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.

Fragile wrote:
...They purposely over simplified the rules to get past all the legalese that everyone was trying to argue.

It's a shame that in an attempt to simplify the rules GW made so many additional loopholes and overly complicated situations with the FAQ's.

Fragile wrote:
This whole game is about the "in-between"s. They purposely over simplified the rules to get past all the legalese that everyone was trying to argue.

The problem is, without clear and concise rules, people have different interpretations of those "in-betweens." It's either arrogance or folly (or both) to assume that everyone is going to come to the same conclusions as you if they just "stop overthinking things" which is an argument I've heard bandied about too many times.

When someone in an argument tells me to stop thinking so much and just agree with them, it seems like a real weakness in their argument. There IS a right answer, and only by applying logic and reason (aka "legalese") can we find that answer.

Making the rules "simple" is not an excuse for lazy or unclear writing. You can make a ruleset simple while still doing it correctly so as to have what you want work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Except that is exactly how the game works. Rules that allows you to break other rules are clearly listed. Assault weapons etc.. A rule that clearly states it gives permission to move even though everyone else is denied that permission to move is clear. CA can move (at least on a 6) RAW, you can argue that they cannot move on a 5

I already said that is how the game works. However, the FAQ overrides the GSC Ambush rule by stating "any other reason". In addition, that logic allows Swarmlord's move to work regardless of the FAQ because it too is more specific.

Either the FAQ does nothing, or the FAQ stops GSC Ambush, there is no in-between.

You mean the FAQ that states above the shaded box "Note that we have not applied this restriction to Genestealer Cults"?

It looks like there's an in-between after all - the FAQ stops most things but not Genestealer Cults or abilities and Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven Guard (if they had done a better job writing that "such as" Raven Guard, they wouldn't have needed the facebook post in the first place).

 doctortom wrote:
You mean the FAQ that states above the shaded box "Note that we have not applied this restriction to Genestealer Cults"?

You mean the FAQ that only alters the set up part of the rules in matched play?

 Octopoid wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This whole game is about the "in-between"s. They purposely over simplified the rules to get past all the legalese that everyone was trying to argue.

The problem is, without clear and concise rules, people have different interpretations of those "in-betweens." It's either arrogance or folly (or both) to assume that everyone is going to come to the same conclusions as you if they just "stop overthinking things" which is an argument I've heard bandied about too many times.

When someone in an argument tells me to stop thinking so much and just agree with them, it seems like a real weakness in their argument. There IS a right answer, and only by applying logic and reason (aka "legalese") can we find that answer.

Yes, there is a right answer in the majority of the cases. Most of those FAQ questions are questions that 95% of us think are obvious, however some extremists would argue. This game is an application of basic/advanced. You have a rule that clearly states that it ignores a restriction. Yet BCB is holding that restriction as the be all / end all. There is no debate about this particular topic.

Fragile wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This whole game is about the "in-between"s. They purposely over simplified the rules to get past all the legalese that everyone was trying to argue.

The problem is, without clear and concise rules, people have different interpretations of those "in-betweens." It's either arrogance or folly (or both) to assume that everyone is going to come to the same conclusions as you if they just "stop overthinking things" which is an argument I've heard bandied about too many times.

When someone in an argument tells me to stop thinking so much and just agree with them, it seems like a real weakness in their argument. There IS a right answer, and only by applying logic and reason (aka "legalese") can we find that answer.

Yes, there is a right answer in the majority of the cases. Most of those FAQ questions are questions that 95% of us think are obvious, however some extremists would argue. This game is an application of basic/advanced. You have a rule that clearly states that it ignores a restriction. Yet BCB is holding that restriction as the be all / end all. There is no debate about this particular topic.

We also have a rule that "ignores" a restriction, Warptime, yet it's prohibited by the FAQ. A lot of things are prohibited by FAQs that RaW would be otherwise. Keywords for example is a classic example.

