Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Lol. I've bolded the bits which prove you wrong. Still ignoring written rules and claiming they arent RAW? You know what RAW stands for, yes? See the rule up there? See that written rule up there, saying that Imotekh rolls the dice? Thats RAW.

Rules as Written refers to what is stately clearly in the rule, not what conclusion you can jump to by saying ' that must mean X, and if X that must mean Y, and if Y that must mean Z'. Even though it implies it's "his roll" does nothing. The conditions set by the codex for rolling don't change.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55) A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

I'll admit it's evidence, but it is hardly proof and your claim is definitely not RAW. You still don't have a single RAW sentence that says "Imotekhs roll". This is all you have. Everything else says "the roll" or "you may roll" and states conditions. This says nothing about the conditions for the roll.

Your jump of logic is that this somehow changes the conditions required for the roll. It doesn't. This only answers the question "is the roll optional?".

Lol. I've bolded the bits which prove you wrong. Still ignoring written rules and claiming they arent RAW? You know what RAW stands for, yes? See the rule up there? See that written rule up there, saying that Imotekh rolls the dice? Thats RAW.

Fafnir - it makes a difference because every. single. time. you have been allowed to perform an action while in reserve, said action has had to be explicitly allowed. Logans High King, Autarch reserve manipulation. And so on. This shows an inate permission requirement, like the rest of the rules, which is NOT given in the LotS

Next you'll say Imotekh can roll, as required in the rule changing FAQ, when dead?

The ability does work when Imotekh is dead, but at my venue we use the INAT FAQ clarifies this anyway.

You are confusing FAQ and codex rules which clarify (which LotS doesn't need) rules that are used in reserve. It has always been questionable as therefore the need foe the clarification. But as you have been repeatedly shown, LotS does not need the clarification as it is a passive ability of the army.

Is there room for GW to FAQ this another way? Yes, but as of right now RAW allows it and the INAT FAQ agrees so that is how the majority of venues are going to play it.

You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Something like a canoptek spyder making scarabs can't happen in reserve, it is an ability that starts and ends right there in the turn so if he's off the board a spyder can't use it, he has no permissions to do so.

Lord of the storm starts automatically, as soon as Imotekh is in your army list. It is given express permission to do so. Rolling to continue night fighting is expressly permitted by the rule for as long as night fight is active, the faq vaguely implying ownership to Imotekh does not change the criteria for when you're allowed to roll or not as outlined in the codex. The special rule doesn't care if Imotekh is alive or dead, on board or off.

Faqs can absolutely change the rules but in this case that isn't the question that's being answered here, you're simply being told you're allowed to stop night fighting if 'he' chooses. That is the only thing that faq entry changes about how you use lord of the storm.

Actinium wrote:Something like a canoptek spyder making scarabs can't happen in reserve, it is an ability that starts and ends right there in the turn so if he's off the board a spyder can't use it, he has no permissions to .

That and Spyders are required to be a certain distance from a Scarab swarm to generate Scarabs. You are in limbo while in reserve. However you can be attached to the squad(not tomb Spyders to scarabs but Crypteks to warrior squads) while in reserve if you are allowed to do so per the RB rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Ah yes, like the RAW where it states Imotekh the Stormlord rolls that you keep ignoring and says doesnt matter? That RAW?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can ignore RAW all you like ND, yet again, but dont pretend you arent.

Necron - it doesnt currently work while he is dead or in reserve, and "most venues" in the UK dont use INAT so...that doesnt help either

You are clearly the only one ignoring RAW here Nos.

Ah yes, like the RAW where it states Imotekh the Stormlord rolls that you keep ignoring and says doesnt matter? That RAW?

It doesn't trump the raw of the Codex, which is not addressed in the FAQ.

RAW is rules as written. Not Answers to FAQ questions.

So you disagree that the FAQ changes rules? The more specific FAQ question AND answer (naughty of you to pretend it is just the latter - the former defines it as Imotekhs roll as well, you failed to notice this again, shock) have changed the rules

You can disagree that the FAQ is rules, but you fail at the tenets of this forum by doing so

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you disagree that the FAQ changes rules? The more specific FAQ question AND answer (naughty of you to pretend it is just the latter - the former defines it as Imotekhs roll as well, you failed to notice this again, shock) have changed the rules

You can disagree that the FAQ is rules, but you fail at the tenets of this forum by doing so

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

Venomthropes - you mean this?
Q: Must every non-vehicle model in a unit that
assaults a Venomthrope brood take a Dangerous
Terrain test? (p45)
A: Yes.

