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.

"If unengaged, the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting." - Eldar Codex

"The move can be made in any assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in assault." FAQ

This seems ambiguous, until you look at the text for Jetbikes:

"All eldar jetbikes... are allowed to move 6' in the assault phase, even if they don't assault."

I have not seen anyone make the claim that jetbikes can move in your opponents assault phase. Based on this precedent, Warp Spiders cannot use their 2nd jump in their opponents assault phase, only their own because the wording is the same.

The FAQ's use of "any" is unfortunate because of the confusion it causes but

This also has the benefit of being consistent with the play style of the unit from 3rd edition and on.

Durandal wrote:"If unengaged, the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting." - Eldar Codex

"The move can be made in any assault phase during which the Warp Spiders are not assaulting or fighting in assault." FAQ

This seems ambiguous, until you look at the text for Jetbikes:

"All eldar jetbikes... are allowed to move 6' in the assault phase, even if they don't assault."

I have not seen anyone make the claim that jetbikes can move in your opponents assault phase. Based on this precedent, Warp Spiders cannot use their 2nd jump in their opponents assault phase, only their own because the wording is the same.

The FAQ's use of "any" is unfortunate because of the confusion it causes but

This also has the benefit of being consistent with the play style of the unit from 3rd edition and on.

Again, my problem with this is that the codex and the FAQ contradict each other given the wording used in the FAQ.
I don't think anyone would disagree with me on this.

Rulebook: They can jump in your assault phase
FAQ: They can jump in any assault phase

Notice the contradiction. Any assault phase, meaning any any assault phase. (it DOES NOT say "any of your assault phases")

So now that we agree there is a contradiction, what does this mean?
It means we must choose one of the rulings to use. You can't pick half of one and half of the other.

I would argue that we use the FAQ as it essentially and updated/clarifying rules text document.

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Timmah wrote:They know what is intended by the rule because they wrote the codex. You, on the other hand, did not.

two can play that game... how do you know what their intentions are?
using the move in ANY assault phase changes a core fundamental of the game where the interpretation of it meaning any of YOUR assault phases does not break any mechanics.

I am not interpreting the word ANY. I am taking it at face value. I added no prefix or anything else to it.

Notice:
My argument: This can be used in ANY assault phase. (nothing added to GW's wording)
Counter argument: This can be used in ANY "of your" assault phases. (notice how you have modified the meaning.)

willydstyle wrote:Your interpretation of two rules which contradict is not "strict RAW."
I say that about FAQs because for the most part they are intended to clarify, not to re-write rules. The times that GW does re-write or make new rules in FAQs (outside of errata) is merely evidence of poor rules writing.
So here, we have a rule, and a clarification. Since the clarification does not re-write the previously written rule, it interacts with it, so we apply both of the rules, not simply the one that you choose to apply.

Notice how the rules contradict each other.
One gives a specific time it can be used and the other gives a broad time it can be used.

For instance:

I can go to the store at 2
I can go to the store at any time

Notice how neither clarifies the other.

I never claimed that it was well written. I'm simply pointing out that GW claims that they don't change the rules with FAQs, but re-write them. So, given that the FAQ is not supposed to re-write the rule, claiming that it allows you to break the restrictions that are written in the codices is in error.

Also, there is precedent of other rules (look up the rules for monstrous creatures shooting weapons) where it is written that you may do things in "any" phase, but where given a system that you need specific permission to do things in your opponent's turn, they do not allow you to perform those actions in "any" phase truly, but any of your own phases. I'd suggest taking it up with GW and asking them to write better rules.

willydstyle wrote:I never claimed that it was well written. I'm simply pointing out that GW claims that they don't change the rules with FAQs, but re-write them. So, given that the FAQ is not supposed to re-write the rule, claiming that it allows you to break the restrictions that are written in the codices is in error.

