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.

We can never know RAI for sure because it's GW. The last round of FAQ updates gave Fateweaver access to Daemonology did it not? Between the first round of 7th ed FAQs and the last, did GW:
Forget for 6 months?
Change their intent?
A memo got lost in the office?
Were busy playtesting the rule change? (Ha!)

The 6th ed DE FAQ told us how to allocate wounds from Bladevanes. The 7th ed FAQ omitted this section. Did GW:
Forget to add that section?
Change their intent? But to what, we were given no instruction at all on how to allocate wounds.
Not bother because Bladevanes were going to be changed in the near future?

I suspect it was the last one, and for the same reason I think they haven't bothered doing anything about CBB/Phase Shifter. But as it's GW, we don't fully know RAI, and it's only a suspicion.

You guys don't want to discuss RaI that much is clear as you're attacking the concept of RaI rather than the argument. We agree on the RaW. Many Tournaments play by the RaW and many play by the clear RaI. As long as people are aware of each so they don't go into a game expecting the opponent to automatically assume one way or the other is being played. Shall we call it at that.

It's useless to discuss RAI as you cannot know the intent without an official announcement.
Most of the time "RAI" is abused by people that want to break the rules because they think it should work differently.

I assume you'll take the same stance with the possible Executioner (2+) rule?

Absolutely, if only you didn't get that thread locked.

Really because this post says otherwise...

Kangodo wrote: So? RAW you cannot take an invulnerable save, I've never seen that stop anyone. 
The intent is just as clear as with Inv-saves, so there shouldn't be a problem. 

So do we agree that an official source has it as 'Executioner (2+)' ánd that the intent is quite obvious?

Looks more like you want RaW when it suits you and flip to the "useless to discuss RAI" when that benefits you too...

I shoot with S7, AP2 at you and I roll a 5 to Hit and a 4 To Wound.
Your model has a Storm Shield. What do you do?

In some cases the RAI is obvious enough and most people just play along with it.
With Inv-saves the intent is clear,
With Executioner (2+) the intent is clear.
With a CCB and a 3++ the intent is NOT clear, which is why we have discussions about it.

What is your point? Getting another thread locked?

col_impact wrote:


A chariot is more like a battlesuit fused to the overlord and is no longer a transport. Think Dreadknight.

I'd go with this. Technically, the CCB is made from the same stuff a regular Necron is made, it's just bulkier, so why wouldn't it be able to regenerate in the same way?

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


A chariot is more like a battlesuit fused to the overlord and is no longer a transport. Think Dreadknight.

I'd go with this. Technically, the CCB is made from the same stuff a regular Necron is made, it's just bulkier, so why wouldn't it be able to regenerate in the same way?

Precedent.

Living Metal is a barely noticeable but does represent the Self Repair systems of vehicles. Apparently it just doesn't work as well on the bigger machines for some reason.

I guess that it just takes too long. In fluff, it already takes some time for Necron Warrior's WBB to activate and then restore the unit to full power. I can only imagine that it would take too long to restore an entire vehicle in the rush of a battle and that's why vehicles might be able to immediately repair small damage taken. Yet if facing severe damage, they are teleported back home instead.

The CCB might be an exception because it's a vehicle also inhabited by a Necron Lord which are supposed to work as energy conduits for regular Necron Warriors anyway. This very same function might also be super-fueling the regeneration process of a CCB allowing it to fully repair on the spot.

#ScienceWithNecrons

 FlingitNow wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Oh? I saw some FAQ's that are only a few months old.
Your personal opinion on the quality of these facts means nothing.

Is that the same Grimnar that loses Deep Strike from his TDA when he gets the Stormrider?
That's because they know the rule from the wargear would extend to the Stormrider and they obviously don't want it to Deep Strike.

So you believe the RaI is that a Psyker stops being a Psyker the minute he joins a non-Psyker unit? And that a Psyker in a Brotherhood of Psykerd unit doesn't generate Warp Charge? Thete are many known issues that GW hasn't answered. The current FAQs are nothing like the FAQs of 5th and previous editions (and we complained then that they weren't complete). Lack of an FaQ is not evidence of anything. Anyone that believes that is lying to themselves.

