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.

"The issue results in the fact that this is a FAQ not errata. It cannot, by definition, change wording; it can only clarify. "

Did you read the post I made on this very topic earlier? No?

You are plain WRONG on this. GW have NEVER confined themselves to the errata when changing rules - and if you want a really trivial example of this, the reversal of the SitW ruling via FAQ. You cannot clarify one way and then clarify another without ONE of those ways being a rules change.

WanderingFox wrote:The issue results in the fact that this is a FAQ not errata. It cannot, by definition, change wording; it can only clarify.

I have come to agree with your interpretation of this Imotekh/Chronometron mess. However, I do disagree about your impression of FAQs. The FAQ may not change wording, but they definitely have changed (not clarified, and sometimes refuted) many rules from what is written without an Errata, nor are FAQs written in accordance with any written (or even discernible) definition or code.

Yeah - FAQs can absolutely change rules. Examples: SitW, JotWW, Lash, Blood Lance.

What I mean is they do not change the written text. They use errata for that. Yes they change meaning, but they typically errata to change things like actual changes in phrase.

They change actual rules in those texts as well. To whit SitW, to repeat ad naseum

The roll went from being "you" roll, as in the army's commander rolls [divorced from the model] to the model rolling, as that is the only way that the chronometron is allowed to work

And you still fail to see my point. It did not change the actual phrasing of the power. It simply elaborates on what the power does.

It did not say 'replace the text in x with y'

What I've been trying to say is that it can change the meaning, but not the words themselves. This is important because it makes it implecation instead of if and only if.

Clarifying (in terms of updating meaning) generally does not change the wording of related things.

For example, the cryptek faq is simply elaborating that yes this works in the case of imotekh. It did not, however, change the actual wording of the wargear to read something like "army wide powers that require dice rolls work"

This is important because it means it is only dealing with a specific case, and not blanketly rewording the power.

If there existed another necron hq with a similarly worded power to imotekhs, you would not be able to reroll it despite the faq saying you can for imotekh as it only does so for imotekh.

This also means you can't draw implecations for things the faq does not cover. If it used errata and actually said 'replace x text with y' there is a chance that replacing the text would cause a different interpretation.

Faqs only clarify (read: elaborate on the meaning or function of) things, errata is what they use to actually change the wording.

Its like saying if you behave ill give you icecream.

This means if you behave I MUST give you icecream, but if you don't behave I have no obligation not to. I could be feeling nice and give you ice cream anyway, but that would not invalidate the original statement as it only covers what to do if the condition is true.

Basic propositional logic.

In this case, the condition is imotekh in a unit with a chronometron, and the icecream is the ability to reroll. The faq entry makes no claims as to what happens when he's not in the unit, and therefore none of the orignal wording of his power changes.

No, this FAQ changed the rule.

That isnt clarifying, but that IS what GW quite regularly do

Night Fighting works if Imotekh is in reserve, because the only qualifier for it doing so is having him be part of your army.

So youre using the special rules of a character who is not "in play", without allowance in the rules to do so?

Immotekhs power as well as the crypteks read EXACTLY as they did before the faq... ALL the faq did was clarify the specific situation in which immotekh is in a unit with a chronometron. It does NOTHING else to the rules.

Also worth pointing out you've failed to provide any logical argument to back up your point. You've only made a blanket assumption.

WanderingFox speaks the sweet, sweet truth.

WanderingFox wrote:Immotekhs power as well as the crypteks read EXACTLY as they did before the faq... ALL the faq did was clarify the specific situation in which immotekh is in a unit with a chronometron. It does NOTHING else to the rules.

Also worth pointing out you've failed to provide any logical argument to back up your point. You've only made a blanket assumption.

And, again - no, they changed the rules. I havent made ANY assumption here - I have stated exactly what occured, and showed that your assumption that a FAQ merely "clarifies" was, frankly, rubbish. FAQs change rules ALL the time - here, for example. SitW. Lash. Jaws. etc. YOU have yet to respond in any vaguely logical sense, just repeatedly parroting "clarify! clarify!" as if repetition will alter a basic fact

Prior to the FAQ you could not use the Chronometron, because Imotekh did not "roll" the dice - it was an army power gained through having Imotekh

Now it is a part army, part specific to Imotekh power, so while off the board anything where he is required to "roll" cannot be used, as you have no allowance to do so. So while in reserve - you cannot roll.

MR - yawn, your "contribution" is as valuable as ever

No, you failed to understand what I meant.

You are assuming that stating that the chronometron works on immotekhs power changes the function of his power. It doesn't, it elaborates on what the chronometron does.

That said, if you are making no assumptions, I would like you to cite EXACTLY where in that faq it says that immotekhs power changes.