Also, there is precedent of other rules (look up the rules for monstrous creatures shooting weapons) where it is written that you may do things in "any" phase, but where given a system that you need specific permission to do things in your opponent's turn, they do not allow you to perform those actions in "any" phase truly, but any of your own phases. I'd suggest taking it up with GW and asking them to write better rules.

As I stated before, You would need to decide whether or not to use the FAQ as again its just answers to questions.

I said I would because it seems like its GW clarifying their own rules. However you can play it however you want. I am just saying that the FAQ and codex contradict each other and you need to pick which to use.

RustyKnight wrote:Isn't this exactly the same as the old "IG orders on opponents turn" argument?

If Warp Spiders can jump in the enemies turn, the entire "you-go-I-go" game system goes out the window. Suddenly, Carnifexen, Obliterators, Fzorgle Princes, Tzeentch Daemon Princes (Chaos Daemons ones), and IG are firing in the enemies turns as well. Oh, and Land Raiders with the beautiful Power of the Machine Spirit.

The difference here is that there is an entry under faqs and errata that specifically changes the rule wording from "THE assault phase" to "ANY assault phase."

THE assault phase implies "The assault phase of your turn"

it doesnt make quite as much sense if you change that word to any. "ANY assault phase of your turn"

Why did you quote me, Falconlance?

Timmah, this game is based on a you-go-I-go system. You need specific permission to break that cycle. A generic "any assault phase" isn't specific enough. If it was, I already listed half a dozen other ridiculous things that start happening. This isn't a "RaW vs. RaI" deal, this is a "questionable RaW that breaks the way the game is played".

Timmah:

It is a turn based system. You may not do anything in your opponents turn without specific permission. There are plenty of examples of how GW grants this permission. The wording in the FAQ in question here is not one of them.

You can argue that by looking at this rule to the exclusion of all others it works in your opponents turn, and I would agree. When you use it inclusively with the rest of the game though, it does not.

By RAW, looking at nothing but the sentence in the FAQ, you can use this ability in your opponents turn.
By RAW, looking at this sentence in the FAQ inclusive of the rest of the rules and in context thereof, you may not use this ability in your opponents turn.

I agree with everyone who is not Timmah.

FAQ is clarification, not change. You're even focusing on the wrong part of the clarification.

Kaaihn wrote:Timmah:

It is a turn based system. You may not do anything in your opponents turn without specific permission. There are plenty of examples of how GW grants this permission. The wording in the FAQ in question here is not one of them.

You can argue that by looking at this rule to the exclusion of all others it works in your opponents turn, and I would agree. When you use it inclusively with the rest of the game though, it does not.

By RAW, looking at nothing but the sentence in the FAQ, you can use this ability in your opponents turn.
By RAW, looking at this sentence in the FAQ inclusive of the rest of the rules and in context thereof, you may not use this ability in your opponents turn.

I love how even though I conceded that you need to choose how you want to play it. Not one of you will even admit that the two wordings contradict each other, no matter how obvious it is.
Anyways its pointless to even have this discussion if you refuse to budge from your position no matter what proof is shown.

I blame the American Education system and its poor emphasis on understanding the English Language.

Pretty sure GW is based out of the UK

Timmah wrote:
I love how even though I conceded that you need to choose how you want to play it. Not one of you will even admit that the two wordings contradict each other, no matter how obvious it is.

The two wording do contradict each other. Not that that means anything. There's still only one way to play it.

Timmah wrote:Anyways its pointless to even have this discussion if you refuse to budge from your position no matter what proof is shown.

Pot, meet kettle?

RustyKnight wrote:

Timmah wrote:
I love how even though I conceded that you need to choose how you want to play it. Not one of you will even admit that the two wordings contradict each other, no matter how obvious it is.

The two wording do contradict each other. Not that that means anything. There's still only one way to play it.

Timmah wrote:Anyways its pointless to even have this discussion if you refuse to budge from your position no matter what proof is shown.

Pot, meet kettle?

Except I did change my point of view after I reread the FAQ/errata section of GW's website.