Grimnar proves they have no handle on the situation much like Shrike does for ICs joining units (which the Wolf dex illustrates they may have finally worked out). Stormrider has its own separate invun and Belt of Russ is worded the same as Phase Shifter which shows they don't think the invun passes over. But as you say he loses special rules so they know those pass over (so they know for instance the Overlord keeps his IC status, which also causes all sorts of issues). So they clearly don't have a handle on the situation.

The RaI is absolutely 100% clear. Anyone that claims it isn't either has a vested interest in the argument or is lying. Play it how you and your group want. Both RaW & RaI are abundantly clear and we all know it. Hopefully the new Codex will sort the issue.

Rules as intended is NEVER 100% clear. We can literally never know the mind of the author short of asking him/her. Anyone who says RaI is 100% clear doesn't understand what RaI means.

Having said that, I fully expect changes to occur in the new Codex.

Kangodo wrote:
I shoot with S7, AP2 at you and I roll a 5 to Hit and a 4 To Wound.
Your model has a Storm Shield. What do you do?

In some cases the RAI is obvious enough and most people just play along with it.
With Inv-saves the intent is clear,
With Executioner (2+) the intent is clear.
With a CCB and a 3++ the intent is NOT clear, which is why we have discussions about it.

What is your point? Getting another thread locked?

Seriously? You ignore clear RaI when it is not beneficial to you yet when RaI is entirely unclear (it is not even clear that the 2+ exists RaI, let alone at least 3 possible interpretations of how it could be intended to work) but beneficial to you then all of a sudden intent is clear...

Kriswall wrote: Rules as intended is NEVER 100% clear. We can literally never know the mind of the author short of asking him/her. Anyone who says RaIis 100% clear doesn't understand what RaI means.

I know what RaI means and yes you can have 100% clear RaI. Kangodo points one out in rolling invuns. Another example would be drawing LoS from helmeted Space Marines in 5th & 6th editions, or using D weapons. There are many other examples like this example we are talking about here. There are also many examples were RaI is unclear.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Seriously? You ignore clear RaI when it is not beneficial to you yet when RaI is entirely unclear (it is not even clear that the 2+ exists RaI, let alone at least 3 possible interpretations of how it could be intended to work) but beneficial to you then all of a sudden intent is clear...

It is in the fething eBook, so it's 100% clear it exists in at least one print! Drop it, fcs.
And how else would you interpret it? What other interpretation could anyone seriously come up with?

You argue that the intent is for no 3++ on the Barge.
There are counter-arguments for it to be the intent.
Thus the intent is unclear.

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Seriously? You ignore clear RaI when it is not beneficial to you yet when RaI is entirely unclear (it is not even clear that the 2+ exists RaI, let alone at least 3 possible interpretations of how it could be intended to work) but beneficial to you then all of a sudden intent is clear...

It is in the fething eBook, so it's 100% clear it exists in at least one print! Drop it, fcs.
And how else would you interpret it? What other interpretation could anyone seriously come up with?

You argue that the intent is for no 3++ on the Barge.
There are counter-arguments for it to be the intent.
Thus the intent is unclear.

FlingitNow is a troll. He speaks in absolutes without rules proof and knows the minds of other people. I can only assume he's some sort of Troll God. Fortunately, I'm an atheist, so the Troll God goes on ignore from here on out.

Hey everyone, please keep in mind we're just here to chat about toy soldiers. Keep it courteous or move along. Thanks.

 Manchu wrote:
Hey everyone, please keep in mind we're just here to chat about toy soldiers. Keep it courteous or move along. Thanks.

I apologize if my snark was misconstrued. I violated one of the Tenants of the forum and I apologize. I criticized my opponent. I'll make an effort to make sure it doesn't happen again.

We have RaW and HYWPI defined in the Tenants. Perhaps we should define RaI. Some people seem to confuse RaI and HYWPI and it causes a lot of friction.

We can debate RaW and potentially come to a consensus, even if that consensus is that RaW is broken and needs and Errata/FAQ.
We can guess at RaI, but can never really know it without additional commentary from the authors. It's well "known" that GW authors don't write consistent rules and aren't always good at translating their intent to the written page. If they were, FAQs would be totally unnecessary.
We can create HYWPI by simply making a decision.