Also, since you are so hellbent on proving me wrong, show me a faq entry (ie something not listed under errata) that ACTUALLY changes the phrasing of a power. By that I mean it physically says to replace words in the power with other words. I do not simply mean that it changes the understanding of the power since faqs certainly can do this, but actually change the raw of the power.

Also, if you refuse to back up your claim your in violation of ymdc...

Your entire argument is based on the idea that because you can reroll his power, the roll now requires imotekh to be on the board. The faq does not say this. The faq does not say anything about imotekhs power other than that you may reroll it if hes in a unit with a chrono.

That is an explicit exception in regards to the chronometron. It does not change the understanding of his power. It changes the understanding of the chronometron. I also point out the fact that that perticular entry is no where near the rest of the faq entries that deal with imotekh.

With that said, your free to believe as you want. I've given my interpretation, and I've defended it, so im done here.

Edit, also please explain how it functions if imotekh is in reserve until say turn4. Keep in mind that subsiquent means following, so im curious how he can continue night fight if he's in reserve.

It changes the understanding of his power, NOT the chronometron. As this is the most narrow reading of it

If it changes the way the chrono works then you are saying, logically, that the dice roll for random game length can be rerolled by the chrono - as that is an equally "army" roll.

SitW. Changed from not working inside a vehicle to working inside a vehicle. Explicit change int eh rules as written - because either they messed up the first time, and the rules never said that, or they messed up with the second faq. You just seem to have a different idea of "clarify" to everyone else.

I have repeatedly backed up my argument. I have explained whey yours is wrong. Find PERMISSION to use someones special rules while off the table

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, this FAQ changed the rule.

No it didn't. To claim that it changed the rule would be to assume that you were correct prior to the FAQ, which you were not. The rule never changed. Prior to the FAQ there were two conflicting interpretations of the rule, and yours was the incorrect one all along.

GW released a FAQ that proved you to be incorrect, but nothing actually changed.



EDIT:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find PERMISSION to use someones special rules while off the table

However, this part you do have correct. Imotek's power to roll anything doesn't work when he's off the table. The first turn of NF, however does.

I was correct in terms of the RAW. The FAQ changed the rules. I proved this at the time, and you dissented.

Same as SitW. Same as Jaws. Same as Lash. To assume incorrectly that FAQs dont change rules is a suspect position to hold in the face of all the evidence against it.

I can't even begin to fathom how blindsighted you are... Are you even reading what I'm writing?

There is a difference between changing the MEANING of the wording of something (which faqs most certainly do and I have never disputed this), and them actually changing the wording of a power.

Also, once again, please show me where in that faq entry it says that Immotekh's power changes. All I see is the chronometron being clarified to work with it.

Finally, you dodge my request for a proof yet again.

Show me, with rules backing, exactly how Imotkeh's power functions without contradicting itself if he is kept in reserve until t4.

WanderingFox wrote:I can't even begin to fathom how blindsighted you are... Are you even reading what I'm writing?

First, simmer down.

There is a difference between changing the MEANING of the wording of something (which faqs most certainly do and I have never disputed this), and them actually changing the wording of a power.

Also, once again, please show me where in that faq entry it says that Immotekh's power changes. All I see is the chronometron being clarified to work with it.

You're talking past each other. It is entirely possible to change a rule by changing the meaning of words, without adding or replacing words in a description.

Show me, with rules backing, exactly how Imotkeh's power functions without contradicting itself if he is kept in reserve until t4.

It doesn't. That's the problem.

P1: Models not on the table do not ordinarily impact the battle. See, e.g., this:

Main Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability that
occurs at the start of a turn can they use that ability on
the turn they arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

P2: A chrono can only be used to reroll rolls of a model in the same unit (per the wargear).
P3: A chrono can be used to reroll the Nightfight effect (per the Necron FAQ).

C1: If the chrono can be used to reroll the Nightfight effect, the Nightfight effect must be a roll being made by the Stormlord. (from P2 & P3)
C2: If the roll is being made by the Stormlord, he cannot choose to make such rolls when he is not on the table. (from C1 & P1)

Previously, we didn't have P3, so P2 didn't matter, and we didn't have to reach C1 or C2; instead, it looked like an army-wide effect, caused by simple inclusion of the Stormlord in the list. But because of P2 & P3, C1 is inevitable, and C2 follows.

As above.

Janthkin, as ever, is far better at summing up than I am.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was correct in terms of the RAW. The FAQ changed the rules. I proved this at the time, and you dissented.

You were no more correct in terms of RAW as my dissenting opinion. History proved me right and you wrong. Get over yourself.

You called heads and I called tails. The coin didn't change.


