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.

Mannahnin wrote:Except that what one person considers RAW is frequently in fact a matter of opinion and interpretation, less cut & dried than they imply.

I agree, in SOME cases it can be.

This is not one of those cases, not by a long shot.

While I agree that the terms are not literally synonymous, there is evidence (particularly the rules for other units like the Big Mek) to indicate that GW may have intended it to be, and that it's more sloppy writing.

Mannahnin wrote:While I agree that the terms are not literally synonymous, there is evidence (particularly the rules for other units like the Big Mek) to indicate that GW may have intended it to be, and that it's more sloppy writing.

Aye, but if the Big Mek rule works fine, why change it? GW may be idiots, but they are not THAT idiotic.

Then Again, it was Matt "Deep Striking Land Raiders filled with 2+/3++/4+++ Terminators" Ward...

Never attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity.

Or in the context of GW rules:
Never attribute to intentional-design-as-an-unusual-corner-case what can be adequately explained as total-failure-of-editing-oversight-and-utter-lack-of-technical-writing-standards.

Gwar! wrote:Erm... No. Ignoring an FAQ and using the RaW is not using a house rule.

Post one instance where the FAQ contradicts the rules.

You read the preface, by the publisher, to what the FAQ and errata are. You're even questioning what they wrote there. But they made it pretty clear. It is the the stand-in ruling for tournaments and other anonymous play. If you want to use your own house rules, knock yourself out.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Erm... No. Ignoring an FAQ and using the RaW is not using a house rule.

Post one instance where the FAQ contradicts the rules.

... Seriously?


How about in the SW FAQ (the bits they DIDN'T nick off me) about letting Iron Priests repair the vehicle when inside, when the Rules make it very clear you cannot.

How about in the SW FAQ where they say Arjac can join another Squad, when the Rules make it clear you cannot.

How about the part in the SW FAQ where it says Fenrisian Wolves do not form a Retinue, when AGAIN THE RULES ARE 110% CLEAR.

Playing by the RaW is not playing by a House Rule. It is, in fact, IMPOSSIBLE to use the RaW as a House Rule, because by definition a House Rule is a rule that changes the RaW.

Gwar! wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Erm... No. Ignoring an FAQ and using the RaW is not using a house rule.

Post one instance where the FAQ contradicts the rules.

... Seriously?

How about letting Techmarines repair the vehicle when inside, when the Rules make it very clear you cannot.

Fortunately, the FAQ does not say you can do this.

thebetter1 wrote:Fortunately, the FAQ does not say you can do this.

I thought the whole point of this thread was that the FAQ says you can while the rules say you cannot?

Edit: I see now, it's not the Techmarine, but the Iron Priest. My bad! Edited my post to not be DERPADERP.

Gwar! wrote:
How about in the SW FAQ (the bits they DIDN'T nick off me) about letting Iron Priests repair the vehicle when inside, when the Rules make it very clear you cannot.

Ah, good. Was looking for someone to post this. Then this is the rule. It doesn't contradict anything. It says base contact and gives the specific conditions where that isn't true. Now, you're making the leap that one unit is inside another, it's not in base contact. Like it takes off its base and leaves it outside. Or doesn't have a base. Or enters the warp. Or whatever. But this obviously confused people, including here. So they clarified. That is now the tournament rule from the publisher barring any house rules. Very clear. They thought it was clear that being in contact means, but obviously some people took it more literally than others, so they posted a FAQ.

How about in the SW FAQ where they say Arjac can join another Squad, when the Rules make it clear you cannot.

It states that a member of the pack can be upgraded to Arjac. And that each pack member can be attached to another squad using the Pack Leader rule on page 86, "before the battle." The only exception I see is he couldn't go to a Scout Squad because he has terminator armor.

How about the part in the SW FAQ where it says Fenrisian Wolves do not form a Retinue, when AGAIN THE RULES ARE 110% CLEAR.

It's so not 110% clear. It was also a tricky one, but I think right. The Retinue rule states that you can field a character together with a special unit "they cannot leave." Fenrisian wolves have a rule called Loyal Companions that state a) they can be chosen as wargear, which is certainly not a unit b) if so, it is THEY who must stay within 2" of their master. Contrast this with Chapter Master Pedro Kantor in SM Codex where he can take an Honor Guard. If you read the description of Honor Guard p. 53 it says "the Honor Guard commonly act as the Chapter Master's retinue..." Further, 2 Fenrisian wolves are not even a unit, as they are too small in number to be a true FW squad, which has a minimum of 5. They are fluffy wargear, I mean they got names, like swords or guns or armor. But still damn useful.

All of which is getting a little off-track.

If you want to discuss (yet again) the legitimacy of the GW faq's, start a separate thread.

While you're welcome to play however you like, since most players do accept the GW FAQ's as the 'right' way to play the game, they are considered as valid rules for the purposes of rules discussion, as per the Tenets of YMDC. (See the sticky at the top of the forum if you're unsure what that's about)

So, since this has been answered, and subsequently wandered off into off topic territory, I think we're done here.