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.
No it isn't. It is a change to the text. Even without a dictionary:
Games Workshop wrote:The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!).
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
nosferatu1001 wrote:"The difference is important."
No, actually it isnt. While that is a nice THEORY, it has not played out, ever, in practice.
SitW did, then did not, get blocked by the psyker being embarked on a transport. This was a FAQ answer, and by definition MUST have changed the rules at some poiint - initially or with the change to the answer.
kirsanth wrote:
cowmonaut wrote: Eratta is a change to the rules
No it isn't. It is a change to the text. Even without a dictionary:
Games Workshop wrote:The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!).
@ kirsanth: You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong:
Each army has a Codex - its own dedicated book, which contains in-depth background details and complete rules for all the models in the force, along with their weapons and wargear.
Source: Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook viii: Building An Army
Emphasis is mine. If you change the text describing how a piece of wargear works, you changed the rules for that piece of wargear. That is an irrefutable fact.
@ nosferatu1001: Given all the other FAQ changes relating to psykers in vehicles I would rather say that they have decided that models in a transport count as being in the transport for abilities that would affect things like psykers and psychic powers. Its more a "where does this model exist in-game" type thing. They didn't feel they had to re-write any rules for this apparently and just clarified it in the FAQ.
So I stand by my argument that Eldar and Tyranid players have a really nasty psychic defense as the rules currently stand, due to the way the rules for their respective abilities are written. The specific arguments for each ability are in my previous post. I eagerly await a rebuttle to both of those arguments rather than trying to create a distraction to that and argue the semantics of the word "Eratta", incorrectly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/03/02 23:21:46
cowmonaut wrote:@ kirsanth: You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong:
Each army has a Codex - its own dedicated book, which contains in-depth background details and complete rules for all the models in the force, along with their weapons and wargear.
Source: Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook viii: Building An Army
If you change the text describing how a piece of wargear works, you changed the rules for that piece of wargear. That is an irrefutable fact.
You are wrong.
This issue is potentially an example why.
'Errata' does not mean the rules/rulings are changed, only the words used to describe them. The interpretation I posited earlier exemplifies this.
editing to add an example: Changing "Don't" to "Do not" requires errata, but does not change any rule. Changing "see page 55" to "see page 45" also requires errata without changing rules. Heck, even adding "see page 2" is errata.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/03/02 23:31:58
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
How can you say I'm wrong about this? And where did you get that quote about what 'Errata' is? The FAQ updates themselves don't say that. All three say:
Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the
Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions
(or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions
about the rules. Although you can mark corrections
directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary –
just keep a copy of the update with your codex.
I have to be honest: Are you trolling? If you change the text of a rule, you change the rule. The Errata changes themselves even say to replace the pre-existing text. You see this in the BRBFAQ update as well as Codex specific updates.
You are being incredibly dishonest by saying the rules don't change due to the Errata.
Edit: While your example of "don't" to "do not" is a case where the rules didn't change due to Errata, there are other examples that show the rules did change. The Rune Priest example I used to show how wargear works is an example showing the rules do change sometimes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/02 23:35:06
And you ignore their own example. Quoting the rest of that paragraph:
The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.
Their own example is a change in the rules. The rules for the model that said it had WS3 and giving it WS4 instead. That is a rule change.
Again (you probably didn't see the edit); the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon is another example of a rule change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/02 23:37:00
I would like to point out that technically cowmonaut's quote from the Errata/FAQ is from a legal source, where kirsanth's quote from the GW website is not. However, I doubt anyone would claim that it is not a legal source for a rules debate.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Being unneccessarily pedantic leads to arguments like this.
So you are saying that Errata may be a rule change versus is not? If so, you definitely need to be more clear. That is not at all what you said in your post.
If you are saying that Errata is never a rule change, well you are demonstrably wrong.
Edit: And in any event, does soemone have a counter-argument as to why Runes of Warding would not trigger separately like Runic Weapons did pre-Errata?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/02 23:42:05
All I see it having done is distract from the argument a bit. I miss spoke (as I did not mean to imply that all Errata changes changed the rules).
