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.

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

Necron - your "tournament standard" is no such thing. In ANY tournament I have EVER been to around the UK you are expected to read and apply your FAQ, in toto, regardless of the rule question coming up or not. FAQs are to be read in conjunction with the codex and rulebook, on na equal footing.

If you read the tenets, note that codexes, BRB and FAQs are ALL VALID sources of information - there is no order given, therefore the fact you are making one up by saying BRB > FAQ is against the tenets.
They are all equal because the tenets grant them equality by the lack of an order. You cannot argue against this.

FAQs in this forum have equal footing to the BRB. If you dont agree with that, dont post

calypso2ts wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

<sigh> again -
The ability is his.
He's allowed to use it turn one from reserve.
He can use it from reserve.
Fini.

Randall Turner wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:
Seriously, NecronLord3, there've been a half-dozen definitive posts establishing Imotekh's right to use...

I have to disagree with any of those being definitive. I would rather that Imotekh could not use the Chronometron and the ability was not given specifically to him. Rather it happened with him being included in the army. That would make this a whole lot easier/clearer.

The context of the entire FAQ is pretty explicit in choosing to make it an Imotekh specific ability. His inclusion in your army is enough for Night Fight Turn 1 (this probably resolves some issues with some deployments where his ability would never take place) but continuing it is Imotekh's ability. Just because it effects the entire board, does not make it less so.

The only argument I have heard for permission to use it, is the inference from the Lord of the Storm entry suggesting that he is allowed to because of the 'Imotekh inclusion principle.' Unfortunately, that reading does not produce a consistent rule set as applied to Imotekh.

<sigh> again -
The ability is his.
He's allowed to use it turn one from reserve.
He can use it from reserve.
Fini.

Calypso - you even said it yourself - "consistent rule set". You can't just decide on your own - it works from reserve, now it doesn't. The rule works based on 'Imotekhs inclusion' and there is nothing that changes that.

Randall - <sigh> again

The ability to continue the night fight requires a dice roll by Imotekh
You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here

et fini

nosferatu1001 wrote:Randall - <sigh> again

The ability to continue the night fight requires a dice roll by Imotekh
You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here
et fini

You even agreed that the LoS rule from the codex is an army wide rule that grants permission to roll to continue nightfight if nightfight is in effect if Imotekh was included in the army. This is what gives permission to roll while in reserve or dead. The conditions of the rule - that Imotekh was included and the chain of events started grants the permission.

This permission is not revoked by the codex or FAQ. There is no FAQ answering 'may you roll from reserve or dead' that would be needed to change this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You need permission to roll dice while in reserve, or dead
No such permission is given in the codex or FAQ, as they have equal weight here

You need permission to use an ability from reserve, not a specific roll.
You're given permission to use it from reserve on turn one.
Therefore, you can use the ability from reserve.

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

You missed the important part.

You're given permission to use the active ability from reserve on turn one.
Again, therefore, you can use the active ability from reserve.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:You need permission to use an active ability from reserve, not a specific roll.

FTFY.

You missed the important part.

You're given permission to use the active ability from reserve on turn one.
Again, therefore, you can use the active ability from reserve.

Citation for the permission? Remember - the Night Fight isn't an active ability.

rigeld2 wrote:Citation for the permission? Remember - the Night Fight isn't an active ability.

Night fight is neither an active nor any other type of ability.
Ability is Lord of the Storm. Triggers "night fighting rules".
LotS - Permitted to use on turn one from reserve.
Hence, permitted to use from reserve.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Calypso - you even said it yourself - "consistent rule set". You can't just decide on your own - it works from reserve, now it doesn't. The rule works based on 'Imotekhs inclusion' and there is nothing that changes that.

The consistency I am referring to is with the Chronometron and reference to it being 'his ability.'

The paradox of saying it is not his ability is that the Chrono works on it and the FAQ calls it his. If it is his, he needs specific permission from reserve, if comes from him being in the army then no such permission is needed.

The counter to this is that he has permission to use it since Night Fight is in effect Turn 1 when he is in reserve. The argument against this is that you get Night Fight by including him, you get the re-roll by having him 'alive' on the board.

