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.

Gwar! wrote:

Formosa wrote:wait in that link you gave it has the FAQ, that clearly states the banchees win.

-sigh-

DISCLAIMER TO THE MODS: Yes, I know what Y.M.D.C has to say about F.A.Qs, but I am now going to answer with my own opinion. Please don't ban me for this again.

The GW FAQ, quite simply, ignores the rules. The GW FAQs tend to do that a lot. Luckily, by GW's own admission, they are nothing but House Rules, so, in my own and several other peoples view, completely worthless.

I find that the game is significantly improved if you just ignore the FAQ part and stick to using the errata. That way you don't get idiotic things like "Omfg this paper thin bit of vehicle hull can protect me from t3h wrath of the Mive Hind" and other moronic things that ignore the clear rules as written.

So, ok, fine. If you want to play by the FAQs, the Banshees win. If you want to play by the actual rules, the Lash Whips win.

There, everyone is happy now.

Lololz

I really would have loved to have a council of Gwar's during the King James retranslation of the bible.

"NONE OF THIS IS RAW HYBUAFBGUFEBAUKFBVFU"

The strict regiment of needless around-the-bushing is excellent. Yet more paranoid than it is helpful.

But Gwar I'm going to be more edgy than you and say that unless the book's author is verbatim telling me the rules while standing next to me and he has two forms of id that it doesn't count.

Gwar! wrote:Care to back up your claims now? Or are you going to just argue with a strawman?

The only claim I made is that GW owns the IP. Is that the claim you are disputing? While GW says they are house rules, they are widely accepted house rules.

Regardless of your opinion, these boards include GW FAQ (house rules) as RAW. If you can't wrap your head around that fact, perhaps you should make a blog where you can tell people how to play. Then people wouldn't bother you with all this GW FAQ stuff.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Care to back up your claims now? Or are you going to just argue with a strawman?

The only claim I made is that GW owns the IP. Is that the claim you are disputing? While GW says they are house rules, they are widely accepted house rules.

Regardless of your opinion, these boards include GW FAQ (house rules) as RAW. If you can't wrap your head around that fact, perhaps you should make a blog where you can tell people how to play. Then people wouldn't bother you with all this GW FAQ stuff.

No they don't.

You might want to read the rules again:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

Nowhere does it say GW FAQ = RaW.

And you were claiming that I claimed that the the authors don't endorse the the FAQs.

No, the topic is over there . . .



I thought it was silly, but it makes some sense thinking of the Lashwhips as more combat wide and the masks as first round only. Making the masks more specific.

/shrug

Dracos wrote:Regardless of your opinion, these boards include GW FAQ (house rules) as RAW. If you can't wrap your head around that fact, [blah, blah, internet posturing]

Accepting the frequently asked question clarification and errata as official and having them be the same as the rulebook/codices are two different things. Yes the FAQ's are official, but when GW themselves says the errata are "hard" rules changes and the FAQ are "soft" clarifications to frequently questioned rules then I think we should all look closely at any blatant contradictions or changes made to the existing rules as they are written in the rulebook/codices with a bit of incredulity. Especially since these changes when placed within the confines of an FAQ are supposed to be house rules, or suggestions by GW as to how they would play it.

Now does anyone in this thread have an argument for banshee masks beating lash whips (that doesn't involve the FAQ as gospel)? I want to hear the reasoning for the other side.

Sure they are different, but they are both RAW. Certainly FAQ is different than the actual text of the Rulebook, but they are both rules and are written. I'm not sure how you can argue that they are not RAW, after you acknowledge them to be official.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:I thought it was silly, but it makes some sense thinking of the Lashwhips as more combat wide and the masks as first round only. Making the masks more specific.

This is the salient point (when ignoring the GW FAQ). Masks are more specific in when they apply, so the specific > general tells you to apply the mask's rule.

Because they are HOUSErules as written, as opposed to Official RAW.

They even state so much.

Soulx wrote:I disagree with you. I think it would be the banshees. The banshee mask inflicts damage to the nervous system of the enemy, so the banshees aren't initiative 10 but the enemys reaction to it is so slow it's equivalent to them being initiative 10.

But if that were so then the rules should say that the enemy is I1 and not the Banshee's I10?

When I bought my black reach set it did not come with a copy of the FAQ's. Also when I bought my first codex (and all subsequent codices) they did not come with any FAQ. These were rules as written. GW decided that they needed to fix some poorly written or non functinal rules while at the same time answering frequently asked questions. These (as their house rules) would definatly seem more like the rules as intended by GW...with some clarifications.


