Does Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow benefit from Bolter Drill. Its italicized text says it is a Storm Bolter, but nothing else really indicates that it should actually count as a Storm Bolter.

Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

Fluff does equal rules when the rules and/or fluff call for it. This has been the case since 5th edition.

Dorn's arrow is a storm bolter, just a relic one.

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

Fluff does equal rules when the rules and/or fluff call for it. This has been the case since 5th edition.

Dorn's arrow is a storm bolter, just a relic one.

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

I was actually trying to find another example of a weapon where this would come into effect, but Dorn's Arrow is the only IF relic that doesn't have MC. I will run with it as a Storm Bolter. Most of my opponents are pretty reasonable.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

...

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

I'll make that argument then: Bolter Drill works for: "bolt pistols, boltguns, storm bolters, heavy bolters and combi-weapons that are firing as boltguns"

Now obviously from a fluff perspective, it would make sense for the Primarch's Wrath and Dorn's Arrow to benefit from Bolter Drill (as they are specifically described as being archeotech bolters). But from a rules perspective, there's nothing in that suggests that these two weapons are in the same class as the other bolters - they don't have "bolter" in their name, their profiles are quite different, etc. What RAW argument could you make in favor of applying the Bolter Drill rules that wouldn't also apply to, for example, a Space Marine Shotgun?

Not a huge deal, but it is the difference between hitting on 2's and hitting on 2's with a re-roll (effectively BS10). I would allow it anyhow, since Pedro is a pretty cool dude and not particularly OP.

That would be my second paragraph.

The plasma siphon works on plasma weapons, and it includes tau pulse weapons per the only faq that addressed what that means; and pulse weapons are only plasma in the fluff(they are under the heading "pulse weapons" in the tau dex).

I will re-edit when i get home but the current gk codex also has a fluff reliant bit of rules iirc.

Kommissar Kel,
You may want to review the Errata again, it was changed to limit the syphon to 'Plasma Weapons as defined by the Warhammer 40k Rulebook' over a year ago. This is still an obsolete piece of Errata as it still talks about assassins and inquisitors as if they where part of the Gray Knight Codex, and I don't think this war-gear even exists any more, but it is worth noting. The deliberate act of changing it from 'everything with Plasma in it's fluff' to only things found under the Plasma section shows the Authors decided the previously far-reaching answer was incorrect.

It does still exist in the inquisition dex. And in that dex it was changed to the current(out of date) gk errata.

So that is a bad example.

Will have to look at that Codex some time, but I am curious if you found the 'fluffy-Rule' from the Gray Knights Codex that you where thinking on?

They changed that one too.

It was tha daemonbane special rule on nemesis force weapons. It used to effecr possesed and obliterators. Now it is simply models with the daemon special rule.

It looks like gw are mostly moving back towards fluff not equaling rules.

They also changed teleport homers to simply units entirely equipped with terminator armor.

Can't really be sure though as many are still using the fluff as rules for certain dual-profile weapons(guantlets of ultramar and scorpions claw; both of which have a shooting and melee profile with assault shooting weapons that are in fluff an in-built gun of some sort attached to a melee weapon, but in rules are simply weapons with both a ranged and melee profile)

Oh and about an earlier post re: 2+ rerollable to hits; primarchs wrath is master crafted and only available to bs5 or better models to begin with so is always a 2+ rerollable. The only gun that benefits from this way of looking at it is dorns arrow(which probably would be m-c if it wasn't meant to benefit from ct, i guess)

P.s. hiwpi would be to let my opponent benefit from bolter drill on the arrow. I do not own a pedro model and play sons of medusa space marines(iron hands successor; and yes i played them as sons before the last codex, the iron hands ct just gave me even better incentive to keep them that way)

I was curious about the changes to Homers, because they often fiddle with those things, when I noticed something interesting. It takes the time to call out the Cuirass of Sacrifice, ensuring no one can try to state this Relic is somehow except because it isn't being called out by name. Of course, it would be a weak argument because the Cuirass itself has a Rule stating it is Terminator Armour. Interesting, that Rule still takes the time to repeat all the Rules found on Terminator Armour, likely again to prevent people saying it is 'special' and gets around some of the penalties Terminator Armour has. Either way, it is better that Game Workshop is ensuring their fluff is Rule free.

It is just confusing when you mix the two, making it harder to tell just what is Rule and what isn't.