This does not change RAW. It changes HWYPI.

SitW is in the ERRATA section. That is why it changes the RAW.

In the case of LoS, the FAQ says you may choose to roll, but it is not required. That is all. It is not Errata!

Nemesor Dave wrote:

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

You're absolutely wrong in this. This has been proven multiple times to you, but you still repeating this.

There are multitude of examples, for example SiTW (previous FAQ didn't affect units inside vehicles, now does), Halberds vs abilities that reduce init to 1 (previous faq said hit at init 1, new faq says hit at init 3). Nos has given even more.

This is also easy to prove logically: There are only two options:
A) FAQ rulings don't change rules, they only give interpretation of rules. This means that GW can NEVER change FAQ ruling, because doing so would change rules, which is not possible according to you.
B) FAQ can change rules.

Because we know that A is false and that B is reverse of A, B must be true. QED.

Luide wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

FAQ's are HWYPI and answers to specific questions. Errata changes RAW. You are treating a FAQ answer as Errata. This is your mistake.

You're absolutely wrong in this. This has been proven multiple times to you, but you still repeating this.

There are multitude of examples, for example SiTW (previous FAQ didn't affect units inside vehicles, now does), Halberds vs abilities that reduce init to 1 (previous faq said hit at init 1, new faq says hit at init 3). Nos has given even more.

This is also easy to prove logically: There are only two options:
A) FAQ rulings don't change rules, they only give interpretation of rules. This means that GW can NEVER change FAQ ruling, because doing so would change rules, which is not possible according to you.
B) FAQ can change rules.

Because we know that A is false and that B is reverse of A, B must be true. QED.

Errata by definition change rules. FAQ answers don't change rules but change how a rule should be played.

Example:
1) RAW says You may do A and you may do B.
2) FAQ says, no you may not do A.

It changed the rules but it did not change RAW.

You cannot say:
3) you may not do A, therefore you cannot do B.

The FAQ didn't change the rule.

In the case of LoS.

1) RAW says A - you can roll to continue nightfight and B - Imotekh is not required to be on the board. Its an army wide rule with its own conditions for that roll.
2) FAQ says A - you, "Imotekh" may roll or not roll. Its up to you.
3) FAQ does not answer any question about B so it remains unchanged.

If it was Errata, you may pick apart the change in wording and discover what other implications it has regarding the rules. As a FAQ it answers a specific question on how to correctly play in answer to that question only.

Wrong. You just dont get it.

Errata change the text of rules, which may or may not change the function of the rules. Fact

FAQs CAN change the rules. FACT.

Venomthropes not reducing you to I1. SitW working then not working (one of them follows the rules, the other doesnt - so the answer at SOME point changed the rules) while inside a vehicle.

As you have been told, and agreed to in the tenets, the FAQs ARE RAW in this forum.

You cannot ignore the FAQ claiming it isnt RAW, or at least not here. Feel free to ignore FAQs where you play - if you can get others to agree with you, that is.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. As you have been told repeatedly, and had it proven to you.

Venomthropes

SitW (both FAQs changing their answers)

Both of those are FAQs. Both of those are changes to the rules. Both of those prove your inability to understand the difference between FAQ and errata

FAQ: can change rules

Errata: DO change the text of rules, CAN change the function of rules.

Feel free to disagree, you will remain incorrect as your argument lacks both proof and relies on ignorance of proof the other way.

Venomthropes - you mean this?
Q: Must every non-vehicle model in a unit that
assaults a Venomthrope brood take a Dangerous
Terrain test? (p45)
A: Yes.

This does not change RAW. It changes HWYPI.

SitW is in the ERRATA section. That is why it changes the RAW.

In the case of LoS, the FAQ says you may choose to roll, but it is not required. That is all. It is not Errata!

Are you just selectively picking and choosing?

The Venomthrope FAQ in question, as has been pointed out to you before, is the one where you don't get reduced to I1 for taking the dangerous terrain tests.

An the SitW FAQ in question is if it affects Psykers inside vehicles. It used to not, now it does. One of those changed a rule.
That one was also pointed out before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as far as the validity of FAQs, the tenets say they're RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. You just dont get it.

Errata change the text of rules, which may or may not change the function of the rules. Fact

FAQs CAN change the rules. FACT.