Back to the OP. I am not disputing that the banshee mask makes the banshees I 10. I simply believe that their initiative (at 10) is still affected by lash whips. If the masks raised initiative by 5 (4 for exarchs) then I would at least concede per the rules and even the FAQ that the banshees would at least get their bonus. It is not however a bonus nor is it a question of "counts as". It simply "is" and the lash whips change what initiative you strike at regardless of what your initiative "is".

Your codex didn't come with the errata either, is not that RAW either just because it didn't come with the original copy?

A official house rule is still RAW, if you are agreeing to use the official house rule.

I think acronyms are being slung about and it's confusing the issue at hand.

Allow me to offer my own (admittedly subjective) input.

I personally am unable to take the FAQs seriously because most of the time, they either 1) contradict the rules as they're printed in the rulebook and errata, or 2) don't bother to address most pressing issues that crop up in the rules.

I personally find it easier to ignore the FAQs altogether and just come up with my own house rule (with the consent of all involved, of course) regarding how to play a situation that is not covered in the rules (like two ballistic skill characteristics conflicting, or being unable to come in from reserve).

However, in a tournament setting, in my experience, most TOs tend to treat GW's FAQs as hard material, and of course that's entirely up to the individual TO, so they're worth knowing.

I WILL say that I have found Gwar!'s FAQs to be much clearer and more thorough than GW's. I use them when I can.

But that's just how I play it.

I would say that Banshee's "actual" intiiative is what is listed on their profile versus what is created in the first round of combat as a result of masks. Kind of along the lines that a daemon weapon can temporarily raise attacks over 10, but that is not the actual attaks so it is alright.

So while lash whips knock Banshee's actual initiative of 4(?), to 1, the mask raises it up to 10 for the first round of combat.

I think acronyms are being slung about and it's confusing the issue at hand.

Allow me to offer my own (admittedly subjective) input.

I personally am unable to take the FAQs seriously because most of the time, they either 1) contradict the rules as they're printed in the rulebook and errata, or 2) don't bother to address most pressing issues that crop up in the rules.

I personally find it easier to ignore the FAQs altogether and just come up with my own house rule (with the consent of all involved, of course) regarding how to play a situation that is not covered in the rules (like two ballistic skill characteristics conflicting, or being unable to come in from reserve).

However, in a tournament setting, in my experience, most TOs tend to treat GW's FAQs as hard material, and of course that's entirely up to the individual TO, so they're worth knowing.

I WILL say that I have found Gwar!'s FAQs to be much clearer and more thorough than GW's. I use them when I can.

But that's just how I play it.

So you sit around with your gaming group and go through all of the inconsistencies, poorly worded rules, and blunders of GW....oh my

The FAQ's are easier for everyone IMO. There is no need to debate all the minute inconsistencies. Just use the FAQ's. I've said before that I'll take something that actually came from the company creating the game over some guy on the internet's opinion any day.

JGrand wrote:[So you sit around with your gaming group and go through all of the inconsistencies, poorly worded rules, and blunders of GW....

We do that rather often when not gaming. (And sometimes when we are, actually, but we try to avoid debates)

/shrug

LordWaffles wrote:
I really would have loved to have a council of Gwar's during the King James retranslation of the bible.

"NONE OF THIS IS RAW HYBUAFBGUFEBAUKFBVFU"

The strict regiment of needless around-the-bushing is excellent. Yet more paranoid than it is helpful.

This made my morning, afternoon, and will probably make my evening too as I will recall this thread many more times today...

At any rate, I'm not very privy to the FAQ's either, but having just read the ones that were posted in relation to the Banshee Masks and Lash Whip, I would be more inclined to side with the FAQ, and say that the Banshees get their I10 against the Swarm Lord.

But then again, that's just my opinion...

JGrand wrote:So you sit around with your gaming group and go through all of the inconsistencies, poorly worded rules, and blunders of GW....oh my

The FAQ's are easier for everyone IMO. There is no need to debate all the minute inconsistencies. Just use the FAQ's. I've said before that I'll take something that actually came from the company creating the game over some guy on the internet's opinion any day.

1) Yes, we do. It's one of the things we do for fun when we're not actually playing.

2) No, they're not, because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of contradictions in the rules that aren't covered by the FAQs. How helpful are the FAQs when you're suddenly in a situation where you fire a HK missile with BS2 PotMS, when HK missiles always fire at BS4? That's not covered in the rules OR the FAQs. Now what? You have to house rule it. The FAQs are rarely, if ever, even remotely helpful.

