PAGK and *their* True Grit and Staken...

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.

**kirsanth**

FlingitNow wrote:
Should we quote the GW website that says that their FAQs are "studio house rules" that deal with "gray areas?"

Should I quote TMIR... So all the rules are essentially house rules...

The FAQs are prefaced with an explanation that they are, in fact, house rules.
TMIR, says that if you agree with your opponent, you can play with house rules.

Not sure where you were going with that, but. . . yea.

Grey areas in the rules are when to reference FAQs.
Errata on the other hand, different beast.

**FlingitNow**

The FAQs are prefaced with an explanation that they are, in fact, house rules.
TMIR, says that if you agree with your opponent, you can play with house rules.

All rules are what you and your opponent agree to play with...

**bhsman**

And FAQs are considered the rules for the purposes of most tournaments, stores, and in particular official GW stores, so trying to answer questions pertaining to the FAQ with trying to justify that the FAQ is invalid or that FAQs "don't really count" doesn't really help the OP.

At this point someone should just make a catch-all SW FAQ thread.

**willydstyle**

RAW= Rules As Written.

If you read the rules, you are interpreting RAW, plain and simple.

**bhsman**

And, reading the FAQ, it says that Counter Attack and Furious Charge work together. So that's how my store will use it, that's how official GW stores will use it, and that's how most tournaments and players will use it.

Simple as that. If you want to argue whether or not it isn't the right decision, then by all means. But it's silly to try and invalidate it. It is what it is.

**FlingitNow**

If you read the rules, you are interpreting RAW, plain and simple.

RaW means reading the rules and apply the letter of the rule not using commonsense to interpret RaI.

Trying to use RaI or deviating from RaW does not mean you are not reading the rules it means the exact opposite.

**Gwar!**

bhsman wrote:How can a ruling be wrong when it's given by the people who write the actual rules, though?

And as I have pointed out to you multiple times (try reading for once) they don't. A good 80% of their FAQ material was taken from people who don't write the rules.

**bhsman**

That doesn't disqualify it, GW has chosen to make these interpretations their official ones to go to. There isn't some higher authority that they are disagreeing with, they are that authority.

**FlingitNow**

And as I have pointed out to you multiple times (try reading for once) they don't. A good 80% of their FAQ material was taken from people who don't write the rules.

But the FAQs are the rules so they do writre the rules by definition unless you are saying that Alessio should all ALL the FAQs and Codexes etc etc etc just because he wrote the BRB?

**willydstyle**

FlingitNow wrote:
If you read the rules, you are interpreting RAW, plain and simple.

RaW means reading the rules and apply the letter of the rule not using commonsense to interpret RaI.

Trying to use RaI or deviating from RaW does not mean you are not reading the rules it means the exact opposite.

RaW simply means "rules as written." Therefore the rules that are written in the book, when you read them, are RaW. There are many rules that do not need any further interpretation, as they are straightforward, and are not gray areas. The only time you should be using "common sense" (which differs from person to person, and is not really all that common) is if a rule does not function at all. Furious Charge and Counter Attack were not in the realm of non-functioning rules, and while the wording of Counter Attack is slightly muddy, their interaction really was not so.

**Mengwai**

Lets get back on topic here... PAGK and counter attack. I would say that if furious charge works with counter attack then true grit would not sadly.

**FlingitNow**

The only time you should be using "common sense" (which differs from person to person, and is not really all that common) is if a rule does not function at all. Furious Charge and Counter Attack were not in the realm of non-functioning rules, and while the wording of Counter Attack is slightly muddy, their interaction really was not so.

Well it was obviously muddier than you are saying as you clearly interpreted it wrong...

Obviously is required more commonsense than you (or indeed I) had when reading the rule to work out how CA interacts with other assault pecial rules. Hence the clarification in the SW FAQ.

**bhsman**

Mengwai wrote:Lets get back on topic here... PAGK and counter attack. I would say that if furious charge works with counter attack then true grit would not sadly.