And yet, in typical gw fashion, marneus' armour
Of antilochus is simply said to be terminator armor(in the rules) that can sweeping advance . Go figure.

No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

The text doesn't say "A storm bolter with the following profile" does it?

Also keep note that, in the last FAQ, they didn't give him the benefit from IF CT. While last edition, the same logic would apply.

It isn't like he'll likely miss, though rerolling that 1 you get would be nice.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

Thats irrelivent. Its not stated as being covered by bolter drill.

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

Thats irrelivent. Its not stated as being covered by bolter drill.

Storm bolters are specifically listed; which is the whole point of this conversation.

That is also where we were talking about teleport homers earlier. The sm teleport homer just says all models in terminator armor. Marneus' armor of antilochus is not listed in the teleport homer rules, but its rules specifically state it is terminator armor. So marney in a termi squad can benefit from a teleport homer(old rules for the homer just said "teleport deep strike" which doesn't actually exist as a rule outside of the fluff justification for termi armor deep strike).

The DA teleport homer specifically lists the curiass, which i am not sure if it is specifically called termi armor in its rules or just fluff

It also doesn't specifically state hurricane bolters, but since they are 3 tl boltguns in rules it technically benefits(to no effect since they are already tl, but that is not the point)

It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

The italicized fluff text for the Black Templars chapter tactics says "they will never back down from a challenge". Does that mean that it's against the rules for a Black Templar model to refuse a challenge?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

Once again, those are not rules, those are fluff. Dorns arrow is not in anyway benefiting from bolter drill. Its statline is different from a stock storm bolter, this removes it from being considered one.

These are rules.

First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

Except its not a storm bolter

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

Except its not a storm bolter

From Code Space Marines:

Dorn’s Arrow: This ancient and venerated storm bolter has reaped a mighty tally in the Emperor’s name.

Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

Fluff is by definition not rules. That's the whole point in differentiation Fluff from Crunch.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

Fluff is by definition not rules. That's the whole point in differentiation Fluff from Crunch.

Page and paragraph please, because GW has in the past used fluff as rules as has been noted already in this thread.

And yet the doors do not blow open on their Drop Pod Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
And yet the doors do not blow open on their Drop Pod Models....

And yet the plasma siphon worked on Tau pulse weapons even though they were only considered plasma weapons in the fluff. Hence Kel's 'Yes, No, Maybe' answer that I agree with.

Worked being the key word.
It is not wise to apply old Frequently Asked Questions to an updated Rule-set at the best of times, and even more problematic when those Frequently Asked Questions have been changed to a completely different 'answer!'

And how does that matter? Do we have proof that the fluff can't be the rules just because that particular FAQ is no longer current? If so, I repeat my request for a rules quote to back up that position.

The only reason we can not give a Rule-as-Written answer is because the Authors have penned nothing informing us how to read the Italic sections of the current Rulebook. Yet those sections must mean something, as the Editor/Authors have taken the time to format them completely differently to the rest of the Rulebook. If we where to look at 'circumstantial evidence' or 'precedent,' I believe the shear number of Italic sections that can never be physically obeyed speaks volumes to the 'are we intended to treat Fluff as if it is Rules?' question. The Italic section can not contain Rules by default, as that would require us to complete actions that are impossible to complete in the insanely vast number of cases, we would need a specific Rule telling us when to treat the Italic section as if it was a Rule.

Can you quote a section of the book informing us how to tell if the Italic is just another piece of Narrative, or a Rule to be obeyed?

Then why did they use the italicized text for Pulse Weapons in Codex Tau Empire to decide they were plasma weapons? And did you notice that I agreed with Kel's 'Yes, No, Maybe' answer? We have no clear answer.

More importantly: Why did they change the answer if the Italic section is meant to contain Rules?

This is about the much larger implication of Italic section as Rules as a whole, far more reaching then this single Relic and Bolter Drill. Without specific instructions telling us how to determine if one piece of Italic section is a Rule, while another piece is just Narrative, we lack permission to ever make the distinction between Rule and Narrative. We would be required to treat every Italic section as if it was a Rule, something that is physically impossible to do, or to treat every Italic section as if it is nothing by Narrative. While it would be nice if they told us in writing what the Italic section means, the lack of explanation doesn't change the fact anyone wanting to state that a certain piece of Italic is a Rule, while also treating other sections as Narrative, must quote a Rule granting them permission to make such a distinction.

Do you have a Rule informing us how to determine when the Italic section is a Rule and when it is Narrative?

