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.
Dracos wrote: You say that as if all their rules are ambiguous. I disagree that is the case.
I hope this was a joke.
Why? there are many rules, the vast majority I would contend, in 40k that are quite clear.
As to the main question, there isn't really a clear RAW as what is written is contradictory.
(If you take "Allied" to be a proper noun then they can only repair the primary det's vehicles and not their own.)
I would go off the meaning as derived from the base rules and give that meaning greater weight than the "clarification" from an FAQ.
I also hope that this is a joke.
Why, you may ask??? Because no one ever, EVER stated that ALL of the rules were ambiguous. There are a lot, far too many that are, but no one ever said all of them were. I hope it's a joke because it is ludicrous to argue against a position that was never made.
Idolator, I'm used to it from Uptopdownunder as whenever I make fun of how poorly written a Rule is, even in threads dedicated to how ambiguous that particular rule is. They act as if I stated the books should be used as toilet paper because the stains left behind make more sense then any of their rules. Like you said, no one has stated that all of their rules are poorly written and I doubt anyone would try to make that statement with a straight face on or off this site. Yet it is starting to become a common applied, and sometimes outright stated, accusation whenever someone raises the possibility that the Rule could of been explained better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/14 04:09:15
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote:That is why I love this site, because Game Workshop's Rules are far from unambiguous.
JinxDragon wrote:Idolator,
I'm used to it from Uptopdownunder as whenever I make fun of how poorly written a Rule is, even in threads dedicated to how ambiguous that particular rule is. They act as if I stated the books should be used as toilet paper because the stains left behind make more sense then any of their rules. Like you said, no one has stated that all of their rules are poorly written and I doubt anyone would try to make that statement with a straight face on or off this site. Yet it is starting to become a common applied, and sometimes outright stated, accusation whenever someone raises the possibility that the Rule could of been explained better.
I apologize. When you say "Games Workshop's Rules", I read that as all-inclusive. To avoid confusion in the future, maybe you could be more specific in your meaning?
Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000
All I can say if your going to get all upset when someone suggests that no not all of the rules are ambiguous you should say a little more than "I hope this is a joke" when someone says "You say that as if all their rules are ambiguous. I disagree that is the case."
It pays not to be ambiguous when talking about ambiguity.
I have no problem with people contending that rules can be explained better I agree that many can.
What I do have a problem with is leaping to that assertion right from the get go or looking for deeper nuances to what is, on face value ,often a very simple rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/14 04:16:51
JinxDragon wrote: Dracos,
I should of been more precise that my warning was in general against using Rules as Written as solid fact when it comes to playing the game
This is really a strange warning. I don't know how one would play a game where the rules as written, when unambiguous, are not taken as "solid fact".
@ Kommissar: I feel like you didn't read the thread. Please back up your assertion.
I can back it up with those pesky little "Written Rules"(as opposed to all the pretty pictures and charts):
Imperial Knights Codex, Household Detachments, Including Knights in your Army wrote: When you choose an army, Knights may be taken as a special form of allied detachment known as an Imperial Knight detachment, as shown on the Imperial Knight Force Organisation chart below. Each box in the Imperial Knight detachment section of the Force Organisation chart represents a single Imperial Knight (of any type), which means that you can include up to three Knights for each primary detachment in your army. Just as with other allied detachments, you can include one Imperial Knight detachment for each primary detachment in your army.
An army may include an allied detachment of Imperial Knights in addition to a standard allied detachment. So, for example, you could field an Imperial Guard army with an allied detachment of Space Marines and an allied detachment of Imperial Knights.
So you can see that the written rules constantly refer to the Imperial Knights detachment as a special form of Allied detachment.
FAQ says No BotO(nor similar rules) for Allied detachments.
Therefore not BotO for Imperail Knights
As I point out the OP, the FAQ addresses models in the Allied Detachment. So it would be correct to say that models in the Imperial Knight Allied Detachment, or any other Allied Detachment, are unable to repair vehicles from outside their respective Allied Detachment. However, I also point out that if I have a MotF in my Primary Detachment, the rules in the BRB and Codex allow him to repair any friendly models, which Battle brothers are. Since the FAQ only limits models from repairing which are located in an Allied Detachments, and not Primary Detachments, he would be able to do a repair on an Allied Imperial Knight.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/14 04:22:19
Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000
JinxDragon wrote: Dracos,
I should of been more precise that my warning was in general against using Rules as Written as solid fact when it comes to playing the game
This is really a strange warning. I don't know how one would play a game where the rules as written, when unambiguous, are not taken as "solid fact".
@ Kommissar: I feel like you didn't read the thread. Please back up your assertion.
I can back it up with those pesky little "Written Rules"(as opposed to all the pretty pictures and charts):
Imperial Knights Codex, Household Detachments, Including Knights in your Army wrote: When you choose an army, Knights may be taken as a special form of allied detachment known as an Imperial Knight detachment, as shown on the Imperial Knight Force Organisation chart below. Each box in the Imperial Knight detachment section of the Force Organisation chart represents a single Imperial Knight (of any type), which means that you can include up to three Knights for each primary detachment in your army. Just as with other allied detachments, you can include one Imperial Knight detachment for each primary detachment in your army.
An army may include an allied detachment of Imperial Knights in addition to a standard allied detachment. So, for example, you could field an Imperial Guard army with an allied detachment of Space Marines and an allied detachment of Imperial Knights.
So you can see that the written rules constantly refer to the Imperial Knights detachment as a special form of Allied detachment.
FAQ says No BotO(nor similar rules) for Allied detachments.
Therefore not BotO for Imperail Knights
Sums it up sufficiently.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
5000 pts
2000
2000 