We don't know the RaI in this case with 100% certainty because RaI is ALWAYS unknowable. It can sometimes seem obvious to a person, but is ALWAYS unknowable. My best guess is that we will see a change to the wording in the upcoming 7th Edition Necron Codex. This is based on circumstantial evidence from other Chariot rules/units and has nothing to do with RaI since RaI is ALWAYS unknowable.

It is in the fething eBook, so it's 100% clear it exists in at least one print! Drop it, fcs. 

Yes it exists in 1 format but in others it doesn't. Thus from an RaI point of view we do not know whether it is supposed to be there or not.

And how else would you interpret it? What other interpretation could anyone seriously come up with? 

The rule is Executioner (2+). So either it is a typo that was supposed to be put elsewhere or it is in fact Executioner that has a 2+ on it. There are 3 reasonable Interpretations that they could have meant:

1) The weapon hits on a 2+ and all these hits are precision strikes. I see this as the most likely intent if the 2+ exists. As we already have wording for all successful hits are precision strikes so a change from that is likely to mean the rule is supposed to do something different.
2) The weapon has precision strikes 2+. This I see as the next most likely interpretation where all successful hits are precision strikes (unless you have something that allows you to hit automatically, which could be something MSS do in the new dex). This follows most closely the RaW of how the rule is written (though RaW it does nothing).
3) The weapon hits on a 2+ and has the precision strikes rule. This could be the intent of why the 2+ is on the Executioner rule rather than the PS rule.

So we have 4 total possible RaIs including the rule not existing. How you can claim that is clear is beyond me.

You argue that the intent is for no 3++ on the Barge. 
There are counter-arguments for it to be the intent. 
Thus the intent is unclear.

There are not reasonable counter arguments to the intent just a lot of bluster largely aimed at saying all RaI is unclear to help push the beneficial RaW interpretation.

Guys, with all due respect, but in my honest opinion, every attempt at suggesting what anyone you never asked about in person intended to do seems like an ultimatively futile attempt to me.

In a RAW vs. RAI case, as this is the case here, and RAW being perfectly clear, I don't think that fighting over who has the best shot at trying to find out what someone else thought will yield to any constructive contribution to the question (?) at hand.

Yo.

 FlingitNow wrote:

It is in the fething eBook, so it's 100% clear it exists in at least one print! Drop it, fcs. 

Yes it exists in 1 format but in others it doesn't. Thus from an RaI point of view we do not know whether it is supposed to be there or not.

And how else would you interpret it? What other interpretation could anyone seriously come up with? 

The rule is Executioner (2+). So either it is a typo that was supposed to be put elsewhere or it is in fact Executioner that has a 2+ on it. There are 3 reasonable Interpretations that they could have meant:

1) The weapon hits on a 2+ and all these hits are precision strikes. I see this as the most likely intent if the 2+ exists. As we already have wording for all successful hits are precision strikes so a change from that is likely to mean the rule is supposed to do something different.
2) The weapon has precision strikes 2+. This I see as the next most likely interpretation where all successful hits are precision strikes (unless you have something that allows you to hit automatically, which could be something MSS do in the new dex). This follows most closely the RaW of how the rule is written (though RaW it does nothing).
3) The weapon hits on a 2+ and has the precision strikes rule. This could be the intent of why the 2+ is on the Executioner rule rather than the PS rule.

So we have 4 total possible RaIs including the rule not existing. How you can claim that is clear is beyond me.

You argue that the intent is for no 3++ on the Barge. 
There are counter-arguments for it to be the intent. 
Thus the intent is unclear.

There are not reasonable counter arguments to the intent just a lot of bluster largely aimed at saying all RaI is unclear to help push the beneficial RaW interpretation.

RaI doesn't require argument as it's ultimately unknowable. It is by essence a he said/she said debate. Neither party knows and I'm fairly certain the authors never post in You Make Da Call. Bluster or not, the intent of saying all RaI is unclear is to point out that all RaI is unclear and is useless when making a RaW argument.

I could probably sit here and come up with 100 fluff/RaI reasons for either side of the argument. Any reasonably creative person could. That's why it's a useless tactic. It's limited by my and your imagination and not by hard, cold, provable fact.