Since we are on about the plasma siphon anyways.

Did anybody else notice tjat per the new rules it only effects plasma pistols, plasma guns, and plasma cannons; in other words it only does anything to basically allies weapons.completely worthless waste of points(especially since it effects weapons fired from within range instaed of at within range).

I also noticed they failed to mention Plasma weapons as defined by a Codex, instead of the Rulebook.

It is bad rule writing, and could be used to lawyer away quite a lot of Plasma, but there is something to keep in mind. The main Rulebook does contain a definition of what is a Plasma Weapon, one that has nothing to do with the name on the profile or its location in any book. Therefore, it can be argued that anything meeting this definition is to be considered a 'Plasma Weapon' for the purpose of the Syphon. The real problem comes from the fact this definition requires the Weapon to be able to fire a stream of searing energy, and none of my plastic models ever could manage that trick. It also contains a clause about the weapon being able to hurt the user, something the Rules do have a way of representing, that still eliminates Tau's version of Plasma even though it is found on a list of Plasma Weapons.

So, how do the Authors inform us a Weapon is capable of shooting beams of searing energy that devastate armoured infantry?
My answer would be by listing the Weapon on a table with the heading of 'Plasma Weapons....'

 Ghaz wrote:
And how does that matter? Do we have proof that the fluff can't be the rules just because that particular FAQ is no longer current? If so, I repeat my request for a rules quote to back up that position.

Do you have rules saying everything is rules?

There is no section in the bolters rules saying that it is the same as a storm bolter, counts as a storm bolter, fuctions as a storm bolter, etc. It is its own weapon.

die toten hosen wrote:
Do you have rules saying everything is rules?

No more than you have to say that it's not rules, which is the entire point.

Lacking permission to pick and choose which italic section are Rules, and which are Narrative:

Are you able to obey every italic section as if it was a Rule, without the Game breaking?
Are you able to ignore every italic section as if it was Narrative, without the Game breaking?

What we have is inconsistencies and confusion.

We had from 3rd-5th editions an unwritten understanding that fluff and rules were different. Then 5th and 6th told us directly, in writing, that when fluff matters for rules it can be rules.

Then the inquisition book came out with new wording on 1 of the 2 fluff-is-sometimes-rules items and the faq for that item got changed. Then the new gk codex came out and the other item got changed as well; but we never got a retraction from the earlier fluff can be rules sometimes statement(last time i checked you can still download the old gk faq and it still gives you fluff is rules for the old daemonbane).

On top of THAT, we even have written rules that all the named characters also count as units of their fluff-type(in this book the named captains count as captains and the named chaplains count as chaplains.

Finally we get to other inconsistencies like the guantlets of ultramar, which used to be described in the fluff as 2 bolters that fired together as a storm bolter, then became 2 bolters that fired together with a special profile instead, and now just have a ranged profile.

Piggybacking off the guantlets we get into other codices that have melee and ranged profile weapons that are stated to have in-built ranged weapons to the melee weapon(and the ranged profile matches the described in-built weapon), so beyond not sure if you can shoot and assault with those weapons we are not even certain if they fire with the rest of those weapons in the unit.

Let's leave the pointless meme-generator images for 4chan, 'kay? --Janthkin

Ask your opponent. Don't argue with people you don't play with, it just generates a bunch of Keyboard Warrior syndrome.

That said, I'd let you play with rerolls. RAI it's a storm bolter, at the very least.

It has a totally different profile from a storm bolter and no clause saying it is a storn bolter rules wise.
Italics outside of the weapon profile do not count as rules.

Except possibly when they could effect rules. Maybe.

As we have told you many times the last official stance from gw that we directly received from the rules team is that fluff may sometimes count as rules when the rules call for something on the fluff to count as part of the rules.

While they are writing clearer rules these days(shocking, I know); that doesn't change the only stance we have on it.

Yes, the exact rules as written just have it as a ranged weapon with the profile. But the fluff description stating it is a storm bolter may make it a storm bolter depending on whether or not gw still feels that rules-related fluff counts.

Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

*sigh* Name, not description.
Just like you are not allowed to shoot storm bolters and bolters the same shooting sequence because of different *name*.
Same way Bolter Drill lists weapon names that benefits, not weapon descriptions.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

Cite your source.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

Cite your source.