EDIT: @: Gwar: Fact of the matter still stands you're trying to argue against a ruling made by the people who produces the game (i.e: the creators, license holders, etc...). And you also directly implied they do not understand the rules of the game as well as you do (again, they are the creators. you are?).

Back on topic: as for the actual ruling. Lashwhips say that the Initiative Value counts as 1, meaning it modifies the actual Initiative Profile of the model to 1. Banshee Masks, however, just says Initiative (much like the Power Fist). It's a modifier you apply to the model's current initiative value, hence it would be applied after Lashwhip. This supports the ruling of the FAQs.

And for the record, this came up with a game I had with my friends. Didnt do squat anyways since the Banshees were too weak to inflict any wounds at all.

SaintHazard wrote:

JGrand wrote:So you sit around with your gaming group and go through all of the inconsistencies, poorly worded rules, and blunders of GW....oh my

The FAQ's are easier for everyone IMO. There is no need to debate all the minute inconsistencies. Just use the FAQ's. I've said before that I'll take something that actually came from the company creating the game over some guy on the internet's opinion any day.

1) Yes, we do. It's one of the things we do for fun when we're not actually playing.

2) No, they're not, because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of contradictions in the rules that aren't covered by the FAQs. How helpful are the FAQs when you're suddenly in a situation where you fire a HK missile with BS2 PotMS, when HK missiles always fire at BS4? That's not covered in the rules OR the FAQs. Now what? You have to house rule it. The FAQs are rarely, if ever, even remotely helpful.

Wait now, why do you need to House Rule BS2 PotMS HK missiles?

Brother Ramses wrote:Wait now, why do you need to House Rule BS2 PotMS HK missiles?

Because they're not BS2 PotMS HK missiles. They're missiles that 1) must be fired at BS2 and 2) must be fired at BS4.

That's the conflict.

There's another thread somewhere around here about exactly this issue.

Here it is.

I think that is the crux of the debate. Does the banshee mask apply a modifier? The FAQ makes a case for lash whips applying before modifiers. However the banshees don't get a modifier according to the mask rules, there initiative simply is 10 on the first round of combat.

SaintHazard wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Wait now, why do you need to House Rule BS2 PotMS HK missiles?

Because they're not BS2 PotMS HK missiles. They're missiles that 1) must be fired at BS2 and 2) must be fired at BS4.

That's the conflict.

There's another thread somewhere around here about exactly this issue.

Here it is.

All I am getting out of this is that you either play DA and BT and just don't like the RULES you have for PotMS. That isn't an ambiguity in the rules warranting a house rule to clear it up, that is just ypu not being happy with the RAW as written for you codex. I am going to check out the other thread, but if this is your "proof" it is not very good at all.

So after reading the thread, I still don't see the problem. The HK missile has a BS of 4. When it fires itself, it is fired at BS 4. However, the PotMS entry specifies that "it" can operate one weapon. It has a BS of 2. So when the HK missile fires itself, it fires at BS 4. When the PotMS operates the HK missile, it is at BS 2.

Brother Ramses wrote:All I am getting out of this is that you either play DA and BT and just don't like the RULES you have for PotMS. That isn't an ambiguity in the rules warranting a house rule to clear it up, that is just ypu not being happy with the RAW as written for you codex. I am going to check out the other thread, but if this is your "proof" it is not very good at all.

I don't play either, and it's not a matter of not being happy with the RAW, it's a matter of the RAW contradicting itself. In the BT codex, PotMS always shoots at BS2, and HK missiles always shoot at BS4, and nothing tells you which stat wins.

But this is all stated in that thread, which is where you should be discussing this. Not here.

Also it's not "proof" of any kind. It's an example of a contradiction in the rules not covered by any FAQ. I had two of them, if you recall.

I remember we had this discussion before (where I used the pdf BA codex where marines couldn't get out of rhinos), but it just goes back to the rules not being written with rules as written in mind.

I've never understood this fascination for RaW...The ruleset is too weak to support it, and the game designers themselves have said they don't write the ruleset with that in mind.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?pageMode=multi&categoryId=cat440343a&pIndex=3&aId=5000004&start=4

"But to make this work we assume gamers will play in a friendly way. This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent, and the story you're creating."

I think that's pretty clear cut...

How can you use Rules as Written as the main interpreting method when the designers themselves say not to?
Of course there are contradictory problems...it's not meant to be written like a law document..with clear priorities and a court of law to interpret law problems.