I agree; working under the premise that Furious Charge works with Counter-Attack because the unit counts as charging, then they would not receive the benefit of True Grit.

**BeRzErKeR**

So the net result, whichever pair of rules you chose to apply, would be +1 attack for Gray Knights whether charging or receiving the charge, correct?

**bhsman**

You're pretty much just passing a Leadership check to gain Furious Charge at that point, yes.

**wyomingfox**

Gwar! wrote:I would have to say that they do NOT get the attack. "Exactly as if" is pretty clear IMO.

Gwar! wrote:
solkan wrote:If "exactly as if they had assaulted" is enough to trigger Furious Charge, it's enough to trigger the clause in True Grit which prevents GK from getting the extra attack "exactly as if they had assaulted"
it isn't.

Huh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:A good 80% of their FAQ material was taken from people who don't write the rules.

That is not how companies work. Employees who work for a company are agents of the company and therefore the company is liable for thier actions during the course of their work. Since a GW employee publically posted/poached your FAQ, it is therefore, by commercial law, the companies public stance, regardless of who wrote it.

**Gwar!**

wyomingfox wrote:
Gwar! wrote:A good 80% of their FAQ material was taken from people who don't write the rules.

That is not how companies work. Employees who work for a company are agents of the company and therefore the company is liable for thier actions during the course of their work. Since a GW employee publically posted/poached your FAQ, it is therefore, by commercial law, the companies public stance, regardless of who wrote it.

-Slow Clap-

So? I was not talking about some "Commercial Law" version, I was talking about a real world version. It's the companies stance, but the people who wrote the rules did not write it, so to claim that it's the views of the people who wrote the rules is wrong.

**wyomingfox**

Gwar! wrote:
wyomingfox wrote:
Gwar! wrote:A good 80% of their FAQ material was taken from people who don't write the rules.

That is not how companies work. Employees who work for a company are agents of the company and therefore the company is liable for thier actions during the course of their work. Since a GW employee publically posted/poached your FAQ, it is therefore, by commercial law, the companies public stance, regardless of who wrote it.
-Slow Clap-

So? I was not talking about some "Commercial Law" version, I was talking about a real world version. It's the companies stance, but the people who wrote the rules did not write it, so to claim that it's the views of the people who wrote the rules is wrong.

Commercial law is the REAL WORLD version...sorry but your beliefs do not allign themselves with the real business world. As I said, the FAQ is their view as they publically posted them.

**Gwar!**

wyomingfox wrote:Commercial law is the REAL WORLD version...sorry but your beliefs do not allign themselves with the real business world. As I said, the FAQ is their view as they publically posted them.

And as I have said, the Company is not the same as the people who wrote the rules. The Government says Cannabis is Illegal, but an MP might not agree that it should be.

**Steelmage99**

That is just silly, GWAR!.

Whatever is in the FAQs (whoever it is written by) is the stance of GW, therefore the people who write the rules.

Arguing that "it isn't the games developers that write the FAQ, so the FAQ isn't the stance of the rules writers" is stupid.

FAQs are released by GW. GW includes the Games Developers. FAQs are (also, but not solely) released by the Games Developers. QED.

**Gwar!**

No, GW HIRE the game developers. The Game Devs are NOT GW. The Board of Directors are GW, as GW is a Plc.

**wyomingfox**

GW Game Developers are not independant contractors but employees of the company. Employees are considered agents of the company whose actions are dictated by the company and whose work is owned by the company. What ever an employee creates is not attributed to the individual employee but is attributed to the company instead. .

**Gwar!**

wyomingfox wrote:GW Game Developers are not independant contractors but employees of the company. Employees are considered agents of the company whose actions are dictated by the company and whose work is owned by the company. What ever an employee creates is not attributed to the individual employee but is attributed to the company instead. .

So If I work for McDonalds I can say "McDonalds is run by Satan" and thus it is the Position of McDonalds Plc that it is run by Satan?