The rules.
You arent getting the echo you want from the topic and you have no supporting evidence besides an outdated and irrelivent FAQ to fall back on.
Fluff snippets have never been rules. Using fluff as rules im pretty sure is also not allowed as part of the rules of YMDC.
Wishing doesnt make something true.
All the profile for dorns arrow needs is a statement "a storm bolter with the following profile..." to work with bolter drill. It doesnt have this however, it has a section of fluff mentioning storm bolters.
Dont ask others to cite a source if you yourself cannot cite a valid one.

Then you can actually quote where the rules say that the italicized text is not rules? I didn't think so...

Then all italic sections are Rules, and thus followed to the letter?

And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Are you stating we can apply obsolete Frequently Asked Questions to the current Edition?

And are you stating that you have proof that the italicized text are not rules?

Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

 danyboy wrote:
Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

Infernus is simply an example where the fluff and rules match up. This happens often but is not a be-all-end-all to it.

The fluff describes a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells, the rules are mostly a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells.

If you had a psychic power that could grant a shooting attack with 2 weapons, then without taking the fluff italics into account he can fire the boltgun and the flamer.

In fact the only thing that stops us from just plain firing both profiles is a rule in the brb.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

Infernus is simply an example where the fluff and rules match up. This happens often but is not a be-all-end-all to it.

The fluff describes a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells, the rules are mostly a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells.

If you had a psychic power that could grant a shooting attack with 2 weapons, then without taking the fluff italics into account he can fire the boltgun and the flamer.

In fact the only thing that stops us from just plain firing both profiles is a rule in the brb.

So fluff is only rules if you want it to be is what you are saying.
Infernus is closer to a combi bolter then dorns arrow is to a storm bolter.
Dorns arrow is not a storm bolter rules wise

Ghaz,
I have already provided an answer to that question - We are not informed in the current Rulebook what the Italic sections actually mean.
So asking that question once more as an answer to my own question was a non-answer.... please answer the following:

Do we have permission to apply old pieces of Errata to the current edition?

In addendum:
Have you even notice how examples of Errata where fluff was Rules have been changed, in order to remove that very distinction?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

Considering that the only black templar that has that fluff bit also has a rule that says the same thing... Yes, yes he must.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Ghaz,
Your question does not answer mine, as it is completely unrelated -
Do we apply all obsolete Errata to the current edition?

No.

But we do apply precedents set when they have not been countered.

Case in point: sequential upgrades. The DE succubus model has illegal wargear without sequential upgrades. We know sequential upgrades are allowed via old ork faq that not only specifically allowed it but explained it step by step. That faq is now gone and obsolete; but the precedent was set and we still use and teach the method detailed(unless it is a model itself being upgraded)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

Considering that the only black templar that has that fluff bit also has a rule that says the same thing... Yes, yes he must.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

It says it is a storm bolter, an ancient and venerated one.

Seems cut and dried to me.

 mattyrm wrote:
It says it is a storm bolter, an ancient and venerated one.

Seems cut and dried to me.

Where in the profile statline does it say it is a storm bolter?

Kel,
When you looked at more modern Errata related to questions where 'Fluff can trigger Rules,' what did you find?

If we are going to talk about precedent, which isn't something everyone accepts to begin with, we can't ignore the precedent set by those very deliberate changes.

JinxDragon wrote:
Ghaz,
I have already provided an answer to that question - We are not informed in the current Rulebook what the Italic sections actually mean.
So asking that question once more as an answer to my own question was a non-answer.... please answer the following:

Do we have permission to apply old pieces of Errata to the current edition?

In addendum:
Have you even notice how examples of Errata where fluff was Rules have been changed, in order to remove that very distinction?

And again, you're still working under the assumption that the FAQ actually changed the rules by allowing the italicized text to be used to determine if pulse weapons were affected by the plasma siphon. There is evidence that they have consider the italicized text for rules purposes, now the onus is on you to prove that the rules do not allow you to consider the italicized text for rules purposes. Failing any definitive proof one way or the other, all we have is GW's track record on the matter which says it is possible.

JinxDragon wrote:
Kel,
When you looked at more modern Errata related to questions where 'Fluff can trigger Rules,' what did you find?

If we are going to talk about precedent, which isn't something everyone accepts to begin with, we can't ignore the precedent set by those very deliberate changes.

The most recent where it was addressed dropped 1 and kept the other. This is the gk faq(for the old book but still available last time i checked): they changed the plasma siphon to reflect the inquisition codex wording, but the"what counts as daemons" question is still there and still counts Mandrakes, posessed, and obliterators(although they may have gotten the daemon rule this edition; i don't really think too much about them), along with a pretty big list of other units.