The FAQ literally says "any other reason." Cult Ambush is a reason. The FAQ does NOT say "any other reason except ones you really want to be exceptions".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We also have a rule that "ignores" a restriction, Warptime, yet it's prohibited by the FAQ.

And does Warptime have the wording "even though it arrived from Reinforcements"? Nothing in there about ignoring the Reinforcement restriction that I see. I see just a general permission to make a second move action. On the other hand, CA says "even though it arrived from reinforcements" which normally means it could not move. That is a specific permission to ignore that restriction. Which is how this game works.

Agreed, Fragile.

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We also have a rule that "ignores" a restriction, Warptime, yet it's prohibited by the FAQ.

And does Warptime have the wording "even though it arrived from Reinforcements"? Nothing in there about ignoring the Reinforcement restriction that I see. I see just a general permission to make a second move action. On the other hand, CA says "even though it arrived from reinforcements" which normally means it could not move. That is a specific permission to ignore that restriction. Which is how this game works.

Except the FAQ prohibits exceptions, and thus is more specific.

There is no point in arguing this with BCB. He follows the camp of no explicit exception means no exception. His sig is full of examples of this line of thought.

Many people, dare I say most, read the rules and accept implicit exceptions to the rules exist. We accept that you can fire assault weapons after advancing, pistols when when within 1" of enemy models, and Cult Ambush allows you to move after being setup on the board with he proper roll. Why? Because the rules say you can do it even if they don't give explicit permission to override a rule that obviously needs to be overridden for the rule to work.

 alextroy wrote:
There is no point in arguing this with BCB. He follows the camp of no explicit exception means no exception. His sig is full of examples of this line of thought.

Many people, dare I say most, read the rules and accept implicit exceptions to the rules exist. We accept that you can fire assault weapons after advancing, pistols when when within 1" of enemy models, and Cult Ambush allows you to move after being setup on the board with he proper roll. Why? Because the rules say you can do it even if they don't give explicit permission to override a rule that obviously needs to be overridden for the rule to work.

By that logic I can advance and fire Heavy Weapons, because even though the rules don't let me, I can accept that I can. If you can ignore one rule, you can ignore them all. It's that simple.

Wrong.

There is no rule implying that you can fire Heavy Weapons if you can Advance. There is one stating you can fire Assault Weapons when you can advance. It fails to explicitly override the rule telling you when you can fire, but it does imply that since otherwise the rule is meaningless.

 alextroy wrote:
Wrong.

There is no rule implying that you can fire Heavy Weapons if you can Advance. There is one stating you can fire Assault Weapons when you can advance. It fails to explicitly override the rule telling you when you can fire, but it does imply that since otherwise the rule is meaningless.

The one stating you can fire Assault weapons Implies I can fire Heavy Weapons.

You see how silly that argument sounds? That's how silly your argument sounds as well. The FAQ literally forbids movement for ANY reason. That means Cult Ambush cannot be used to move the unit. Did GW screw up? Yes, but that doesn't change it. GW needs to change it properly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Wrong.

There is no rule implying that you can fire Heavy Weapons if you can Advance. There is one stating you can fire Assault Weapons when you can advance. It fails to explicitly override the rule telling you when you can fire, but it does imply that since otherwise the rule is meaningless.

The one stating you can fire Assault weapons Implies I can fire Heavy Weapons.

You see how silly that argument sounds? That's how silly your argument sounds as well. The FAQ literally forbids movement for ANY reason. That means Cult Ambush cannot be used to move the unit. Did GW screw up? Yes, but that doesn't change it. GW needs to change it properly.

Really?

A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If it does so, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn.

How does this imply you can fire a heavy weapon after you advance?

Do you see how silly your argument sounds?

 alextroy wrote:
Do you see how silly your argument sounds?

Didn't you know? He's never wrong because that's the "beauty of being a RAW purist". Or some nonsense close to that. Either way, go get the autohitting ultramarines.

I think I’m going to convert a W20 Conscript from a GUO and a Cadian helmet, and an auto-hitting Ultramarine from a Tactical Marine and every (non-Assault) weapon from my bitz box then let them duke it out to see who would win in a fight.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
We also have a rule that "ignores" a restriction, Warptime, yet it's prohibited by the FAQ.

