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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

Guess what, my friend? Computers aren't going away anytime soon. Yes, eBooks can easily be doctored, but if you're questioning the basic integrity of the people you're playing against... find a new community. If I was playing you and you questioned my basic integrity, I would likely thank you for your time, pack up my things and go play with someone who doesn't assume I'm a liar because I didn't spend more and buy a hardbound copy of my rule book.

And to answer your question, I read the Executioner (2+) the same way you read your Executioner rule. It grants Precision Strikes. What does the (2+) do? As written, nothing. I suspect one of two things has happened....

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated.
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy.

We won't know whether option one or two is correct until we get an Errata.

As the 2+ isn't in the RaW of the official rules we should play by the official rules until we are told differently. I never said or implied computers should or could go away. I never questioned your integrity but if someone was telling me that the official rules are wrong and I should play by something not written in the official rules then I'm going to wonder why.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

It's not my problem that you don't want to believe official rule sources.

And what does it allow you to do? Well, I guess that is rather obvious.
It allows you to have Precision Strikes on a 2+ instead of a 6.

Kriswall I'm glad you agree both your options mean the 2+ is a typo.

Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So in summary;

RaW: 2+ doesn't exist.

RaTIE (Rules as Typo'd in Ebook): 2+ does nothing.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kriswall I'm glad you agree both your options mean the 2+ is a typo.

Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.

Dude, why are you bothering to post in a rules forum for a game where you don't even acknowledge that a very large number of rules sources are even official?

The core issue here is obviously that you have trust issues and don't trust the people you play with. Maybe go to therapy? Find a new hobby that doesn't require that you trust someone? I'm not trying to be combative, but if you don't have that basic foundation of trust for your opponent, then you're wasting your time.

Of course I think the 2+, or lack thereof, is a typo. GW either left it out by accident or put it in by accident. Executioner doesn't require a dice roll to grant the Precision Strikes USR, so saying Executioner (2+) doesn't mean anything. Executioner (2+) would grant the Precision Strikes USR just like Executioner by itself would. Once the model has Precision Strikes, he gains a benefit on a 6.

What I think is MOST likely is that GW intended Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and has no idea how to write rules.

Given only the information in the printed copy, I would say the model get Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6 as per normal.
Given only the information in the electronic copy, I would say RaW grants Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6, but that RaI is likely Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 2+.
Given both copies, I would say that an editor at GW made a mistake and that we will see an Errata at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I apologize if this comes off as rude. It's not an attack. You just have to have a basic level of trust for your opponent or... what's the point?

Kriswall, snide insults aside, you stated that the 2+ in the ebook is a typo:

I suspect one of two things has happened.... 

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated. Means it is a typo
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy. Means the 2+ after Executioner is a typo (that would still need to be corrected

So you agree that the Ebook has a typo. Then why are you even arguing to ignore the official rules for what you agree is in a typo in a digital copy? The rules are clear, your projection of trust issues is your problem and has no place here. RaW the 2+ does not exist at the moment it may do in the future, but heck Marines may be T5 in the future doesn't mean I can try to play them at T5 now.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kriswall, snide insults aside, you stated that the 2+ in the ebook is a typo:

I suspect one of two things has happened.... 

1. GW accidentally put in the (2+) and it will be removed at some point when the eBooks are next updated. Means it is a typo
2. GW intended to have Executioner grant Precision Strikes (2+), but put the (2+) in the wrong place and at the same time left it out of the printed copy. Means the 2+ after Executioner is a typo (that would still need to be corrected

So you agree that the Ebook has a typo. Then why are you even arguing to ignore the official rules for what you agree is in a typo in a digital copy? The rules are clear, your projection of trust issues is your problem and has no place here. RaW the 2+ does not exist at the moment it may do in the future, but heck Marines may be T5 in the future doesn't mean I can try to play them at T5 now.

Before we continue, as an act of good faith, please provide me with the official rules source for the following. I can't find printed copies on Games-Workshop.com, but I'd really like to include them in a very official way that will appease mistrusting opponents.