Venomthropes not reducing you to I1. SitW working then not working (one of them follows the rules, the other doesnt - so the answer at SOME point changed the rules) while inside a vehicle.

As you have been told, and agreed to in the tenets, the FAQs ARE RAW in this forum.

You cannot ignore the FAQ claiming it isnt RAW, or at least not here. Feel free to ignore FAQs where you play - if you can get others to agree with you, that is.

Show me what the FAQ says anything about Imotekh being in reserve or killed and LoS. You can't.
Show me the FAQ answer to the question what are the conditions that must be met to make the roll to continue nightfight. You can't.

For these questions you only have the codex explanation of how the rules work.

The answers to these questions that you are claiming are from the FAQ are not.

Codex: Its an army wide rule, Imotekh is only required to be included in the army.
RAW from the FAQ: Chronometron in Imotekhs unit allows a nightfight re-roll.
RAW from the FAQ: You're not forced to roll.
Made up stuff from Nos: everything else

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Show me what the FAQ says anything about Imotekh being in reserve or killed and LoS. You can't.
Show me the FAQ answer to the question what are the conditions that must be met to make the roll to continue nightfight. You can't.

For these questions you only have the codex explanation of how the rules work.

The answers to these questions that you are claiming are from the FAQ are not.

Codex: Its an army wide rule, Imotekh is only required to be included in the army.
RAW from the FAQ: Chronometron in Imotekhs unit allows a nightfight re-roll.
RAW from the FAQ: You're not forced to roll.
Made up stuff from Nos: everything else

So, yet again as soon as someone proves you wrong you ignore that, and change tack again? Have some integrity and actually admit your errors - you will get a small amount of respect from others by doing so.

Show me in the RAW where it allows HIM to roll while in Reserve - same as ANY active ability used in Reserve you have to have permission to use it
Show me in the RAW where it allows HIM to roll while dead - I assume you can see the absurdity of claiming otherwise?

RAW from the FAQ: IMOTEKH THE STORMLORD ROLLS. It states it in the question, yet you "conveniently" and dishonestly choose to ignore this fact. Again.

Made up stuff by ND that ignores rules, how the rules are constructed, and any inconvenient words like "distance": any post in this forum, pretty much.

rigeld2 wrote:
And as far as the validity of FAQs, the tenets say they're RAW.

There are no such rules, you are making this up.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

FAQs are official sources of information. They are not RAW.

The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

NecronLord3 wrote:The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

No rules changed?

BRB Page 36 wrote:The second disadvantage is that warriors who are assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that
are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault move, all of its models have their Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, regardless of other Initiative modifiers.

Tyranid FAQ page 2 wrote:Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood, or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting through the cloud? (p45)
A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

The BRB drops your initiative simply for taking the test. The FAQ changed that for Venomthropes - you're required to take the test, but not get your initiative dropped.
The rule changed.
You have had this pointed out before, and have had the SitW situation pointed out before. FAQs can, and do, change rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:FAQs are official sources of information. They are not RAW.

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

to be a little less snarky: This forum is for debating rules. The only official sources of information for rules debates are FAQs, rulebooks, and codexes. Which means you use FAQs to debate RAW. Which means they essentially are RAW.

Nice, going after forum RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:The Veno thrope FAQ answered a question as to whether or not their dangerous terrain effect, was or was not terrain. Answer, it is not terrain it is just an effect. No rules changed just a question answered and a rule clarified.

No rules changed?

BRB Page 36 wrote:The second disadvantage is that warriors who are
assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes
of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to
grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that
are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting
unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test
during their assault move, all of its models have their
Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, regardless
of other Initiative modifiers.

Tyranid FAQ page 2 wrote:Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood,
or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre
Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting
through the cloud? (p45)
A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

The BRB drops your initiative simply for taking the test. The FAQ changed that for Venomthropes - you're required to take the test, but not get your initiative dropped.
The rule changed.
You have had this pointed out before, and have had the SitW situation pointed out before. FAQs can, and do, change rules.

Okay, and this shows a specific change to a rule. Nothing like this was done to LotS. Until the question of LotS's ability being any army ability or not, RAW states it is not. An answer to a specific question about another rule is not RAW for a entire rules section.

GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW. They answer specific questions. If not specifically addresses it doesn't apply to everything on the games.

NecronLord3 wrote:GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW.

