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.

I think the TO needs to get some thicker skin and not worry about random haters from the internet. You made a call, turned out to be incorrect after lengthy discussion, not a big deal at all. The fact that you are stepping up and making these calls to avoid confusion is a good thing. Being open-minded to possibly being incorrect is also a good thing.

Lets leave it now eh? Its all been said and done, give it a rest.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It is not a PSA. Show him the definition of a PSA in the BRB FAQ, and show that Lash does not fit this defintion.

You cannot roll to hit when it isnt a PSA to begin with.

Well, may I just say, screw you guys into the ground, FAQ is out and yes, yes you do have to roll to hit.

Screw you, and for shame good sir/madame.

So, your response to GW changing the rules to make Lash roll to hit for the first time since 2007 is to insult someone?

Mature.

No need for language like this, please endeavour to be a bit more mature when dealing with forum members.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, your response to GW changing the rules to make Lash roll to hit for the first time since 2007 is to insult someone?

Mature.

How did they change the rules by putting it in the faq? "frequently asked questions and errata" doesn't mean "we changed the rule so heres the new one!" and i doubt its the first time someones decided to roll to hit with lash.

Because according to their own rules Lash is NOT a PSA

Seriously, read the rest of the thread to udnerstand that point, and then note that the first answer is a CLEAR change to the BRB FAQ definition of what is, and isnt, a PSA

Well, i have read it, twice. Once when it first came up. And once just now. Put simply, your saying they've made it a new rule. Im asking "how?" I didn't ask for a bit of abuse over the internet

Lash is not a PSA, according to the BRB FAQ definition of a PSA

1) It does not say it is a PSA.
2) It does not have a weapon stat line - no S, AP, Shots etc.

So, it isnt a PSA according to the BRB FAQ

You then read the Chaos FAQ, and the first answer is that it IS a PSA - without any justification for it, not according to the rules

By definition this is a change to the rules.

Right...

Well chaos marine codex was released in 4th? So how do you expect GW to tell the future? They dont have there own psykers you do realise. Take it like computer software, they can have an understanding of newer released hardware but they cant tell what it is and need an update.
This is that.

CHaos HAD a 5th edition FAQ prior to this, where this question was not included.

The BRB FAQ update which defined PSAs was added late last year, 3 years after they released the rules.

Also - nothing you said actually has any bearing on the fact that the FAQ DID change the BRB rules - Lash went from not being a PSA to being a PSA. If you cannot work out that that is a change in rules, then not quite sure how to explain it any simpler.

nosferatu1001 wrote:CHaos HAD a 5th edition FAQ prior to this, where this question was not included.

I guess it was frequently asked enough then

And to be honest, i still dont see how its changing a rule that was designed for something else

Yarrick The Necron wrote:Right...

Well chaos marine codex was released in 4th? So how do you expect GW to tell the future? They dont have there own psykers you do realise. Take it like computer software, they can have an understanding of newer released hardware but they cant tell what it is and need an update.
This is that.

How is that analogy even close to justification that Lash is PSA? Because first you say that they didn't change it and now suddenly you justify GW that they changed it. Make up your mind.
There was nothing at all (in RULES; no fluff, no RAI please) indicating that Lash of Submission is Psychic Shooting Attack before this year. Yes, software has to be updated - changed. Rules for LoS have been changed in CSM FAQ.
And for the record GW FAQs are indeed sometimes "we changed the rule so heres the new one!". How else would you explain sudden changes from "No" to "Yes" in the FAQs?

Yarrick The Necron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:CHaos HAD a 5th edition FAQ prior to this, where this question was not included.

I guess it was frequently asked enough then

And to be honest, i still dont see how its changing a rule that was designed for something else

1) They literally changed the rules in the tyranid FAQ. SitW affecting units inside vehicles from "no" to "yes"

So, your premise, that FAQs dont change rules, is 100% wrong.

2) Yes, it was frequently asked, and they changed the rules for NO reason to make Lash roll to hit for the first time since it was thought up. NO reason for that

So of course no one has considered that they are either writing the new chaos codex no, or even it is already finished, and in THAT codex, its going to be a PSA. Therefore, they are getting everyone used to the idea.

Surely I cant be the only one to come up with this rationale right?

Possible, but irrelevant

They changed the rules in a FAQ, again. End of.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

They changed the rules in a FAQ, again. End of.

Indeed.