This is just laying out the discussion - my position is known. There is no argument imo that it is inconsistent to say he does not need permission because you get it by including him, but the chrono works. The real crux of the debate is whether permission is implied by Night Fight starting on Turn 1.

Regardless of people's position on this, I think we can agree that this is the basic framework of the debate.

The only question is whether LotS is one ability. because you're definitely given permission to use on turn 1 from reserve by being required to use on turn 1 from reserve.

i think the answer to that's blindingly obvious. i'm trying to get rigeld or nosferatu to step back in the trap and say it's a separate ability AGAIN so's i can make fun of them some more.

sorta bored.

Randall Turner wrote:The only question is whether LotS is one ability. because you're definitely given permission to use on turn 1 from reserve by being required to use on turn 1 from reserve.

i think the answer to that's blindingly obvious. i'm trying to get rigeld or nosferatu to step back in the trap and say it's a separate ability AGAIN so's i can make fun of them some more.

sorta bored.

So you're admitting to trolling?

rigeld2 wrote:So you're admitting to trolling?

Does that mean you're not going to step into the trap?

As a reminder to all, a courteous argument is more likely to be heard out than a facially insulting one. Furthermore, purposely attempting to irritate other users is against our rules. Please avoid doing so.

Thanks.

Randall Turner wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're admitting to trolling?

Does that mean you're not going to step into the trap?

Yes. And you're the first person ever to make it to my ignore list - which is kind of a feat.

Manchu wrote:As a reminder to all, a courteous argument is more likely to be heard out than a facially insulting one. Furthermore, purposely attempting to irritate other users is against our rules. Please avoid doing so.

Thanks.

Manchu, I don't believe rigeld2 is being honest by feigning injury. I also believe he and his partner Nosferatu are "working the system" by skirting the letter of the no-trolling rules while violating the spirit. Their "flavor" of bad-acting is to nit-pick verbiage and generate post volume to intentionally derail others' exchanges while avoiding the gist of the debate, which is typical 4chan-style activity intended to simply outlast debate opponents. At some point the best service I can provide to the discussion is to point out the illogical nature of their arguments. We're well past that point on this "stormlord from reserve" thread - everything that can be said, has been said. I shouldn't be posting on it, and wouldn't, no matter how often Nosferatu declares himself the "winnar!" by exhibiting truly amazing amounts of posting stamina. Except...

Once in awhile a new discussion member joins, and they honestly haven't followed the argument to that point. If you look back over the preceding dozen or so posts you'll see that I didn't respond to Nosferatu or Rigeld2, only to calypso2ts when he questioned the "definitive" nature of the preceding arguments. At that point, though I'd bypassed their previous responses to me, Nos and rigeld2 jumped on my response to calypso and went into their "obfuscation by volume" act, as per usual. I felt I should re-clarify their obfuscations to ensure calypso was getting an accurate view. They're derailing what could be a productive discussion between two other posters. Then - The post of mine that triggered this note from you was to calypso saying that I was waiting to make fun of rigeld2 again. Reading that as meaning to personally insult him, rather than attack his logic, is disingenuous on his part - he throws up his hands and goes, "oh noes, i've been insulted!" Then accuses me of trolling by asking if I'm admitting that I'm doing so. Again, this is deliberate misinterpretation and "working the system". Their pattern of dogging debate opponents with specious, contentious responses and flooding threads with marginally (at best) germane posts is at least as egregious violation of forum discussion protocol as a (perhaps recklessly worded) intention to poke holes in their logic.

If you read back through this thread, it's pretty clear that I've been trying to avoid them. It's nearly impossible.

@Randall Turner: I recommend use of the Ignore button. Also, I'd avoid posting that you "want to make fun of them more" about any users.

Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

And you are just making that up. There is nothing in the rules supporting your position.

What, that its Imo's roll? Wrong, that would be the bit in the FAQ you keep pretending doesnt exist, and then when you finally cant ignore it any longer try to claim the FAQs arent rules....

Or is it that youneed permission to roll while in reserve? If so you're missing the point of the ruleset - you need to find permission to do something, I dont need to find something saying you cant.

