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.

insaniak wrote:

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.

Obviously the exact wording of a FAQ is not meant to hold the same weight as Errata, codexes or the BRB.

The answer to the FAQ question is RAW. This still doesn't allow someone to take the wording of the FAQ and try to apply it to other questions or rules discussions unrelated to the question being answered.

Yes, the answer to the question asked in a FAQ - the meaning is considered RAW regarding a specific question. Surely the wording of a FAQ is not meant to be so strict as to draw conclusions about other rules that are not part of the question.

Is there no different between the exact wording of a FAQ Q/A and Errata, Codexes, and the BRB and which parts are considered RAW?

No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

They are not and you and the MODS can pretend they are, but they will not have that weight in actual games or tournaments. So you are then left with HYWPI, which is fine but it is not RAW.

Nemesor Dave is entirely correct again!

Except they DO have that weight in actual games and tournaments. Exactly the same weight as any other rule.

TOs can choose to change any rule they want. Same with you and your opponent in a normal game. That doesn't mean they aren't RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:Except they DO have that weight in actual games and tournaments. Exactly the same weight as any other rule.

TOs can choose to change any rule they want. Same with you and your opponent in a normal game. That doesn't mean they aren't RAW.

It does mean they are not RAW. RAW is RULES as written. FAQs are not rules. There for they can only be applied to specific questions. You are free to use them for arguments as to what the Rules are Intended(RAI) to be. Still not RAW.

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

rigeld2 wrote:No, there isn't. Theyre all equally RAW.

Insaniak a mod here disagrees with you. "The FAQs are not RAW, because the FAQs are not rules."

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers.

As it stands now there are only three things.

Codex:
The Codex which tells you LoS is an army wide rule that works as long as Imotekh was included in your army. This allows rolling for nightfight even if Imotekh has been removed from play.

FAQs:
The FAQ which answers a specific question. Regardless of the exact wording - it allows you to re-roll the roll for nightfight if a chrono cryptek is in Imotekhs unit. No other conditions apply.

Another FAQ says that rolling to continue nightfight is not required but optional.

So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Really? This again. The FAQs are relevant to a rules discussion because they show now to interpret the rules, it is necessary and prudent to view the codex/brb in the context of these to b consistent, all the FAQ discussed relate directly to the lots ability presented, go reread my post I outlined your actual rules argument there for you on pg 7

This avenue of argument is fruitless and just hurts your own credibility

rigeld2 wrote:
Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Only when specifically addressed.

Happyjew wrote:So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Again something specifically addressed in the FAQ.

NecronLord3 wrote:
It does mean they are not RAW. RAW is RULES as written. FAQs are not rules. There for they can only be applied to specific questions. You are free to use them for arguments as to what the Rules are Intended(RAI) to be. Still not RAW.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:So, RAW (not HYWPI) does SitW work on embarked psykers? You can't use the relevant question, because as you pointed out the FAQ covering this is not RAW.

Again something specifically addressed in the FAQ.

So FAQs both are and are not RAW.

rigeld, we now have Schrödinger's FAQ in regards to YMDC tenets.

Schrödinger's FAQ in regards to YMDC tenets states that FAQs are both RAW and not RAW whenever it is convenient.

rigeld2 wrote:Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

I agree Insaniaks opinion doesn't decide the issue, but as a Mod he does speak for the board, its tenets and his opinion does matter on what is considered RAW regarding this message board.

What he says is true - FAQs are not rules.

Your question is difficult to answer and keep the proper distinctions. Errata changes rules. FAQs change gameplay. If your question about gameplay is answered by a rule that is contradicted by a FAQ, gameplay is changed according to the FAQ. FAQs by definition do not change RAW.

As strange as it may be, FAQs answer how a rule should be interpreted, even if that means the FAQ directly contradicts the rule.

Nemesor Dave wrote:A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers.

This is not precisely accurate.

The FAQs quite often answer questions other than the ones they are specifically answering, by giving us an insight into how certain rules interactions should work. There have been any number of situations where we have assumed that an FAQ answer for this situation should also apply to that similarly written situation, for the sake of consistency.

Of course, GW often muddy that a little by ruling similar situations differently for different armies... but they're getting better at not doing that recently.

rigeld2 wrote:Insaniaks statements hold as much weight as mine or yours. Him being a Mod doesn't mean he is the god of rules.
Edit: I hope Insaniak understands there's no disrespect here. Just like I'm not intending to disrespect you Dave.

I should point out that my post about the FAqs and the Tenets wasn't intended to seal the rules discussion, just to explain the framework around which rules discussions on this board are based. And on that, the opinion of the moderators does hold more weight than yours.

No offense taken, though

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Technically no because, again, the FAQs are just clarifying what the rules mean. So where an FAQ answer is in apparent contradiction to what the rules actually say, you can take that as the FAQ changing the rules, or you can take it as the rules as written not saying precisely what the studio meant them to say. A subtle difference that can change how the rules are perceived rather hugely.

NecronLord3 wrote:They are not and you and the MODS can pretend they are, but they will not have that weight in actual games or tournaments.