Here's my take on it, as it was in December and as it is now:

1. Nightfighting on turn 1 is an army-wide special rule that only requires Imotekh to be in your list.
2. Rolling to continue Night Fighting is Imotekh's ability. It can be re-rolled, and only works when he is on the table as per the BGB.
3. Lightning is Imotekh's ability. it can be re-rolled, and only works when he is on the table as per the BGB.

azazel the cat wrote:2. Rolling to continue Night Fighting is Imotekh's ability. It can be re-rolled, and only works when he is on the table as per the BGB.
3. Lightning is Imotekh's ability. it can be re-rolled, and only works when he is on the table as per the BGB.

In that case, if Imotekh is in Reserve, no Lightning Strikes on turn 1, and Night Fight auto-ends on Turn 2 (as he's not around to roll to extend it).

That is correct: no lightning if he's in reserve; and if he cannot get to the field prior to the start of Turn 2, then he will not arrive in time to attempt his roll.

EDIT: but since the lightning strikes happen during the shooting phase, Imotekh can activate them on the first turn if he gets to the field prior to the start of the shooting phase, such as if he enters the field from reserve through the Monolith's portal during the movement phase (but still after deployment). Of course, this is assuming there is some way to enable him to enter from reserves on Turn 1. However, that element in ancillary.

@Janthkin:

Firstly, I would like to point out that one of the tenants of this forum is to prove, with backing, any argument given (in fact this is the first tenant). If you read this thread Nos fails to do that. He in fact, fails to do so in almost every thread he posts in. To be precise, you are the first person to post any backed evidence to contradict my post in this thread.

It's hard to remain objective when the only counter-argument he provides is the phrase "you're wrong" in various flavors.

You've also failed to understand the concept I'm trying to explain. There is a very big difference between a statement that implies something based on a condition (as in the FAQ entry in question), and something that actually rewords how something is written. Not once in this thread do I claim that a FAQ cannot change the meaning or interpretation of the rules. That is simply a clarification. In order for them to change the text 'as written' they post it in the section under errata.

In the case of the former, it provides an explicit exception to the established rules. It makes no statement on anything else. I will repeat the ice cream example here as that is the simplest way I can make my point:

If someone says a child gets ice cream if he behaves, they make an implication that the child MUST get ice cream if he behaves. They do not, however, also state that the child will not get ice cream if they do not behave. That is merely assumed (in our example, this assumption is not valid given that 40k is a permissive ruleset). The statement makes no claims as to what happens outside of the given condition and result. This is logical implies. In other words, the statement is only invalid when the condition is met but the end result isn't. In all other cases (including when the condition is not met, but the end result is), the statement is valid. Of course, by valid I mean the logical interpretation, that is to say "this statement was not contradicted"

What does this have to do with the FAQ? It means that it is only providing an exception for a specific situation, following it backwards to imply something else is a logical fallacy.

For example, I tell you "If I have a flush, all my cards are red." then any flush I play must be all red in order to not invalidate that statement. It does not mean that if I play a hand of red cads that it must be a flush.

This is exactly what is being claimed. By the argument proposed, due to the fact that a cryptek can reroll the power, you make the assumption that the power is tied to Imotekh's model. This is not the case, the only thing that the FAQ tells you is that you may, explicitly, reroll the power if Imotekh is joined to a unit containing a cryptek with a chronometron.

Secondly, the FAQ entry you quote is invalidated by the wording of Imotekh. Specifically, it tells you that you may use his power so long as the army contains Imotekh. This is not a unit power, but an army power. As far as I know this was the common reading of his power before the FAQ entry. If that is not the case, I'll stand corrected.

That said, nothing in the FAQ entry changes how Imotekh's power itself functions. It is not listed with the rest of Imotekh's FAQ entries, nor is it listed in the errata section of the codex specifically changing Imotekh's wording. In fact, it is listed with all the other cryptek faqs.

In that sense, I ask you how it changed something that is completely unrelated to the question asked (the assumption that imotekh's power is a unit power) when the faq covers something very specific (may I reroll this die under these specific circumstances)?

This is equivalent to me saying "If you wear red on tuesday, I will give you $100" and then you claiming because you wore red on friday that I owe you money. You cannot use a specific example to make a statement about a more general case unless that statement either a: explicitly deals in the general case (the faq entry does not), or b: explicitly changes the wording of the general case (the faq entry does not do this either).


That said, I've seen far too much of this kind of thing lately. Half the posts in YMDC devolve into a "you're wrong, no you're wrong" fight instead of anyone being objective. In fact, the people actually posting quoted evidence (and thus the only ones following the rules of the board) are often attacked rather regularly by the people simply asserting that their view of the situation is correct.

In that light, as my final comment (as I will not be returning to these boards), is that perhaps you should look into more heavily enforcing the rules you claim to moderate.