Currently, the Overlord on CCB is a single model. That model is equipped with a piece of wargear that gives the bearer a 3++ save. RaW are very clear in this instance. RaI will most likely become clearer when we see a new Codex. Until then, the 3++ seems to be a valid thing.

There are clearly many on here that believe understanding communication on any level beyond the purely literal requires godlike powers. There are many that believe therefore discussing RaI is useless and pointless. What I don't understand is why those people spend so much time discussing RaI.

I stated page 1 I agreed with the RaW. I pointed out the clear RaI and was then engaged in a discussion on what the RaI was largely by people claiming there is no point discussing the RaI. If you don't believe that understanding communication at a level beyond the literal is possible without magical powers why even bother engaging in the discussion? All my posts where clearly marked RaI yet you still tried to argue RaW at me why?

You don't get it, right?
"Discussing" RAI is useless in the end because you are literally discussing about what someone you don't know, have never met and probably will never meet, is thinking.

You cannot point out the clear RAI because unless you are telepathic, which you are not, it is never clear and it is always open for interpretation.
Your "RAI is clearly this" has as much value as our "RAI it's clearly the other way around".
If you were actually discussing RAI that wouldn't be a problem, but you are telling us what the RAI is even though you cannot know what the RAI is.
And when I say that there are counter-arguments, which by its definition means it is unclear, you simply attack me and say I am not reasonable and just making stuff up to support benefits to my own army.

Kangodo wrote:
You don't get it, right?
"Discussing" RAI is useless in the end because you are literally discussing about what someone you don't know, have never met and probably will never meet, is thinking.

You cannot point out the clear RAI because unless you are telepathic, which you are not, it is never clear and it is always open for interpretation.

Good point understanding communication at anything beyond the literal takes magical powers. So when you say RaI is never clear is that true? What about when you say RaI is clear as you have said for numerous rules? Which of those states are true and which are lies?

Your "RAI is clearly this" has as much value as our "RAI it's clearly the other way around".

Correct no ones RaI is inherently more valuable than anyone else's. This does not mean we can not rule out facetious arguments that are being made purely to cloud RaI.

If you were actually discussing RAI that wouldn't be a problem, but you are telling us what the RAI is even though you cannot know what the RAI is.

Yes I'm pointing out what we all know to be the intent of the rules.

And when I say that there are counter-arguments, which by its definition means it is unclear, you simply attack me and say I am not reasonable and just making stuff up to support benefits to my own army.

You claim there is a counter argument yet haven't posted one besides "all RaI is unknowable", yet when you think an RaI argument gives you an advantage like for the Executioner (2+) with what is actually a completely unclear RaI (with the existence of the rule not even being known RaI) all of a sudden you change your entire philosophy and want to play by an RaI you have decided upon...

So we all know the intent but we are being facetious on purpose to cloud the RAI for our own benefit?
Got it! Can we now stay on topic?

RAW: CCB gains a 3++ from the item.
RAI: We don't know, we are not telepathic.
Balance: There is nothing too strong about it.

Again you attack the idea of RaI here where RaW benefits your army, yet cling to it when RaW does not benefit your army. Still you're attacking the idea of RaI if you want a discussion on that start a new thread. I've stated what the RaW and RaI are here.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool read the Psychic phase rules. Then the terrain rules. Then the D Weapon rules. Then check the FAQs and come back. QED.

Check out the definition of Straw Man argument.

Relevance of what you have posted to the argument at hand? Nothing.

If you are trying to convince me that GW is incompetent, then I can only point you to your own personal contradiction at continuing to invest time and money playing a game you don't give the benefit of the doubt to.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the rules that GW provides because once we find ourselves no longer giving the benefit of the doubt to those rules then that is the point in time where we should move on to find another game.

I think almost all of what GW provides is solid and good quality. Do I think it is 100% error free? No. But I will assume it is good quality until proven otherwise. If you want to assume its trash until proven otherwise, then again I ask you why are you playing this game?

Hasn't somebody already mentioned that Logans chariot gets a separate save from Logan himself thus confirming that the writers didn't think that Logans invulnerable save would be transferred to the chariot? Otherwise what would be the point in giving Stormrider a separate invulnerable save?

 DarthOvious wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool read the Psychic phase rules. Then the terrain rules. Then the D Weapon rules. Then check the FAQs and come back. QED.