1. Kharn's Butcherhorde
2. Kranon's Helguard
3. The Unrelenting Hunt
4. Officio Assassinorum
5. Strike Force Ultra
6. Any of the multitude of Formations from the Rising Leviathan series
7. The Helbrute formations
8. Tyrannic War Veterans
8. Cypher, Lord of the Fallen
9. Eldar Ghost Warriors
10. Adeptus Astartes Storm Wing
11. Tau Firebase Support Cadre
12. Be'Lakor
13. Heck what about anything in either Codex: Adepta Sororitas or Codex: Legion of the Damned?
14. MORE THINGS

Or how about this instead? Provide me with any single rules quote from one of your official sources saying that eBooks and Interactive Editions are intended to be viewed as unofficial sources.

Furthermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to help you out...

Small Rulebook, page 116, "Army List Entries" Section - "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."

So, your "official" source only requires that the rules source be a "Games Workshop publication".

Guess what? Quoted from the eBook... "Shield of Baal: Exterminatus © Copyright Games Workshop ", Looks like the eBook is a GW publication! It's official!

Quite frankly, dismissing e-books as "unofficial" is non-sense. Such an opinion will make any discussion of this nature end in a disagreement of premises.

Premise 1: E-books aren't official, therefore anything contained therein is worthless.

Premise 2: E-books are official, and when they contradict a written publication, 2 equally valid perspectives are generated.

So assuming that Premise 2 is accurate, which I believe is the case, we can try to determine what Precision Strike [2+] means, in the context of the e-book.

I expect the wording is a typo, and that it will likely be FAQ'd or Errata'd, but I also buy Lottery tickets. Trying to determine what the rule as written means is difficult, as I'm unaware of a precedent. I am also unaware of a caveat similar to what FNP has, in which the value may be default or specific. My assumption would be that any to hit roll of a 2+ is treated as a precision strike, assuming the roll hits. While unusual, it is possible for a model to hit on a 2+ in close combat. Kharn can do so, and others could do so if they had high enough weapon skill and a +1 to hit modifier... somehow.

If the attack misses, it misses. Precision Strike changes the rules for a SUCCESSFUL hit, to allow the attacker to choose whom the attack resolves against. Thus, a roll of a 2 would typically miss, but the rule supports the rare occasion in which a 2+ would hit.

That's my interpretation, anyhow.

Futhermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.

No the 2+ is a typo in the ebook that is a guarantee as Executioner (2+) means nothing. You yourself said it is at best in the wrong place. So the official rules do not have the 2+ rule and the ebook has a typo. The official rules may also have a typo. Heck it might have lots of typos perhaps Tyrannocytes are supposed to be T10, or W5 & T6. We don't know but until an errata comes out the official rules don't contain the 2+ there is a 2+ typo (as we both agree you yourself said it is in the wrong place) in the ebook. Why should we over rule the official rules for a typo not present in the official rules?

Sorry but that is not RaW. Please mark your posts as HYWPI or RaI if you want to discuss your 2+ rule.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Quite frankly, dismissing e-books as "unofficial" is non-sense. Such an opinion will make any discussion of this nature end in a disagreement of premises.

Premise 1: E-books aren't official, therefore anything contained therein is worthless.

Premise 2: E-books are official, and when they contradict a written publication, 2 equally valid perspectives are generated.

So assuming that Premise 2 is accurate, which I believe is the case, we can try to determine what Precision Strike [2+] means, in the context of the e-book.

I expect the wording is a typo, and that it will likely be FAQ'd or Errata'd, but I also buy Lottery tickets. Trying to determine what the rule as written means is difficult, as I'm unaware of a precedent. I am also unaware of a caveat similar to what FNP has, in which the value may be default or specific. My assumption would be that any to hit roll of a 2+ is treated as a precision strike, assuming the roll hits. While unusual, it is possible for a model to hit on a 2+ in close combat. Kharn can do so, and others could do so if they had high enough weapon skill and a +1 to hit modifier... somehow.

If the attack misses, it misses. Precision Strike changes the rules for a SUCCESSFUL hit, to allow the attacker to choose whom the attack resolves against. Thus, a roll of a 2 would typically miss, but the rule supports the rare occasion in which a 2+ would hit.

That's my interpretation, anyhow.