**insaniak**

I can fairly confidently say that it's the official position of the Dakka Moderation that if people really feel the need to hash out the standing of the GW FAQ's yet again, that they should go find their own thread to do it in and stop de-railing every single YMDC thread over it.

For the purposes of rules discussions on this board, as per the Tenets of YMDC the FAQ's are 'legal' rules documents, issued by the studio.

If you personally don't want to use them, that's fine and dandy. But kindly stop disrupting threads to insist that they should be ignored. We've had that discussion before, and don't need to have it again in every thread.

**willydstyle**

@Insaniak: but in this case it's a FAQ ruling that is potentially interacting with other rules, potentially making them function in ways that they never did before. The whole "who was the FAQ written by" portion of the thread is likely unnecessary, but what was written in the FAQ itself is very important to the current discussion.

**wyomingfox**

Willy,

Insaniak is saying do not discuss the ligitimacy of the GW FAQ. (Thanks BTW)

By all means discuss the implications of the GW FAQ.

**Kingsley**

Gwar! wrote:
bhsman wrote:Going by precedent set in the new SW FAQ, they would benefit from an additional attack from Counterattack (and stat increase from Furious Charge) but not from True Grit.
No, it doesn't. Firstly, the SW FAQ is wrong. Secondly, even if it was right (it isn't) it only applies to Space Wolves, no other Army.

Stop trolling. The SW FAQ is not wrong.

The SW FAQ makes it clear that "Exactly as if" means that it counts exactly the same as if you are actually charging. Counterattacking units count as charging in all regards. So no, you do not get an extra attack, as True Grit does not work on the charge.

**insaniak**

wyomingfox wrote:Insaniak is saying do not discuss the ligitimacy of the GW FAQ. (Thanks BTW)

By all means discuss the implications of the GW FAQ.

Exactly.

**wyomingfox**

Fetterkey wrote:The SW FAQ makes it clear that "Exactly as if" means that it counts exactly the same as if you are actually charging. Counterattacking units count as charging in all regards. So no, you do not get an extra attack, as True Grit does not work on the charge.

That is what I thought at first until I read the FAQ above it:

Q. Does Ragnar Blackmane’s Insane Bravado
work if his unit Counter-attacks?
A. No, Insane Bravado only works when Ragnar
Blackmane assaults.

This FAQ answer implies that a counter-attack is not an assault. At this point, I am interpreting the following FAQ answer:

Q. Picture this: My Grey Hunters unit including
Ragnar Blackmane is assaulted and makes a
successful Leadership test to Counter-attack. Do
they then benefit from his Furious Charge ability
(+1 S and +1 I)? Also, can the original assaulter
then deploy defensive grenades to rob the Space
Wolves of their Counter-attack bonus?
A. The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all
models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to
their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted
that turn.’ Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed
benefit from Furious Charge. Also, we think it is a
bit rich for an assaulting unit to get the bonus for
attacking and defending, so no, defensive
grenades cannot be used to negate the bonus
attack from counter-attacking.

To be limmited in scope in only allowing FC to work with counterattacking and reaffirming that defensive grenades do not work against counter attacks.

**imweasel**

Fetterkey wrote:The SW FAQ makes it clear that "Exactly as if" means that it counts exactly the same as if you are actually charging. Counterattacking units count as charging in all regards. So no, you do not get an extra attack, as True Grit does not work on the charge.

But counter-attack DOES NOT count 'exactly the same as if you are actually charging'.

The SW FAQ contradicts itself several times in that same section. That's not a good thing to have in there if you are trying to make a blanket statement in the interpretation of the rules.

If counter-attack is exactly like charging, then why does the assaulter's defensive grenades not work? Because they say so? Then how does that make counter attack 'exactly like charging'?

If counter-attack is exactly like charging, then why doesn't insane bravado work during counter-attack? Because they say so? The how does that make counter attack 'exactly like charging'?