:He in fact, fails to do so in almost every thread he posts in:

This is a lie. Retract it.

You are ignored until you do so, as you have proven your inability to understand arguments.

WanderingFox wrote:In that light, as my final comment (as I will not be returning to these boards), is that perhaps you should look into more heavily enforcing the rules you claim to moderate.

Given this, I see no point in responding to your post. Too bad - there was room for discussion there.

azazel the cat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely so.

Previously it was VERY clearly army wide - now they seem to have said it is based on the model.

No, it wasn't. I believe I pointed this out to you very succinctly at the time, as well. here, let me fix that for you:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Previously it was VERY clearly army wide I insisted upon comparing it to actual army-wide rules for no apparent reason other than the fact that I assumed everything in 40k was a variation of Combat Tactics - now they seem to have said it is based on the model.

Is it night-fighting first turn? Yes. This is an effect of having Imotekh in your army. This first-turn element is the only army-wide element to the Lord of the Storm ability. The rest belongs to Imotekh alone.
Can Imotekh re-roll night fighting? yes. This is Imotekh's ability to activate at his discretion.
Can Imotekh do this from reserve? No. Characters cannot use activated abilities while in reserve.
Can Imotekh re-roll for night-fighting when he's dead? No. Characters cannot use activated abilities when they are dead.
Can Imotekh strike with lightning from reserve? No. Characters cannot use activated abilities while in reserve.
Can Imotekh strike with lghtning when he's dead? No. Characters cannot use activated abilities when they are dead.

It's really not that hard...

You're not entirely accurate on most of your statements since in the same necron FAQ they allow the veil of darkness to be used from within reserves, and it is a piece of wargear that confers an activated ability.

Also, imotekh's lord of storm ability is not an activated ability because he does not have to use his turn in any way to cause any of it to happen. It does not replace his movement, his shooting, or his assault. Therefore, simply having him in the army allows for this ability to "always" be active until the roll is failed. The chronometron, while similar in use, is different because it is a piece of wargear that can be destroyed when the cryptek is removed from play (or not in play). Imotekh's ability simply happens because he was/is part of the army. His presence on the board is not necessary for its use. I believe there are other units out there that, if included in an army, have the ability to lower the roll required for reserves for instance. Army wide, not an activated skill, and works whether they're on the board or not.

Kevin949 wrote:You're not entirely accurate on most of your statements since in the same necron FAQ they allow the veil of darkness to be used from within reserves, and it is a piece of wargear that confers an activated ability.

Also, imotekh's lord of storm ability is not an activated ability because he does not have to use his turn in any way to cause any of it to happen. It does not replace his movement, his shooting, or his assault. Therefore, simply having him in the army allows for this ability to "always" be active until the roll is failed. The chronometron, while similar in use, is different because it is a piece of wargear that can be destroyed when the cryptek is removed from play (or not in play). Imotekh's ability simply happens because he was/is part of the army. His presence on the board is not necessary for its use.

Here's the problem: the Chronometron can only be used to reroll a member of the unit's roll. If the Chronometron can be used to reroll the "Lord of Storm" roll, then it must mean that it's not an army-wide roll; it's a roll that Imotekh is making. And that makes it look like an used ability (e.g., casting a "start of turn" psychic power).

I believe there are other units out there that, if included in an army, have the ability to lower the roll required for reserves for instance. Army wide, not an activated skill, and works whether they're on the board or not.

None of those abilities require a special roll to activate, and most of them stop if the model granting them is dead. (About the only ones that come to mind that *don't* are some of the SM characters, who replace Combat Tactics.)

At this stage, I have no clue what GW is intending with Imotekh's rules. For my own use, I will follow the chain of logic I provided above - if Imotekh is in Reserves, then his Lightning will not trigger, and the Storm will end at the start of turn 2 (as he's not on the board to roll for it yet).

^ This.



also:

nosferatu1001 wrote::He in fact, fails to do so in almost every thread he posts in:

This is a lie. Retract it.

You are ignored until you do so, as you have proven your inability to understand arguments.

That is just about the best example of a self-defeating argument I have ever seen. If you are ignoring him, then you would never know if he retracted it or not. Just wanted to point that out.

I don't get it, how does this not just mean the chronometron has been updated to "rerolls per phase etc etc. And an army with lord of storms my reroll the check if the storms continues if imotekh is in the same unit as the cryptek with the chronometron".
Why does it how to change the way the storm works instead of the chronometron, if anything the wording in FAQ and book works better this way IMO. For what it's worth I hate the storms and think it would at least be fun if it turned random models into kittens instead.

Because it requires Imotekh to be in the unit with the Chronometron exactly as the rules in the codex state. If it were a change to the Chronometron then the FAQ wouldn't require Imotekh to be in the unit.