I've posted quotations saying I can. Telling me I can't do something that the core rules tell me I can and then refusing to post a citation is also "pretty weak tea".
Lastly, and since you are fairly well spoken and can type in full sentences (this is a genuine complement in a forum environment), I'll assume you recognize that this is not one of those "show me the rule that says I can't" situations we see so often in a rules forum. I'm not saying "I can give my Rhino 47x Lascannons. Show me the rule that says I can't!" What I'm saying is "The core rules tell me I can. Unless you can show me a rule saying I can't, I will obey the core rules and assume I still can."
All I'm asking for is for you to provide actual rules quotes to back up your assertion that Eldar psykers are restricted from generating Malefic powers. I have read the new Codex from cover to cover and am unable to find any wording mentioning Malefic powers and telling me I can't generate powers from them.
99
Post by: insaniak
confoo22 wrote:The sentence under Psyker for the unit entry that says "(Unit Name) generates powers from Daemonology (Sanctic)" coupled with the sentence " a Psyker generates random psychic powers from amongst the psychic disciplines known to him," from the BRB is what removes that permission.
It really, really doesn't.
If you have a rule that gives you permission to do something, another rule that also gives you permission to do a slightly different version of that thing doesn't remove the original permission.
If I say 'You have permission to go to the mall' and then the next day say 'You have permission to go to Toys 'r' Us', you can still go to the mall. You're not restricted to that one shop just because I issued a separate statement.
Removal of the initial permission requires a statement that specifically states that permission is revoked.
 Bhazakhain wrote:This thread is ridiculous wishful thinking. How is it five pages long?!
Probably because it's not 'wishful thinking' but is actually a discussion of a perceived issue with the rules.
What is the point of listing what you're allowed to use if you are going to use what's not there anyway? .
That's not what's happening here.
11118
Post by: Thimn
Confoo22- You asked me to post a rule that gives access to Demonology,
From the Rulebook- " Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. The Daemonology discipline has not one, but two different sets of powers, one labelled ‘Sanctic’ and one labelled ‘Malefic’. Each time a Psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers. For the purposes of Psychic Focus, the Sanctic and Malefic sets of powers are different psychic disciplines."
Please enlighten me where anywhere in the Eldar codex it states Eldar are unable to choose Malefic. The above rule clearly gives any psyker (outside of Nids) access to Daemonology. It even goes on to state since you have access to Daemonology you can choose which side of it you want. The Eldar book saying I can take Santic, while redundant doesn't exclude me from Malefic. Are you now able to cite where it says I am unable to choose Malefic?
52223
Post by: notredameguy10
Thimn wrote:Confoo22- You asked me to post a rule that gives access to Demonology, From the Rulebook- " Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. The Daemonology discipline has not one, but two different sets of powers, one labelled ‘Sanctic’ and one labelled ‘Malefic’. Each time a Psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers. For the purposes of Psychic Focus, the Sanctic and Malefic sets of powers are different psychic disciplines." Please enlighten me where anywhere in the Eldar codex it states Eldar are unable to choose Malefic. The above rule clearly gives any psyker (outside of Nids) access to Daemonology. It even goes on to state since you have access to Daemonology you can choose which side of it you want. The Eldar book saying I can take Santic, while redundant doesn't exclude me from Malefic. Are you now able to cite where it says I am unable to choose Malefic?
They listed daemonology (Santic) for a reason. Hence they can only use daemonology (Sanctic) and not daemonology (malefic). Why else would they put one and not the other?
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
notredameguy10 wrote:Thimn wrote:Confoo22- You asked me to post a rule that gives access to Demonology,
From the Rulebook- " Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline. The Daemonology discipline has not one, but two different sets of powers, one labelled ‘Sanctic’ and one labelled ‘Malefic’. Each time a Psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers. For the purposes of Psychic Focus, the Sanctic and Malefic sets of powers are different psychic disciplines."
Please enlighten me where anywhere in the Eldar codex it states Eldar are unable to choose Malefic. The above rule clearly gives any psyker (outside of Nids) access to Daemonology. It even goes on to state since you have access to Daemonology you can choose which side of it you want. The Eldar book saying I can take Santic, while redundant doesn't exclude me from Malefic. Are you now able to cite where it says I am unable to choose Malefic?
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]. They listed daemonology (Santic) for a reason. Hence they can only use daemonology (Sanctic) and not daemonology (malefic). Why else would they put one and not the other?
That's the point. They wrote their (probably) intended rules wrong. This whole thread is really just an attempt to point that out. Blame GW, not the person who found the flaw in the rules.
92852
Post by: harkequin
That is all implied . So we know RAI is clear.
RAW however, is fething stupid.
It gives us
permission to roll on runes (codex)
permission to roll on daemonology (rulebook)
permission to roll on daemonology sanctic (codex) [also redundant]
All 3 are allowed, and you may choose which to roll on.
If you roll on "daemonology" it states you may roll on malefic or sanctic.
so RAW permission is still there, it's just stupid as hell
9370
Post by: Accolade
Glad GW could rush this new Eldar codex out in barely two years and not even bother to make sure it caught all of the interactions with the main rulebook; I guess "Editor" sounds too much like "Playtester". Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering to say anything looking at what wondrous things have come from this new Eldar book, so I'll just say good job GW! 
87095
Post by: Lord Commissar
No major tournament is going to allow Eldar to summon Daemons.
So if your small local town FLGS allows it, good for them. If you do it in pickup games, go for it. The paradigm in any community that even slightly takes "The big guys" opinion on anything will not be seeing summoning amongst Eldar.
Essentially supporting the idea that they still can is just actively working against moving the community forward.
9370
Post by: Accolade
 Lord Commissar wrote:No major tournament is going to allow Eldar to summon Daemons.