An Errata change can change the rules. Examples include: - Various changes to the Warbikers entry (changed the profile, changed the rules for their guns, changed their wargear, etc. See Ork FAQ) - Wargear options for Wolf Scouts (Changed text from "replace a weapon with a power weapon" to "may take", allowing various wargear combinations that allow Wolf Scouts to have 3 weapons on models with Power Weapons) - Wargear options for Black Templar Bike Squadrons (see Wolf Scouts)
And so on.
So, knowing that the rules for Runes of Warding have changed, what's wrong with my argument? It seems pretty clear to me that two unique instances of a piece of wargear are triggered separately. Otherwise the Errata change would have been unnecessary and they could have just answered a FAQ of "If you are in range of multiple Rune Priests, does the Space Wolf player have multiple rolls?" rather than change the rules for that piece of wargear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/03 00:01:09
So, when they changed the rules by changing the ruling from "yes" to "no", they didnt change the rules? sorry, what?
By definition they changed the rules, and did so via FAQ. Making your distinction pointless, and any argument constructed from a distinction plain wrong.
You misread Kirsanth, they were very precise in their wording, which you misconstrued.
I think the problem is with your claim of FAQ being an interpretation. There has been occasion where the FAQ portion has changed rules (such as the whole PSA debacle and psychic defense vs units in vehicles).
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
cowmonaut wrote:@ nosferatu1001: That still doesn't invalidate my argument in any way. Would you like me to restate it in a different manner?
Your argument relies on there being a difference between an errata-rules change and a FAQ. Trouble is that FAQs change rules as well. Trying to construct an argument based on a difference when none, in practice, exists is doomed to failure.
My argument relies on no such thing. Edit: As I was hinting at in my previous reply, I would have been better off not mentioning the first part of my original post. That was in reply to a trend I was seeing in the thread that I disagree with, but had little to do with my own argument. I believe I'm on the same page as kisnrath now - won't know until he replies again or PM's me - with regards to what Errata can/can't be, but there is still a subtle difference between Errata and FAQ. It has nothing to do with this argument however, as all parts of my argument are from the Errata, not FAQ.
The rules for the Runic Weapon used by Space Wolf Rune Priests were worded different originally. The way they were worded allowed for multiple instances of the same wargear on different models to trigger off of the same event. The rules for this wargear item were changed so this was no longer possible.
My argument is that because of this, a specific exclusion is needed for Runes of Warding for the same reason. RAW, it works the same way the Runic Weapon used to. Which means that one trigger (the enemy making a psychic test) sets off both instances of the wargear.
If this were not true, the Errata change for the Runic Weapon would not have been necessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/03 00:50:28
rigeld2 wrote:SitW does not stack with itself.
RoWa does.
RoWi stacks with either of the other two. (since you can't be affected by your own RoWi twice that I know of)
If "RoWa does" then "SitW" has to as well, as they both say the same thing.
I can see how it can be read both ways, thus the ambiguity.
They do not both say the same thing.
SitW says: "Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
RoWa says: "All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
SitW is a check based on the psyker. Being in range of multiple SitW fulfills the requirement, so a single D6 is added.
RoWa is a check based on the wargear existing. So, each copy of it adds another die.
I don't know why this opinion persists. There is no reason to think that one would be a state check and the other would not. There is no wording to indicate that either of these is a just a check at all. The only difference is the qualifications of 'enemy psycker within 12" of a tyranid with SITW" while the other says just "enemy psyker". As these are both states why are you applying this 'check' to only one?
In any case niether is presented as just one state check for either the qualifications or the effect (Yes, I'm rolling an extra die). With the fairly straightforward words they use it's simple cause and effect. If A, then B... so if A three times, then B three times.
As far as the examples given for precedence of things not stacking, those things say they don't stack. That actually creates precedence for the argument that if things don't stack they'll say so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Not entirely true.
The change could be to remove ambiguity (as DR is saying)
Thats unlikely. The rules were clear before and there were no syntax errors to fix. It seems a change in the rules is the only reason they could have to make this alteration. I know I can't read there minds to get their intent but the reasonable options to guess form are rather limited... mostly down to one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/03 03:00:08
-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change.
cowmonaut wrote:I believe I'm on the same page as kirsanth now - won't know until he replies again or PM's me - with regards to what Errata can/can't be, but there is still a subtle difference between Errata and FAQ.