Actually, i just verified, gk old codex faq is still available for download direct from gw.

Do you know why that works? Because a statment was added to make it work. No such luck with dorns arrow.

Permissive rule set

Precedent doesnt matter unless you have explicit rules supporting a specific situation.

Plasma syphon being changed is not dorns arrow

Ghaz,
What does the deliberate changing of these pieces of Errata, to remove these references, say to you?

Where the traditional and iconic weapons of the IF and succesors is the bolter, and it is included in the fluff for the weapon, why WOULDN'T Dorn's Arrow (named after the primarch, in addition) be considered a bolter weapon? GW is notorious for inconsistent editing and contradictions. Isn't it possible that GW's mistake in this is that they left one word out of the statline by mistake? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

WaughGoff wrote:
Where the traditional and iconic weapons of the IF and succesors is the bolter, and it is included in the fluff for the weapon, why WOULDN'T Dorn's Arrow (named after the primarch, in addition) be considered a bolter weapon?

Because the actual rules don't say it's a storm bolter, the fluff does. There's a lot of rules in the game that don't jive with the fluff, and Pedro's weapon not working with Bolter Drill is one of them.

GW is notorious for inconsistent editing and contradictions. Isn't it possible that GW's mistake in this is that they left one word out of the statline by mistake? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Not only possible, but I think likely. I think the RAW are quite clear, but the rule writing committee probably just didn't think through the implications of the rules. Assuming incompetence on GW's part is always a safe bet.

Wow, you rules lawyer types are real witches. Not much fun to play against, eh? Being right for the sake of being right... Good work, ladz.

Us "Rules Lawyer types" are usually rather laid back come game time. We're almost always this bad just in a forum devoted to discussing rules (or lack thereof).

Seeing how crappy Dorn is it really worth all the fuss ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Seeing how crappy Dorn is it really worth all the fuss ?

Pedro? He is actually quite good with all of his special rules. Dorn's Arrow itself is blah though.

Pedro got Artificer Armor this edition, so he's a heckuva lot more useful than he was before.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Wow, you rules lawyer types are real witches. Not much fun to play against, eh? Being right for the sake of being right... Good work, ladz.

I run tournaments in my area (Magic previously, 40k and X-Wing more recently), so being a witch about rules is kind of important if we're going to have any semblance of a competitive game experience. If you're just playing with your friends, then whatever. Pedro isn't a particular competitive model in the first place, so there's not much harm in letting him use Bolter Drill.

If you look at the model it's obviously a stormbolter.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you look at the model it's obviously a stormbolter.

irrelevant.

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

Considering that the only black templar that has that fluff bit also has a rule that says the same thing... Yes, yes he must.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

The bold underline is adressed in the brb as a fluff bit. It says that some cover saves means the firer has actually missed or not taken a shot as his wondow of opportunity was to short. This a use in the main brb of fluff directly effecting the rules.

I agree that the raw is fairly clear here, but I'd happily allow it, it looks like a storm bolter, smells like one, so I'd have no issue

 HANZERtank wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

Considering that the only black templar that has that fluff bit also has a rule that says the same thing... Yes, yes he must.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

The bold underline is adressed in the brb as a fluff bit. It says that some cover saves means the firer has actually missed or not taken a shot as his wondow of opportunity was to short. This a use in the main brb of fluff directly effecting the rules.

Thats not fluff effecting rules, its narrative.
The miss is not changed, just the reason for it is.

RAW, no. It's not included in Bolter Drill, nor is it called a Bolter or Storm Bolter in its rules.

If it had said, 'Dorn's Arrow is a storm Bolter with the following profile:' that would have been one thing. But fluff does not equate to rules.

Otherwise marines would be relentless, Celestine unkillable, and the special character captains would be good in combat.

Back to infernus as a bad example; its 2 profiles are for the individual modes. The profile for dorn's arrow is just a shooting profile with no name.

The only thing we have for the arrow is the relic's name, then a fluff bit telling us it is a stormbolter, then a ranged profile.

And St Celestine is an incredibly bad example as we are talking about the italics in the rules; not character background/unit description in plain text(also via her act of faith and fluff she is unkillable, if she "dies" on the field she mysteriously shows up somewhere else)

And where does it ever say marines are relentless(alone, not as an adjective)?