So if your small local town FLGS allows it, good for them. If you do it in pickup games, go for it. The paradigm in any community that even slightly takes "The big guys" opinion on anything will not be seeing summoning amongst Eldar.
Essentially supporting the idea that they still can is just actively working against moving the community forward.
I'm not arguing one way other another for this topic. I just think it would have taken someone only a few minutes to reference the psychic section in the rulebook, look at the minor changes they came up with for this codex re-hash, and say "Okay, just want to make sure we don't leave in any possible ambiguities whatsoever. Because we care about the rules being good and to help make enjoyment straightforward." And then bam, you could make this wording consistent across all fething books. I mean seriously, I put in my forethought into composing emails than this consideration would have taken.
It just makes me think of that video in the 40k Discussions sections showing the interview with the author of this new Eldar codex.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646960.page
87095
Post by: Lord Commissar
Oh yeah, I totally agree. GW rules writing is bad and this is an oversight I would have most definitely have seen if I was a GW writer.
RAW, I think the argument most definitely supports Eldar being able to summon Daemons. The main argument against it is that before the FAQ explicitly allowed it, and that FAQ no longer exists. The other is that the absence of Daemonology counts as the book saying that they cannot. Both of these are flawed for various reasons.
As much as I champion RAW for solving table to table arguments, this is a paradigm thing. There is a chance it can be one of those rules that exists in the background andf changes from region to region (Like that one rule where psykers count as units if they are within units and powers can be repeated). However, most players that I know say they cannot.
85226
Post by: Harukae
It seems like the whole purpose of this thread is for Eldar players (whom already have the most broken codex in the game) to try and get more broken.
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
 Harukae wrote:It seems like the whole purpose of this thread is for Eldar players (whom already have the most broken codex in the game) to try and get more broken.
This thread was dead for like a week before another poster dragged it back up to make a similarly inane and entirelty unhelpful comment.
For goodness' sake, let the thread die, man.
85226
Post by: Harukae
 Mr. Shine wrote: Harukae wrote:It seems like the whole purpose of this thread is for Eldar players (whom already have the most broken codex in the game) to try and get more broken.
This thread was dead for like a week before another poster dragged it back up to make a similarly inane and entirelty unhelpful comment.
For goodness' sake, let the thread die, man.
I'm just pointing out that Eldar now have the strongest codex, and yet there will be people that will argue RAW for Malefic psychic powers even though they have the strongest army in the game now. People already have problems with the idea of playing Eldar (most of the players at a shop I play at have traded off or sold whatever armies they had for 40K) and will refuse to play any Eldar player that tries to argue that they can summon daemons because of RAW.
My argument is more on the subject matter of how people will act and how unhealthy the game will become when people do exactly this. So you are not wrong Mr. Shine, my comment was incorrect as to how to address the topic, and as I don't follow the forums regular I may see something later than yourself.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
I think you will find that those arguing for RAW readings here are not those defending the codex. They are pointing out how horribly written it is.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Harukae wrote: Mr. Shine wrote: Harukae wrote:It seems like the whole purpose of this thread is for Eldar players (whom already have the most broken codex in the game) to try and get more broken.
This thread was dead for like a week before another poster dragged it back up to make a similarly inane and entirelty unhelpful comment.
For goodness' sake, let the thread die, man.
I'm just pointing out that Eldar now have the strongest codex, and yet there will be people that will argue RAW for Malefic psychic powers even though they have the strongest army in the game now. People already have problems with the idea of playing Eldar (most of the players at a shop I play at have traded off or sold whatever armies they had for 40K) and will refuse to play any Eldar player that tries to argue that they can summon daemons because of RAW.
My argument is more on the subject matter of how people will act and how unhealthy the game will become when people do exactly this. So you are not wrong Mr. Shine, my comment was incorrect as to how to address the topic, and as I don't follow the forums regular I may see something later than yourself.
Disclaimer... I'm not an Eldar player.
Dude, I can't speak for everyone, but I couldn't care less about how powerful a codex is when I'm trying to work out a rules issue. I'm just trying to work out how the rules interact. You sound like you don't actually care what RaW says. You sound like you're arguing that everyone should remain willfully ignorant and not bother to interpret the rules. If you're not interested in what the rules actually have to say, why are you posting in a rules forum? Genuinely curious. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, refusing to play Eldar because RaW says they can summon Daemons is no different from refusing to play Tau because they have lots of shooting attacks.
Sort of comes across as a tantrum. I see it as a challenge.
76402
Post by: Mr. Shine
Harukae wrote: Mr. Shine wrote: Harukae wrote:It seems like the whole purpose of this thread is for Eldar players (whom already have the most broken codex in the game) to try and get more broken.
This thread was dead for like a week before another poster dragged it back up to make a similarly inane and entirelty unhelpful comment.
For goodness' sake, let the thread die, man.
I'm just pointing out that Eldar now have the strongest codex, and yet there will be people that will argue RAW for Malefic psychic powers even though they have the strongest army in the game now. People already have problems with the idea of playing Eldar (most of the players at a shop I play at have traded off or sold whatever armies they had for 40K) and will refuse to play any Eldar player that tries to argue that they can summon daemons because of RAW.
My argument is more on the subject matter of how people will act and how unhealthy the game will become when people do exactly this. So you are not wrong Mr. Shine, my comment was incorrect as to how to address the topic, and as I don't follow the forums regular I may see something later than yourself.
And yet your comment was (as was the comment I referred to) doing nothing to further or even relevantly contribute to the rules discussion, which is what this subforum and this thread are meant to be concerned with.
There's far too much commentary in this thread and others seeking clarification/thoughts/answers to Eldar Craftworlds rules questions that's irrelevant and completely unhelpful.
Can we please try and let this die?
|
|