And does Warptime have the wording "even though it arrived from Reinforcements"? Nothing in there about ignoring the Reinforcement restriction that I see. I see just a general permission to make a second move action. On the other hand, CA says "even though it arrived from reinforcements" which normally means it could not move. That is a specific permission to ignore that restriction. Which is how this game works.

Except the FAQ prohibits exceptions, and thus is more specific.

Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Wrong.

There is no rule implying that you can fire Heavy Weapons if you can Advance. There is one stating you can fire Assault Weapons when you can advance. It fails to explicitly override the rule telling you when you can fire, but it does imply that since otherwise the rule is meaningless.

The one stating you can fire Assault weapons Implies I can fire Heavy Weapons.

You see how silly that argument sounds? That's how silly your argument sounds as well. The FAQ literally forbids movement for ANY reason. That means Cult Ambush cannot be used to move the unit. Did GW screw up? Yes, but that doesn't change it. GW needs to change it properly.

BCB,

Forgive me if you have gone over this before, but please explain how you are prohibited from Advancing and firing Assault weapons?

Cheers,

Oh gawd, don’t... just click his signature.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

Of course Cult Ambush does not refer to a FAQ that was released AFTER the rules came out.

It's the same way that Codex: Craftworld would not refer Codex: Ynnari (if it is ever released as a codex).

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

Of course Cult Ambush does not refer to a FAQ that was released AFTER the rules came out.

It's the same way that Codex: Craftworld would not refer Codex: Ynnari (if it is ever released as a codex).

You’re telling that to the guy who couldn’t comprehend that Index imperial Armour could in no way give a page reference for an as-yet-unreleased Codex so instead referenced the Index, and who then insisted that meant FW regiments could only ever use Index Datasheets. DItto he believes that Librarians are locked to Index powers even though the table has been updated in Codexes. Your simple, logical logic will be wasted, I fear...

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

Of course Cult Ambush does not refer to a FAQ that was released AFTER the rules came out.

It's the same way that Codex: Craftworld would not refer Codex: Ynnari (if it is ever released as a codex).

So then by that logic I can still use Warptime to move a unit after the arrive as reinforcements. So you're claiming the FAQ doesn't actually do anything, yet you claim I am unreasonable?

Where did he call you unreasonable? For someone so hung up on precision of language you sure put words in people’s mouths a lot.

Fragile is right. A general restriction forbidding Reinforcements from moving for "any other reason" is obviously overridden by a rule that explicitly tells you you can both set up as Reinforcements and then move.

 alextroy wrote:
Fragile is right. A general restriction forbidding Reinforcements from moving for "any other reason" is obviously overridden by a rule that explicitly tells you you can both set up as Reinforcements and then move.

Agreed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

You fail to understand how errata's work then. You have to errata Cult Ambush for it not to work. That FAQ on Reinforcements means nothing to CA because CA ignores that restriction.

Fragile wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Rule X can never be "more specific" than Rule Y stating that it ignores the restrictions of Rule X.

Cult Ambush does not say it ignores the restrictions of the Rulebook FAQ. The Tactical Reserves rule excludes Cult Ambush, so they can deploy outside the deployment zone just fine, but the Rulebook FAQ denies them the possibility to move.

This is the entire reason why I hate Special Snowflake FAQs like the one prohibiting movement like that, because it always does more harm than good compared to just writing the rule properly and erratating it.

You fail to understand how errata's work then. You have to errata Cult Ambush for it not to work. That FAQ on Reinforcements means nothing to CA because CA ignores that restriction.

CA doesn't ignore that restriction. They only ignore the restriction for being set up in their own deployment zone. Nothing exempts them from the Special Snowflake FAQ that quite literally says they cannot move "for any other reason." GW messed up the FAQ, that doesn't change because I dislike it.

It literally says in the rule. Perhaps you should reread before arguing the point.