The issue is that it's not Precision Strikes (2+), it's Executioner (2+). Executioner doesn't require a roll for anything the way that Precision Strikes or Feel No Pain would. Executioner just grants Precision Strikes.

Executioner (2+) and Executioner by itself are functionally the same. They both simply grant Precision Strikes, which in turn grants a benefit on a to-hit roll of a 6.

I SUSPECT that GW INTENDED for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+), which would definitely grant a benefit on a to-hit roll of a 6. This would make sense in the context that this is a Necron Relic and not some random piece of wargear.

Ultimately there are two debates. The first is whether or not the 2+ as written in the eBook does anything. I don't think it does, but I think GW probably thinks it does. The second is whether or not the eBook is even an official source. Of course it is. Fling can't get past the fact that it's not a physical book and is steadfastly ignoring the 2+ while trying to use semantics to get me to admit that I think the eBook is wrong. Something is wrong. Only the authors know what!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Futhermore, I define typo as something left out or put in by accident. So, yes. The 2+ is a typo. It was either left out of the printed book or put into the eBook by accident. Can't be both. Either the printed book has a typo or the eBook does. In either case, the 2+ does nothing as written.

No the 2+ is a typo in the ebook that is a guarantee as Executioner (2+) means nothing. You yourself said it is at best in the wrong place. So the official rules do not have the 2+ rule and the ebook has a typo. The official rules may also have a typo. Heck it might have lots of typos perhaps Tyrannocytes are supposed to be T10, or W5 & T6. We don't know but until an errata comes out the official rules don't contain the 2+ there is a 2+ typo (as we both agree you yourself said it is in the wrong place) in the ebook. Why should we over rule the official rules for a typo not present in the official rules?

Sorry but that is not RaW. Please mark your posts as HYWPI or RaI if you want to discuss your 2+ rule.

I don't think you know what official means. I quoted a rule from one of your print books stating that any GW publication can contain rules. So you're just being a troll at this point. Provide quoted rules as I've done or concede. Your own stated argument is that you won't consider eBooks official because you don't trust that your opponent isn't modifying the content. That's a personal issue and not a wider game issue. From a wider standpoint, we work from the premise that everyone is being honest and that we are examining what GW actually wrote and not what Johnny McLiarman wrote.

And what happens if GW releases an Errata adding the (2+) into the printed book and an FAQ stating that Executioner (2+) grants the Precision Strikes USR with the benefit on a 2+? Then there is no type in the eBook. The only typo would be in the printed book.

I don't know GW's intent. You don't either.

RaW we both agree that the piece of Wargear grants Precision Strikes with a benefit on a 6+. RaI, as ALWAYS is unclear.

I've demonstrated that RaW, any GW publication can contain legal rules for unit entries. I've demonstrated that the eBook is a GW publication. RaW, eBooks are offical rules sources.

Unless you're willing to argue RaW and post rules citations for your beliefs, please append HIWPI to all further implications that eBooks aren't official.

I think a separate post should be made in YMDC for the eBook vs Print Book discrepancy problem.

It's something that impacts more issues than just this one.

col_impact wrote:
I think a separate post should be made in YMDC for the eBook vs Print Book discrepancy problem.

It's something that impacts more issues than just this one.

Feel free. I predict it will degenerate into meaningless bickering as both sources are legal and official. The only answer is better editing and more timely FAQs/Erratas from GW.

And what happens if GW releases an Errata adding the (2+) into the printed book and an FAQ stating that Executioner (2+) grants the Precision Strikes USR with the benefit on a 2+? Then there is no type in the eBook. The only typo would be in the printed book. 

Well that would mean there is a typo in the ebook as it should be Executioner still and Precision Strikes (2+) (which would still need clarification to work RaW, as there is no explanation of what precision strikes 2+ means, is it you hit on 2+ and get precision strikes on those hits or just all successful hits that are 2+ are also precision strikes in which case simply stating all hits are precision strikes would actually be the clearer way to word it).

Also I haven't said ebooks are unofficial. But the printed books are official and are the location of RaW. The ebooks are simply transcribed versions of the official rules and sometimes contain discrepancies with the official rules, but without an FaQ they don't over rule the official rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Granted some rules are only available via ebook until they get an official release and some never get the official release. But the actual Hardback and softback copies of the rules do not include the 2+ part so unless you have an errata with that part, it does not exist RaW. It is literally not in the rules.