The general, unified consensus is that the GW FAQ's are official. This general, unified agreement is more useful..because that's how people play it.
Like the way terrain worked in 4th...ironically the word "take a model's eye view" is in the 4th edition codex...people just treated all terrain as Area Terrain.

Your mileage will vary.

If you can't look at the rules as written in the rulebook and codices literally at face value then what exactly is the purpose of YMDC or really any rules debate?

To come up with a general consensus to how to play something contradictory or makes no sense


In other words..the point is the need to house rule things that need interpretation. There are plenty of things that rules as written don't explain..so it then becomes necessary to house rule it.
Of course, if you're making house rules, you are breaking rules as written. So instead of RaW, it's more like RaI by the vast majority of people, or RaI by the tourney organizer. Regardless of what people think of the matter, that's how the game is played...because you can't really do otherwise. People inadvertently house rule this way anyways without realizing it.

1) Yes, we do. It's one of the things we do for fun when we're not actually playing.

2) No, they're not, because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of contradictions in the rules that aren't covered by the FAQs. How helpful are the FAQs when you're suddenly in a situation where you fire a HK missile with BS2 PotMS, when HK missiles always fire at BS4? That's not covered in the rules OR the FAQs. Now what? You have to house rule it. The FAQs are rarely, if ever, even remotely helpful.

I don't mind kicking around some rules, but I do know that agreeing to use the FAQ's has saved lots of time. To each their own. It is difficult for me to get in more than one day a week to hammer and when I do I'd rather be playing than debating loose definitions of words.

Sure, there are plenty of things that come up. There are plenty of things to house rule. I usually choose to deal with them as they arise. In that situation the easy answer is don't do it. I find that if there is something that seems a bit over the top or is an oversight you can easily agree to not do it and move on if there isn't a clear conclusion.

zeshin wrote:If you can't look at the rules as written in the rulebook and codices literally at face value then what exactly is the purpose of YMDC or really any rules debate?

Because most of the posts I've seen here are people asking for clarification of an uncertain rule and want to know generally the most accepted way to play it. Sometimes there's no clear answer and then the correct reply is: "You have to house rule it". Sometimes the answer is RAW, in which case there's not much point discussing against RAW point of view, because if the person posting the question went for RAI, he'd certainly use his own interpretation, not someone elses. And sometimes the answer is in the FAQ, which is "official house rule". And I think most people(myself, for instance) consider FAQ ruling quite satisfying to play by. It's not really fair to try and claim you know the rules better than GW, because, well, maybe you do, but I'd still rather play by their interpretation of their rules, than your strict reading of their rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, but SaintHazard pretty much nailed my gripe with GW FAQ as well...things that are really game-changing or sometimes even breaking for some factions usually are left in the dark by the FAQ. For instance, I'd really love to see what GW have to say about some of the Necron problems I've come across when playing with my friend. All I have to go by though is either my own interpretation or someone else's RAW interpretation. And sometimes it's a really hard pick between the two.

Gwar! wrote:[No they don't.

You might want to read the rules again:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

Nowhere does it say GW FAQ = RaW.

Regardless of how you personally choose to interpret that statement, exactly how many times does a mod need to explain to you how it is applied on the forums?

Seriously, Gwar, this isn't an argument you are going to win. You've been told how the forums work. You've been told why we do it the way we do. Nitpicking over the wording of the forum rules isn't going to change that.

And you were claiming that I claimed that the the authors don't endorse the the FAQs.

You have yet to show that they don't. Listing them as studio house rules doesn't mean the studio hasn't endorsed them... if they're the house rules that the studio is using, the studio presumably must be aware of them...

I am not claiming that the authors don't endorse the FAQs, that was just a strawman thrown at me...

Gwar! wrote:My issue is when the FAQ ignores clear RaW which should be corrected with an errata or by GW making FAQs into hard rules changes like errata.

Add to that the fact that I have absolutely no faith that the FAQs are RaI anymore, since they aren't written by the Authors, means I put zero trust in them, which I make explicitly clear in my posts (even though I don't need to according to the rules of the forum) that this is the case.

This statement here is what I was basing my statement from.

What does it matter whether the author themselves writes the FAQ? The author is answerable to someone else within GW. GW issues the FAQ, therefore both are products of GW. Placing some arbitrary limitation on having the actual author give his stamp of approval is giving the author much more power over the rules than he has. These rules are GW's, not each individual author's.