It's not a matter of us 'pretending' anything. Back when GW first started applying the 'studio house rules' tag to their FAQs, we ran several polls to judge how Dakka users perceived the FAQs. The result was that the vast majority of Dakka users (which includes many tournament players and tournament organisers) see the FAQs as an 'official' part of the rules. Most tournaments do weight them just as heavily as the actual rulebook... I don't think I have ever seen or heard of a tournament rules package that says that the GW FAQs would not be used for that event.

As a result, and to stomp on the all-too-often de-railing of rules threads by the vocal minority who were more interested in arguing about the validity of the FAQs than in discussing the rule in question, we included the statement about the FAQ's being 'official' rules material in the Tenets.

As I said before, you are more than welcome to ignore them in your own games... but for the purposes of rules discussions here, the FAQs are just as valid as the rulebook, because that's the way most people actually play the game... so ignoring them is really pretty pointless in the scope of what this forum is actually for.

insaniak wrote:

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Technically no because, again, the FAQs are just clarifying what the rules mean. So where an FAQ answer is in apparent contradiction to what the rules actually say, you can take that as the FAQ changing the rules, or you can take it as the rules as written not saying precisely what the studio meant them to say. A subtle difference that can change how the rules are perceived rather hugely.

In many cases, what you're saying is 100% correct.

Then you have things like the Venomthrope FAQ to throw all that in the gakker.
The rulebook is completely unambiguous. The Venomthrope is absolutely contradictory. Which means it changes the rules.
The Venomthrope raises a question or two about how to handle charges through not-terrain now.

Also, SitW - so they meant for it not to work for a little while, now they mean for it to work? :p

Which still does not apply as the permissive use of LotS which is given on the codex and never contradicted by an FAQ. RAW still allows the use of LotS in reserve and icing on the cake the INAT FAQ agrees, which the majority of venues, here, use.

Where is there permission for Imotekh to roll the dice while in reserve, or dead?

None as it is not required. You roll the dice not your models.

Further supported by the INAT FAQ, for those of us using it.

◊NEC.55F.05 – Q: Does ‘Lord of the Storm' apply even if Imotekh starts the game in reserve? If Imotekh is killed, does Night Fighting immediately end? A: ‘Lord of the Storm' does still apply when Imotekh starts the game in reserve. If he is killed while the Night Fighting rules are in effect, then these rules continue until the start of the next game turn (unless the opposing army also contains Imotekh) [clarification].

NecronLord3 wrote:None as it is not required.

This is correct, however...

You roll the dice not your models

...is a meaningless distinction.

In general, NecronLord3, if we're going to respond to nosferatu, you don't answer the questions he asks, because their premises are flawed. You attack the flawed premise - in this case, that you're required to have separate permission for each roll, instead of permission to use the ability as a whole.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:[The FAQs quite often answer questions other than the ones they are specifically answering, by giving us an insight into how certain rules interactions should work. There have been any number of situations where we have assumed that an FAQ answer for this situation should also apply to that similarly written situation, for the sake of consistency.

This isn't even a "theoretical" - it's the case here, ie, for using abilities from reserve. The only general rules (or "words written", without getting into whether they're formally "rules" or not) we have that deal with this, even tangentially, are from the BRB FAQ we've quoted a few times now:

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.

This is a question about using an ability when starting from reserve and then deploying. We generalize it to mean that you can't use an ability from reserve unless specifically stated otherwise. But this is it, and I mean there's nothing else available on general ability usage from reserve. We don't have much choice but to apply it to similar situations.

Randall Turner wrote:This is a question about using an ability when starting from reserve and then deploying. We generalize it to mean that you can't use an ability from reserve unless specifically stated otherwise. But this is it, and I mean there's nothing else available on general ability usage from reserve. We don't have much choice but to apply it to similar situations.

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

So Psychic powers, like Psychic communion can be used while in reserve?

NecronLord3 wrote:You roll the dice not your models

I guess this means my units can fire while in reserve because, after all, I roll the dice, not my models.

The rule for Imotekh does indeed state that Night Fighting is automatic for the first turn, however beyond that you have zero permission to extrapolate anything else. Per the BRB FAQ, you do not have explixit permission to use it from Reserves beyond the first turn. You can try and surmise that permission, but the BRB FAQ is worded so that you need explicit permission.

NecronLord3 wrote:None as it is not required. You roll the dice not your models.

Further supported by the INAT FAQ, for those of us using it.

◊NEC.55F.05 – Q: Does ‘Lord of the Storm' apply even if Imotekh starts the game in reserve? If Imotekh is killed, does Night Fighting immediately end? A: ‘Lord of the Storm' does still apply when Imotekh starts the game in reserve. If he is killed while the Night Fighting rules are in effect, then these rules continue until the start of the next game turn (unless the opposing army also contains Imotekh) [clarification].

Lol. So i get to shoot while off board as well now? After all I roll the dice, not the models.

So, either you have opened up a whole new tactical element to the game OR the sheer gak you will make up has just rezched a nrw low.