Take up your objections with the people who run this subforum - for YMDC they are valid sources of information for debates on RAW.

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:GW is hardly consistent with FAQs ever. They are unreliable basis for arguments of RAW.

Take up your objections with the people who run this subforum - for YMDC they are valid sources of information for debates on RAW.

They are sources of officiall information. If you ask a question specifically addressed in an FAQ you are free to cite it as an official answer. Nothing makes it RAW. You and NOS are attributing it to much weight over the rule books. This is incorrect. You should always reference a rule book first then if a rule is unclear, refer to the FAQ. Erratta portions of the FAQ, should actually be physically altered in your codex, most choose not to do this.

NecronLord3 is just Nosferatu posting from another account.

Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use the LotS ability from reserve. By bringing up strawmen for these guys to shoot down, you're just muddying the waters. You're weakening (or at least allowing opponents to obfuscate) the position for the correct interpretation.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

You are making no point. Rule books are the only source of rules. FAQs answer specific questions, they do not broadly effect the rest of the game.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Sweet - neither is the rulebook. Or codexes. This will end well.

The rule books are RAW. The tenents to do not effect that. You are not defining RAW correctly.

According to the tenet you quoted, it's a valid source of information, not RAW. RAW, as defined by the tenets, is
"Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."
I wonder what rules we have to go on, since the rulebook is only a valid source of information, and not rules.

You are making no point. Rule books are the only source of rules. FAQs answer specific questions, they do not broadly effect the rest of the game.

I'm making the point that your citation of the tenets proving that FAQs are not rules is wrong.
FAQs are rules - they make and change rules. Ignoring them in YMDC, when they're valid sources of information in a RAW debate, is the wrong thing to do - and mocking others for citing them is even worse.

Randal - nope, there have been about a dozen posts proving you wrong, which you ignore and / or dismiss. Also, claiming same accounts? Mature. It may have been attempted humour, tricky to tell

Necron - the tenets equate rulebook and FAQs as both being equal sources of informaiton. If you claim FAQs arent RAW then you are claiming the rulebook is also not RAW. Neither are codexes. Good one.

Your idea that you only check FAQs if you have an isuse is so laughably wrong you should reassess. For example under your concept of how FAQs work you would NEVER look at the Venomthrope FAQ - rulebook RAW your init drops to 1. Has done since the codex was released, and UP TO the FAQ where the FAQ has literally changed the rules.

You have to read BOTH the FAQs AND the Rulebook together. No other option works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Randal - nope, there have been about a dozen posts proving you wrong, which you ignore and / or dismiss. Also, claiming same accounts? Mature. It may have been attempted humour, tricky to tell

Necron - the tenets equate rulebook and FAQs as both being equal sources of informaiton. If you claim FAQs arent RAW then you are claiming the rulebook is also not RAW. Neither are codexes. Good one.

Your idea that you only check FAQs if you have an isuse is so laughably wrong you should reassess. For example under your concept of how FAQs work you would NEVER look at the Venomthrope FAQ - rulebook RAW your init drops to 1. Has done since the codex was released, and UP TO the FAQ where the FAQ has literally changed the rules.

You have to read BOTH the FAQs AND the Rulebook together. No other option works.

Actually I agree with you in regard to the Venomthrope. IMO, GW made an confusing situation with that ruling. Because regardless of any regard to RAW general tournament procedure is to refer to the Codex FIRST. Core rule book for any rules referenced by the codex second, then the FAQ for any questions that occur. General tournament procedure will not ever see that rule, until the event is over or unless a Tyranid player specifically has the FAQ in mind when using that rule.

However, it does not change RAW, FAQs are not RAW unless they specifically address a question. Which the Necron FAQ does not.

Rulebooks and FAQs are cited as official sources of information but nothing makes the FAQ equal per the Tenets and they clearly are not considered equal by GW. You are making that up.

And regardless it has no bearing on the LotS ability as the FAQ does not address it as an army wide ability.

I'm making the point that your citation of the tenets proving that FAQs are not rules is wrong.

Your implication that the Tenents make the FAQ equal to the rules is incorrect. You are wrong on this point. It never says anywhere, anything to that effect.

FAQs are rules - they make and change rules. Ignoring them in YMDC, when they're valid sources of information in a RAW debate, is the wrong thing to do - and mocking others for citing them is even worse.

I'm not mocking you. You are just wrong in that regard. No where does it refer to FAQs as RAW. You are just making gak up, again.