This sure makes it sound like you think eBooks aren't official since you basically are showing them as temporary placeholders until such time as they get an official release.

I apologize if I misunderstood.

Feel free to confirm that eBooks are indeed official rules.

The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

So then both the eBook and the paper book are official rules, correct?

I don't understand how the eBook wouldn't be official. Everything has been moving to online printing for awhile now. (I mean this as most material for any game)... They update the eBooks to be current whereas you can only pull the current FAQ from the errata section of the blacklibrary.

If this is intended, this would make the edge of eternity insane. However I still feel that it is a typo.

As for precision strikes.. If this was Executioner (2+) wouldn't it be safe to assume that precision strikes (5+) (which I believe belial or deathwing knights has) would mean your precision strikes happen on a 5+ vs the normal 6+? just like a fnp (5+) could be a 6+ or a 4+.

Whacked wrote:

If this is intended, this would make the edge of eternity insane. However I still feel that it is a typo.

How is precision strikes 2+ insane? FYI - It doesn't get around Look Out, Sir rolls.

Oh, I don't mean like insanely overpowered. I just meant it would be awesome to pick out their character they don't want to have in a challenge and instant death him/force him to roll for LOS constantly. (Instant death when paired with Solar Theramsite)

Whacked wrote:
Oh, I don't mean like insanely overpowered. I just meant it would be awesome to pick out their character they don't want to have in a challenge and instant death him/force him to roll for LOS constantly. (Instant death when paired with Solar Theramsite)

Right, and since its LOS 2+ only one out of six actually manages to land on the independent character and 1 out of 2 on the character. This is actually all quite tame.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Official rules are those that GW printed and published.

ebook is a printed and published copy. I have no idea why you keep saying ebook is some fake version. ebook is not a pdf where someone scan it on bit torrent. ebook is a digital version of what gw printed and published just they use digital format instead of paper as a median. Printed on a screen and publish on gw website. you should read the statement from gw when you purchase an ebook, the wording change but all said this is an official copy of the codex/rules/etc. GW still pocket your money from ebook.

RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

FlingitNow doesn't seem to consider an eBook to have been published because... reasons? He has yet to provide any rules reason.

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

It isn't in the eBook then? I see it listed in the newest Battlescribe update (obviously this isn't an Official Source) but I'm just curious as I don't want to torrent eBook or buy it for that matter.

 Kriswall wrote:
FlingitNow doesn't seem to consider an eBook to have been published because... reasons? He has yet to provide any rules reason.

I've not said that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whacked wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
RAW the weapon currently has Executioner on a 2+.

Incorrect I have the RaW in front of me now there is no mention of a 2+ anywhere.

We don't know what this means. We can guess that it means it successfully Precision Strikes on a 2+, but that is just guessing.

It doesn't have to work for it to be RAW. It's still rules, and they are still written.

Not in the Official Rules source they are not.

It isn't in the eBook then? I see it listed in the newest Battlescribe update (obviously this isn't an Official Source) but I'm just curious as I don't want to torrent eBook or buy it for that matter.

It is not in the official rules published by GW in either Hardback or Softback form.

Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

No, he can't. He's shoving his fingers in his ears and pretending that's fact instead of actually accepting his statement might be wrong.

Guys just use common sense. If a unit/ IC/WG has no frills precision strike it follows the USRs in the BRB. The rule procs on a 6 (or a 5; don't have the book handy).

2+ is just short hand for "all hits are precision strikes", since nobody ever hits anything on a 1, even though 2's miss in melee. It's that simple. Any hits you make can target a specific target, as if you rolled a 6.

If 2+ meant all hits refer to the standard USR of 6's are precision, then how is there any difference whatsoever between a normal PS and a 2+PS? There would be none. It would mean a weapon with sniper rule functions identical to a 2+ PS. Does that make sense to you? People mix up this same rule with the Vindicare. I also point out whether someone thinks the Vindicare has the same shooting skills as an Eldar ranger for 12pts.

An easy reference to parallel is poison. 2+ poison translates to "wounds on a 2+".

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?