There should be, and I think you are. Yes, I do think we agree about the idea but were debating minutae. The problem I had was in thinking that GWFAQ and Errata carry any different weight.
Both are within YMDC.
Both are within tourney bounds.
Both are exempt from Rule #1.
Both are exempt from technical restraints - e.g. errata leave text, FAQ change them.
Both carry the exact same weight in most gaming sitations.
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
@cowmonaut I have to congratulate you on your long starting(I think it was your first post in this discussion) statement, it put it in a way I was failing
@Abandon You have successfully changed my mind about SitW, it does not say being in range of at least one tyranid therefore multiple ones will add multiple dice(1 each)....which makes nids extremely annoying (or it would but my dark eldar don't use psychic powers )
Abandon - however the way SitW and the eldar powers interacted was not clear, as both required there to be 3D6 at some point. Hence the change in the wording.
Not too long ago, somebody asked for an example wargear stacking with itself (not sure who off hand, or when exactly it was asked). I would like to point out that per INAT (which as we know is not an official source) does mention a few instances of identical wargear on different models stacking. It has been mentioned that per INAT, RoWa do not stack with itself, however, interestingly enough, some of the Necron wargear (i.e. Seismic Crucible) does. As it is I have asked Yakface about this in INAT submission already, so hopefully we will have an answer regarding this.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - however the way SitW and the eldar powers interacted was not clear, as both required there to be 3D6 at some point. Hence the change in the wording.
You rolled 3d6. Whats not clear about that?
rigeld2 wrote:Wether you are in range of one Tyranid or 37, you are in range of a Tyranid.
I don't see SitW stacking.
“Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests"
It says "a Tyranid" not any number of...
Also by your thinking this was a change was pointless and while I do not put it past GW to make pointless changes it's usually best to assume they inteneded something.
Plus your arbitrarily using this logic one one ability but not the other without cuase. By your idea it would not matter how many RoW's they had, your still an 'enemy psyker' and therefor add one extra die.
@Hukoseft: Nids are always anoying when thet get to close
-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change.
So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
As an army list never contains RoW and SITW no one model will be affected by both at the same time so what interaction are you referring to? I just got back into this game about three months ago so if there's some material on the subject I've not seen please forgive me and let me know where to find it. Otherwise the difference between making a test on 3d6 and rolling 3d6 on your test is so insignificant it is not worth noting much less putting an errata out for it.
-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change.
"Taking the test" is defined as totting up the dice used and coming to an answer. So rolling 2D6 and taking the test on 2D6 are the same thing, however the Eldar power of roll 3D6, dropping the highest is still only "taking the test" on 2D6 - you rolled 3D6, but the dice you actually totted up are 2D6
There is a difference, which is why I asked you to actually read and take note of the wording for taking tests.
SitW and the 3D6, drop the highest Eldar power did NOT work together previously - because SitW specified you took the test on 3D6, breaking the Eldar power, and vice versa. Hence the errata, which allws you to add a dice for the Eldar power, add a separate one for SitW (meaning you are rolling 4D6) and then drop the highest to see if you have passed the test - taking the test on 3D6.
Abandon wrote:“Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests"
It says "a Tyranid" not any number of...
If you're in range of 37 Tyranids are you in range of a Tyranid? If you're in range of 1 Tyranid are you in range of a Tyranid?
Also by your thinking this was a change was pointless and while I do not put it past GW to make pointless changes it's usually best to assume they inteneded something.
It's usually best, when arguing RAW, not to assume anything.
Plus your arbitrarily using this logic one one ability but not the other without cuase. By your idea it would not matter how many RoW's they had, your still an 'enemy psyker' and therefor add one extra die.
Wrong. SitW and RoWa are not worded the same, and you're attempting to apply the same wording to both.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
As an army list never contains RoW and SITW no one model will be affected by both at the same time so what interaction are you referring to? I just got back into this game about three months ago so if there's some material on the subject I've not seen please forgive me and let me know where to find it. Otherwise the difference between making a test on 3d6 and rolling 3d6 on your test is so insignificant it is not worth noting much less putting an errata out for it.
have you heard of this thing called apocalypse...you can have people on the same side which are different armies which means you can have that
)