Finally the sc captains are good in close combat, compared to a single or even a few basic marines.

Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings. Thus, it is not a storm Bolter.

The gauntlets of macragge only counted as one weapon last edition because they did not have any rules stating they were two weapons. Now they do. Three weapons, even, if you include the Bolter.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings.

And has been asked numerous times, where are we told that the fluff has no rules bearing?

Well it's obvious fluff does have some bearing on the rules - they don't write them in a vacuum.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings.

And has been asked numerous times, where are we told that the fluff has no rules bearing?

Actually Ghaz, you have it backwards. In a permissive ruleset, you need permission to use fluff as rules.

Where does GW state the status of the italicized text? We have one, out of date FAQ that used the italicized text for rules versus no general statements to the contrary. Hence the 'maybe' when a rule that applies to storm bolters applies to a fluff statement that an item "... is a storm bolter..." This one FAQ question, no matter its current status casts doubt on how GW sees fluff printed in the rulebook affecting the rules as they gave no reasoning for the answer in the FAQ or if it was just a clarification or an actual rules change.

Why can the previous answer be used as evidence if intent, but the fact the answer was changed is to be completed ignored?

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does GW state the status of the italicized text? We have one, out of date FAQ that used the italicized text for rules versus no general statements to the contrary. Hence the 'maybe' when a rule that applies to storm bolters applies to a fluff statement that an item "... is a storm bolter..." This one FAQ question, no matter its current status casts doubt on how GW sees fluff printed in the rulebook affecting the rules as they gave no reasoning for the answer in the FAQ or if it was just a clarification or an actual rules change.

Permissive rule set. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Back to infernus as a bad example; its 2 profiles are for the individual modes. The profile for dorn's arrow is just a shooting profile with no name.

The only thing we have for the arrow is the relic's name, then a fluff bit telling us it is a stormbolter, then a ranged profile.

And St Celestine is an incredibly bad example as we are talking about the italics in the rules; not character background/unit description in plain text(also via her act of faith and fluff she is unkillable, if she "dies" on the field she mysteriously shows up somewhere else)

And where does it ever say marines are relentless(alone, not as an adjective)?

Finally the sc captains are good in close combat, compared to a single or even a few basic marines.

So we can pick and choose what fluff is equates to rules and what fluff does not?

Permissive ruleset; we have been given permission in 2 cases:
1) an FAQ for an out of date codex that is still available.
2) extrapolation from rules that exist in this current codex(sc captains count as captains without any backing rules; sc chaplains are the same; tiggy counts as a librarian in the formation that calls for them).

As I have pointed out several times: if the fluff concerns actual rules(like stating a specific weapon is a particular rules weapon, or a special character is a particular rules unit); then that fluff counts as part of rules per the last official word of gw design team.

I never said all fluff counts; I was very specific in what fluff counts. That is not my opinion; that is the evidence we have been given. Fluff related to rules is rules. If the fluff has its own related rules those trump anything to do with the fluff(specific trumps general)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Permissive ruleset; we have been given permission in 2 cases:
1) an FAQ for an out of date codex that is still available.
2) extrapolation from rules that exist in this current codex(sc captains count as captains without any backing rules; sc chaplains are the same; tiggy counts as a librarian in the formation that calls for them).

As I have pointed out several times: if the fluff concerns actual rules(like stating a specific weapon is a particular rules weapon, or a special character is a particular rules unit); then that fluff counts as part of rules per the last official word of gw design team.

I never said all fluff counts; I was very specific in what fluff counts. That is not my opinion; that is the evidence we have been given. Fluff related to rules is rules. If the fluff has its own related rules those trump anything to do with the fluff(specific trumps general)

There is still no permission for dorns arrow to benefit from bolter drill.
Out of date FAQ available or not, is still out of date. Whatever permissions granted are specific to the codex the FAQ was issued for and not applicable as a precident to other codicies unless stated as such.
Tiggy counts because IIRC he is specifically named for said detachment.
Your arguments do not support your case as they are all based on permission being explicitly given. None such permission is being given for dorns arrow.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning and concept of precedents.

Precedent is when there has been a past ruling on a matter. Until that ruling is overturned it remains in place as a reference for other similar situations.

A simple example of a precedent is the oft touted and incredibly important case of Roe v. Wade; that case wasn't about whether abortion should be legal, it was about the woman's right to make that decision even if her partner does not want her to do so. She won the case in the supreme court which is no the only court that could overturn that decision.