You're the one STILL making things up, hoping simple repetition and ignorance of the written rules will win through. Not happening.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - agreed, first person *ever* on ignore list.

LotS does two things: gives you night fight on turn 1, entirely passively, and then (post FAQ) requires Imo to either roll or not. Every time you have a model trying to roll a dice from reserve, or choose to perform an action, such as the high king rule, it has been required specific permission to do so. This is no different

And you are just making that up. There is nothing in the rules supporting your position.

Of course there isn't. Actions or die-rolls aren't allowed from reserve. Abilities are allowed from reserve.

The only BRB FAQ verbiage anywhere near relevant:
Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Convention wording is also ability-centric, ie... (truncated for clarity, from INAT FAQ )
RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve

IG.31A.02 – Q: Does the Astropath's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification].

Can we just try ignoring this guy, NecronLord3?

Why do I have this feeling that before too long, both sides will be ignoring each other?

I think the 'made up' part he is referring to is the idea that Imotekh's LotS has 2 components. One that provides Night Fight on Turn 1, the second is the ability to continue it.

Is anyone REALLY arguing at this point that it is not Imotekh's roll? It CLEARLY is.

The only matter to be resolved is if LotS is the permission to roll from reserve because Turn 1 Night Fight works, or if it is not.

Exactly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:What, that its Imo's roll? Wrong, that would be the bit in the FAQ you keep pretending doesnt exist, and then when you finally cant ignore it any longer try to claim the FAQs arent rules....

Or is it that youneed permission to roll while in reserve? If so you're missing the point of the ruleset - you need to find permission to do something, I dont need to find something saying you cant.

You're the one STILL making things up, hoping simple repetition and ignorance of the written rules will win through. Not happening.

You are ignoring RAW and are substituting HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:
Can we just try ignoring this guy, NecronLord3?

Of course not. We have to refute the incorrect information people are spewing as truth and incorrect interpretations of RAW. Honestly people don't like asking rules questions on Dakka because of them.

"You are ignoring RAW and are substituting HYWPI. "

given you have admitted you dont treat FAQs as RAW, against the tenets of this forum, perhaps you should just stop posting incorrect statements such as the above?

I've given the rules quotes, from the FAQ, and given the precedent required for models being required to have specific permission to roll dice while in reserve.

You keep ignoring this, firstly claiming it wasnt written in the FAQ, sticking fingers in ears when the relevant quotes were repeatedly given to you, then you changed tack and tried to claim FAQ arent RAW, and had that proven incorrect, so no your argument is just a factless assertion that, frankly, is insultingly easy to disprove.

Keep posting with no rules basis - even easier to disprove you then.

Randall - feel free to ignore me, the only reason I ever know you now post is when others quote you. Your posts are totally irrelevant in rules discussions, from mine and quite a few others perspectives.

Taken from the GW website:

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

This is RAW. The Tenets of YMDC, do not over ride this. As you can see the 'weight' of the rules is clearlly defined. Your claim that FAQ answers are RAW, is untrue. They give specific answers to specific questions and nothing more. The tenets sight rule books and FAQs as official 'information'. This does not reassign the weight of the FAQ over the rule books, which is clearly defined by GW.

NecronLord3 wrote:This is RAW. The Tenets of YMDC, do not over ride this. As you can see the 'weight' of the rules is clearlly defined. Your claim that FAQ answers are RAW, is untrue. They give specific answers to specific questions and nothing more. The tenets sight rule books and FAQs as official 'information'. This does not reassign the weight of the FAQ over the rule books, which is clearly defined by GW.

You have misunderstood both the Tenets and what the FAQs are for then.

The FAQs are not RAW, because the FAQs are not rules. They an explanation of how the studio interprets the rules they wrote. As such, they are accepted here as having the same weight as the rules, because the vast majority of players (at least going by previous polls) accept them as such.

You're welcome to ignore them for your own games, of course. But for the purpose of discussion on this board, they are accepted as exactly what they are intended to be, which is a clarification as to how the studio thinks the game should be played.