Anyways my only point was that the two wordings contradict each other and you and your opponent need to decide how you want to play it.
In a tournament I would guess they would stick to the rulebook over the FAQ.

Timmah wrote:I love how even though I conceded that you need to choose how you want to play it. Not one of you will even admit that the two wordings contradict each other, no matter how obvious it is.

I don't admit there is a contradiction because there is not one. You are interpreting a rule incorrectly by focusing solely on it, rather than using the rule in context to the entire ruleset.

You can find all sorts of contradictions if you cherry pick things and look at them to the exclusion of all other relevant material. None of those contradictions actually exist though; you are thinking they do because you are looking at something in a vacuum that cannot be properly interpreted in that vacuum.

Timmah wrote:
Except I did change my point of view after I reread the FAQ/errata section of GW's website.

But you still cling to the idea that your interpretation of the FAQ is correct.

RustyKnight wrote:

Timmah wrote:
Except I did change my point of view after I reread the FAQ/errata section of GW's website.

But you still cling to the idea that your interpretation of the FAQ is correct.

No, I believe the FAQ to be very poorly worded. Note, it is answering a question, but through poor choice of words, expanding on the ability in question. (whether GW meant to do this or not, their answer did per pure RAW)
Just because a specific question is asked, that doesn't mean only that one can be answered.

EX:
Did you go to walmart? Yes, I went to walmart and target.

Now you wouldn't say that I did not go to target solely because you didn't ask if I did, would you?

Now lets expand the FAQ question:

Can you make the "jump" with spiders even if they can't assault?
Yes, spiders can jump during ANY assault phase. Notice this could be broken out to. "Yes, spiders can jump during your assault phase and your opponents assault phase." (instead of saying any, you are listing all of the possible assault phases) All without changing the meaning.




So I still believe my interpretation of the FAQ to be correct.


Hence I am left to the position that it must be decided on by a judge or you and your opponent depending on the venue.

unistoo wrote:you must be able to assault in order to 'trade' that move for an extra jump.

*Bzzzzzzt*, wrong answer, by that rationale you would have to premeasure all assaults, because you wouldn't be eligible to use the move unless you CAN make an assault...
If we further extend that rationale to run & shooting which are worded similarly, you would need to have guns, be in range to shoot before you can use 'Run' move... Go ahead and tell that nid player his gaunts can no longer run because they don't have guns.

Taking a warp jump is the same as saying 'this unit will not make an assault this turn'.

As said above, it breaks a game mechanic, and is stupid since it stops you from assualting a unit virtually indefenitely, considering the average on 2 dice is a 7, and all you need is a 6 to keep out of assualt range, assuming they dont get the 12" assualt.

nostromo wrote:

unistoo wrote:you must be able to assault in order to 'trade' that move for an extra jump.

*Bzzzzzzt*, wrong answer, by that rationale you would have to premeasure all assaults, because you wouldn't be eligible to use the move unless you CAN make an assault...
If we further extend that rationale to run & shooting which are worded similarly, you would need to have guns, be in range to shoot before you can use 'Run' move... Go ahead and tell that nid player his gaunts can no longer run because they don't have guns.

Taking a warp jump is the same as saying 'this unit will not make an assault this turn'.

Oh I'm sorry, I needed your answer in the form of a question.

Did you read the rest of my post, or just jump right in? As I pointed out in that very post that is indeed the RAW that the FAQ is correcting - It was 'possible' to interpret the original rule in that manner, hence the question in the FAQ designed to clarify that you can indeed make a warp jump in an assault phase, as long as you don't assault. What I was showing was the process of misunderstanding that led to this whole (vaguely silly) question. At the time I considered editing my post for extra clarity on my point, but decided against it because I thought the discussion was basically done (ha!).

It's been said before, but it's worth pointing out again: FAQs refine rules, Errata change rules. This 'argument' is stemming from a very specific interpretation of a single word in an FAQ - and is (charitably) a grasp at straws.

EDIT: many times for the making of the gooder read-ness