INAT has no place here

DeathReaper wrote:So Psychic powers, like Psychic communion can be used while in reserve?

Are they given permission to do so? Yeah, I didn't think so. Logic fail.

Brother Ramses wrote:The rule for Imotekh does indeed state that Night Fighting is automatic for the first turn, however beyond that you have zero permission to extrapolate anything else. Per the BRB FAQ, you do not have explixit permission to use it from Reserves beyond the first turn. You can try and surmise that permission, but the BRB FAQ is worded so that you need explicit permission.

Which we have. The qualifying condition for employing LotS is "inclusion of Imotekh in the army", period. That inclusion gives you permission to use the power from the moon, for all it cares. ie, as Actinium sez re: "2 craps":

Actinium wrote:<snip> The faq may say he and his or hers or its or theirs as much as it likes, it only qualifies that a chronometron can effect the roll not how when or why you make the roll which is still as outlined in the codex as: 'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game' and 'Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn.'

There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh, it only cares if Imotekh is in the army list at all <snip>

Which is probably why INAT allows it, ya think maybe?

He can't use his ability when not on the board, as go's the general rule. In a transport, he can, but I don't know about the cryptec

Ruarinator2 wrote:He can't use his ability when not on the board, as go's the general rule.

This directly contradicts the Lord of the Storm special rule. See post above.

Randall Turner wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:So Psychic powers, like Psychic communion can be used while in reserve?

Are they given permission to do so? Yeah, I didn't think so. Logic fail.

Brother Ramses wrote:The rule for Imotekh does indeed state that Night Fighting is automatic for the first turn, however beyond that you have zero permission to extrapolate anything else. Per the BRB FAQ, you do not have explixit permission to use it from Reserves beyond the first turn. You can try and surmise that permission, but the BRB FAQ is worded so that you need explicit permission.

Which we have. The qualifying condition for employing LotS is "inclusion of Imotekh in the army", period. That inclusion gives you permission to use the power from the moon, for all it cares. ie, as Actinium sez re: "2 craps":

Actinium wrote:<snip> The faq may say he and his or hers or its or theirs as much as it likes, it only qualifies that a chronometron can effect the roll not how when or why you make the roll which is still as outlined in the codex as: 'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game' and 'Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn.'

There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh, it only cares if Imotekh is in the army list at all <snip>

Which is probably why INAT allows it, ya think maybe?

You and ND keep championing the qualifier of Imotekh being in the army yet you do not acknowledge the restriction.

The army includes Imotekh, which allows Night Fighting automatically on the first turn. There is no explicit permission there for additional turns beyond the first.

Furthermore he has the option to keep night fight rules in play in subsequent game turns. So while he has permission to continue to keep night fighting rules in play, beyond the normal rules for night fighting, he is not given explicit permission to do so from reserves.

At no point in the RAW is he given permission to do anything more then the rule allows. The fact that on the first turn, the rule goes into effect automatically while he is in reserves does not then give permission for subsequent turns. It is limited to the first turn.

The fact that he can roll to continue to keep night fighting in effect does not give permission to roll from reserves.

Brother Ramses wrote:You and ND keep championing the qualifier of Imotekh being in the army yet you do not acknowledge the restriction.

There is no restriction, other than Imotekh's inclusion. That enables the entire special ability. There's then a blanket permission for the ability to activate AND roll to continue, without qualification. The special rule does not care where Imotekh is. Look at it again:

'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn." No restrictions, no qualifications other than Imotekh being in the army. None.

Ima keep copying this:

Actinium: "There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh."

Randall Turner wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:You and ND keep championing the qualifier of Imotekh being in the army yet you do not acknowledge the restriction.

There is no restriction, other than Imotekh's inclusion. That enables the entire special ability. There's then a blanket permission for the ability to activate AND roll to continue, without qualification. The special rule does not care where Imotekh is. Look at it again:

'If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the night fight rules apply automatically at the start of the game. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep night fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn." No restrictions, no qualifications other than Imotekh being in the army. None.

Ima keep copying this:

Actinium: "There is no stipulation in either the codex or the faq that the 'Lord of the Storm' special rule gives 2 craps about the status or location of Imotekh."

Just like Nemesor Dave with willful ignorance of the rule to further your argument.

The inclusion of Imotekh the Stormlord allows the following;

"...the night fight rules apply automativally at the start of the game."

That is the restriction of the first part of the rule; night fight rules automatically apply AT THE START OF THE GAME. Nothing in that sentence extends the automatic application of the night fighting rules beyond the first turn. Nothing in that sentence allows the application of night fight rules from reserve.

In addition the inclusion of Imotekh the Stormlord also allows the following,

"...you can attempt to keep the night fighting rules in play in subsequent turns by rolling a d6 at the start of the turn."

The only permission in this sentence given is the ability to continue night fighting in subsequent turns rather then having to follow the normal rules for night fighting. No explicit permission is given to roll while in reserves.

You need to follow the rules as written, not the rules as you wish they were written.

Apparently you are having trouble with the meaning of Furthermore?