Check out the definition of Straw Man argument.

Relevance of what you have posted to the argument at hand? Nothing.

If you are trying to convince me that GW is incompetent, then I can only point you to your own personal contradiction at continuing to invest time and money playing a game you don't give the benefit of the doubt to.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the rules that GW provides because once we find ourselves no longer giving the benefit of the doubt to those rules then that is the point in time where we should move on to find another game.

I think almost all of what GW provides is solid and good quality. Do I think it is 100% error free? No. But I will assume it is good quality until proven otherwise. If you want to assume its trash until proven otherwise, then again I ask you why are you playing this game?

Hasn't somebody already mentioned that Logans chariot gets a separate save from Logan himself thus confirming that the writers didn't think that Logans invulnerable save would be transferred to the chariot? Otherwise what would be the point in giving Stormrider a separate invulnerable save?

Yes it has been pointed out several times but if you're desperate yo gain any advantage you can you'll still claim RaI is unknowable and this is evidence of nothing whilst switching position to RaI is clear when RaW doesn't suit you...

Kangodo wrote:
You don't get it, right?
"Discussing" RAI is useless in the end because you are literally discussing about what someone you don't know, have never met and probably will never meet, is thinking.

So basically you are arguing that it is impossible to know how something should work unless we explictly meet and talk to the designer on their thoughts on it. You do realise that history is littered with examples that express otherwise. For instance how would archeologists know what all those artifacts were used for without meeting the people who used them? The answer is they use something called deductive raeasoning to come to a conclusion.

 DarthOvious wrote:
So basically you are arguing that it is impossible to know how something should work unless we explictly meet and talk to the designer on their thoughts on it. You do realise that history is littered with examples that express otherwise. For instance how would archeologists know what all those artifacts were used for without meeting the people who used them? The answer is they use something called deductive raeasoning to come to a conclusion.

And archaeologists often have to change their opinion because they found new evidence.
So you can never be sure to what someone means.

We assume that Armour Saves work the way they do because we assume that the BRB tells us exactly what they intend.
We also assume that Invulnerable Saves work the way they do because it's the only logical answer, despite the BRB not giving us the full answer.
We also assume that Dante + Servo Skulls result into a "0D6" inch scatter because the rules tell us so, even though that might not be their intent.
We can assume the Phase Shifter confers to the CCB because the rules of PS and Chariots tell us so.
And we also assume that Edge of Eternity turns all hits into Precision Strikes as that is the only logical answer with the given rules.

Kangodo wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Hasn't somebody already mentioned that Logans chariot gets a separate save from Logan himself thus confirming that the writers didn't think that Logans invulnerable save would be transferred to the chariot? Otherwise what would be the point in giving Stormrider a separate invulnerable save?

Clarification?
They also tell you he loses Deep Strike, implying that otherwise it would confer to the Chariot.
So that's 1 argument for and 1 argument against it (from a RAI point of view).
But no matter the RAI, the RAW is 100% clear: The model gets a 3++.

How is that one for and one against? The point is in concerns to setting a precedent for invulnerable saves for chariots and thus your point about deep strike is irrelevant. When setting precedents in 40K you need to find like for like examples of which deep strike is not. Also not to mention that Logan is specifically forbidden from deep striking anyway in his chariot and thus does not gain the deep strike rule in that circumstance showing that the designers once again don't just give give chariots everything that the caracter bringing them has. You would actually need to find an example of a character giving his chariot the same rules with the same wording as invul saves to make a point.
Apples and oranges.

Because the Deep Strike sets a precedent for Wargear conferring their abilities to the Chariot.
If it didn't confer, they wouldn't need to remove it.

Also not to mention that Logan is specifically forbidden from deep striking anyway in his chariot and thus does not gain the deep strike rule in that circumstance

That is my entire point!
They specifically remove the ability because they do not want the Chariot to Deep Strike.
Conclusion: Abilities like that confer to the Chariot.

showing that the designers once again don't just give give chariots everything that the caracter bringing them has.

Wrong, it means that Chariots get everything unless the designers specifically remove the ability.

If you were right, and abilities did not confer, than either:
a) They wouldn't have needed to remove Deep Strike when you take a Stormrider.
b) They would have put a same line on the CCB.