GW is our supreme court. They have made a decision and until they state otherwise that decision remains valid no matter what the current edition of the rules we are in.

We can look to the same FAQ for an example of them changing their decision: the FAQ calls the Force Halberd an "unusual force weapon" with str as user, ap3 and +2 initiative. In the new dex they have changed it to effectively a non-unwieldy twohanded force axe(well it is just plain a nemesis force halberd but that is effectively the statline).

And yes FAQs for 1 codex are often used as precedent for issues in another codex, even here on dakka. If the situations are very similar and there is not yet an FAQ on the new situation, we use the old ruling. I don't think you have been around long enough to remember who Gwar was(forum poster, not the band); but new FAQs with opposite rulings were happening all the time back in 4th and 5th, he actually got banned several times for flipping out about it. The situation with those were that we had an FAQ from 1 codex, a new codex came out with a similar issue to one in the previous FAQ, we used that precedent, GW released an FAQ for the new codex and overturned their previous ruling(sometimes, albeit rarely, they would even change the old FAQ), when we had conflicting current FAQs we decided there was no precedent available(all would be case-by-case generally resorting to "discuss it with your opponent").

No, permission to one codex from a out of date FAQ does not equal permission to another.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im aware of what precidents are, im saying that in a permissive rule set, they dont matter

They can matter and shouldn't be ignored.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
They can matter and shouldn't be ignored.

They can, when applied to their specific situation and codex. Not applied willynilly to everything.

Dorns arrow is not a storm bolter, barring a 7th ed space marine faq change, it wont be a storm bolter.

If walks and talks like a duck...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If walks and talks like a duck...

House rule it however you want. RAW it is not a storm bolter

That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to agree.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to agree.

Except it isn't an opinion. Nowhere in his rules is Dorn's Arrow stated to be a Storm bolter except under the fluff bit. If the writers wanted it to benefit, they would've made note of it.

I bought the model last nite to have a look... It's definitely a bolter.

I would argue....going along GW love of forge the narrative, have fun, most important rule, etc....that they would appreciate Dorn's Arrow using the Bolter Drill rule, and not arguing that its not a stormbolter and doesn't get the rule.

HIWPI - Yes

RAW - does most important rule count as RAW? it should!

That's an awesome attitude !

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I would argue....going along GW love of forge the narrative, have fun, most important rule, etc....that they would appreciate Dorn's Arrow using the Bolter Drill rule, and not arguing that its not a stormbolter and doesn't get the rule.

I would hazard a guess that if you asked a GW rules writer about this, they would look at you with a puzzled expression and say "of course it benefits from bolter drill". They clearly have a "chuck it in the feth it bucket" attitude when it comes to writing tight rule-sets.

Anyhow, I don't really have anything else to add to this thread - I don't think there's any reason that italics would affect the rules in the way people in this thread are describing (and so I think RAW is unambigously that Dorn's Arrow doesn't benefit from bolter drill). But I would concede that the italics do obviously matter from a HIWPI stance, since there's no reason to be slaves to the rules in a casual setting if you think you would have more fun with house rules.

It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

 kronk wrote:
It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

This .

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 kronk wrote:
It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

This .

Where in it's profile is it named as a storm bolter?

It's not a storm bolter, house rule it however you want to, but in RAW it is not a storm bolter.

It's not the end of the world.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's not the end of the world.

exactly, it's not a storm bolter by RAW so why is it a big deal to some people? lysander has Imperial Fists tactics but can't benefit from it since he has no shooting, i don't see why its a big deal that pedro doesn't either.
models are not profiles, they are representative of the text in the book and a combination of rules profiles. Dorns arrow just happens to fluff wise be a storm bolter but rules wise not be due to how his weapon is layed out and presented via it's profile. without a solid and current space marine FAQ to resolve this perceived inconsistency it will stay as it is, Dorns Arrow, a str4 ap4 assault 4 weapon.

You're cracking me up.

If it came down to it I wouldn't let my opponent roll it as a storm bolter.

RAI it's not even clear because the intention is clearly that the rules is to synergize with a storm bolters profile, not a specialty weapon.

RAW will win this one out, it's not a big deal. Precedent isn't enough when we don't even know the RAI.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You're cracking me up.

You're the one claiming the HIWPI in this thread as the correct way. You're cracking ME up.

Italics and fluff don't have anything to do with the game's rules. That's a simple fact. Fluff is only flavor.