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.

The following questions were sent to "Ask Your Question". John Spencer, who appears to be the resident GW rules expert at this time, answered them.

Q: Is a "Secretly Deploying" (i.e. Lictor) unit subject to the same terrain penalties (i.e. dangerous terrain and\or mishap table) as a "Deep Striking" unit (especially since it has no choice but to enter play in terrain)?
A: Potentially. Do not roll any dangerous terrain tests for the model. But if it scatters within 1” of an enemy model, roll on the mishap table.

Q: Are spore mines shot out of a Biovore ever worth kill points?
A: No, they are not.

Let the "RoolzBoyz" bashing begin.

Again, the thing about John Spencer's rulings is that they are unofficial, in that they do not come directly from the people writing the rules and/or FAQs.

That means his rulings are only useful if both opponents agree to utilize them. Otherwise, if one person disagrees and wants to follow the RAW (for example in the case of the Lictor) then at the very least you are going to have to roll a D6 to see which way you're going to play.

While hopefully his rulings will have some input on future official FAQs, until we actually get to see one of his rulings that go against the RAW appear in an official FAQ we really have no idea whether or not this is going to be the case.


As a Tyranid player who likes Lictors, I would love for this ruling to become official, but until it does I can't expect to show up to games with my opponents being okay with me breaking the rules.

We should have a sticky YMDC thread with John's answers as they come up, in order that we might compare them with 1) RAW 2)Future FAQs and 3)The INAT FAQ

This is how we ruled for these questions during the 08' GT season.

Yes they are not written. No it does not follow RAW.

In case you are wondering we also ruled that they cannot contest an objective either.

Clay, this is not the ruling I heard at the Baltimore GT.

I heard from the head judge a very different answer for the lictor DSing thing. I asked him first thing while they were setting up.

Not sure you can say you ruled this way during the whole 08 season.

Yak... I agree... I see Jon spencer almost always disagreeing with raw...

What Id like is Mr.Spencer, Like Yakface does, to explain why he calls it one way or another.

With an arbitary (or seemingly) call on a rule then ofcourse it wont hold any weight.

Razerous wrote:What Id like is Mr.Spencer, Like Yakface does, to explain why he calls it one way or another.

With an arbitary (or seemingly) call on a rule then ofcourse it wont hold any weight.

Not quite correct. An arbitrary, unofficial call on a rule carries little useful weight.

Collect the arbitrary calls into an official FAQ, and justification/rationalization is unnecessary.

a) Spore Mines
b) Gun Drones from vehicles and
c) IG Officers should not count for kill points.

John Spencer has stated in the "What is the validity..." thread that their basis is always RAI. In short, the basis is going to prove whatever point they wish to make.

JohnOSpencer wrote:
Definitely not. This is a game, for fun. We subscribe to the most important rule and often(but not always) RAW can get in the way.

RAW is great for a quick ruling when playing a game, but any thought out answer should be RAI, in our opinion.

Janthkin wrote:

Razerous wrote:What Id like is Mr.Spencer, Like Yakface does, to explain why he calls it one way or another.

With an arbitary (or seemingly) call on a rule then ofcourse it wont hold any weight.

Not quite correct. An arbitrary, unofficial call on a rule carries little useful weight.

Collect the arbitrary calls into an official FAQ, and justification/rationalization is unnecessary.

Even though I spelt it wrong but my point still stands. The fact that a ruling is headed under an Errata/FAQ title gives it worth by its own right of being there.

A reply to an email (and this is in reguards to the OP which Im also replying to) without any explanation really does little to convince the people that need convincing.

That would be true, if GW hadn't released an FAQ stating explicitly that the FAQs are only house-rules and not binding. Now the FAQs carry no more weight than an email from support or your local game store owner.

Democratus wrote:That would be true, if GW hadn't released an FAQ stating explicitly that the FAQs are only house-rules and not binding. Now the FAQs carry no more weight than an email from support or your local game store owner.

Its a bit of an oxy-moron that is.

I go by the premise that that FAQ stating FAQ's arent binding calls its own worth and legitimancy into question leaving the previous FAQ's undisputed.

There should be an added rule in the YMDC.

"If you are left with; "The FAQs are unofficial" as an argument, you autolose."

Im sure there is a lot of TFGs and rules lawyers (in the worst sense of the word) out there celebrating about the new "legitimacy" of FAQs, but really.....come on.

Exactly.. the GW were covering thier own asses.

I reckon a very important "house rule" should be to respect and go by the ruling of FAQ material.

If there is a ranking system to be used within the "legitimacy" of email replies, banter, TFG, and faq... FAQ's win by so much. Like;

(yakface)

..

FAQ

...

...

...

Email replies / banter

...

TFG.. etc.

Steelmage99 wrote:There should be an added rule in the YMDC.

"If you are left with; "The FAQs are unofficial" as an argument, you autolose."

Im sure there is a lot of TFGs and rules lawyers (in the worst sense of the word) out there celebrating about the new "legitimacy" of FAQs, but really.....come on.

I endorse Steelmage99's policy. I've seen "the FAQs are unofficial" posted a few times in this very forum. Pathetic, really.

The problem though olympia is that FAQ's are GWs 'soft' material and they even say it can be 'ignored'. But the Erratas are 'hard' material and holds as much 'authority' as the codex/rulebook in which they refer.

However, I do agree with you. GW's FAQs are the *only* thing we have as players as a legitimate source of intent from the guys who wrote the rules, and so it would be foolish if they were ignored. But I do understand where GW is coming from with there 'loophole' they left in the validity of their own FAQs, much like the DA FAQ. GW just doesn't like taking any strong stance when it comes to rules. And I wholeheartedly agree that a game should be played however both players agree it should be played in friendly games of course.