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.
ThatMG wrote: Serious both those posts are spam, this thread/YMDC is about RAW! It is clearrly obvious that previous FAQ is stating Ability applies to attacks made in the shooting phase. The NEW FAQ states Overwatch is the shooting phase for attacks and abilities work. You are breaking the rules if you don't play this way.
ThatMG wrote: Serious both those posts are spam, this thread/YMDC is about RAW! It is clearrly obvious that previous FAQ is stating Ability applies to attacks made in the shooting phase. The NEW FAQ states Overwatch is the shooting phase for attacks and abilities work. You are breaking the rules if you don't play this way. The Context of that no, is referring to a question that is no longer valid.
False. The answer is still valid as it's still in the FAQ. Where do you get to decide to ignore a FAQ just because you don't think it applies anymore?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
ThatMG wrote: Serious both those posts are spam, this thread/YMDC is about RAW! It is clearrly obvious that previous FAQ is stating Ability applies to attacks made in the shooting phase. The NEW FAQ states Overwatch is the shooting phase for attacks and abilities work. You are breaking the rules if you don't play this way. The Context of that no, is referring to a question that is no longer valid.
Rule as writen
The writing says No
No means No
the end.
How do you not understand basic English
Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
APRIL FAQ Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase. = GG
The No, no longer applies! As abilities work on "as if" Phases
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/02 21:42:58
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
So again if the question is:
Q: Does this mean that Dark Reapers can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
The answer is:
A: No.
Seems pretty conclusive to me, and many, many others
And there's still a perfectly valid FAQ that says Inescapable Accuracy can't be used in Overwatch yet you keep ignoring that fact.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Galef wrote: You don't get to ignore this STILL VALID FAQ
Q: The Dark Reapers’ Inescapable Accuracy ability no longer mentions Overwatch. Does this mean that they can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
A: No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
So again if the question is:
Q: Does this mean that Dark Reapers can hit on Overwatch on rolls of 3+?
The answer is:
A: No.
Seems pretty conclusive to me, and many, many others
-
Except it doesn't just Say No.
It says
No. Inescapable Accuracy only affects attacks made in the Shooting phase.
What in basic English and logic or coding means.
FAQ April states
Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made as if it were your Shooting phase.
So the No, it only works in [insert x condition]
Means
Yes, it only works in [condition met].
Can anyone even see the logic I am following?
This is the reason why BCB posted they should just make the rule "this rule does not apply to Overwatch; insert effect."
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 21:57:59
Considering the Faction FAQ dropped literally 30 minutes before the General FAQ, I'm also gonna hafta say it don't work. You can try to argue that those 30 minutes means the Faction FAQ is outdated, if you want. Don't get upset when people look at you like a TFG, though. There's an FAQ that specifically say it don't work. Dropped the same day as the FAQ that says "Overwatch counts as a Shooting Phase." Pretty sure the general rule of thumb is that specific trumps general.
flandarz wrote: Considering the Faction FAQ dropped literally 30 minutes before the General FAQ, I'm also gonna hafta say it don't work. You can try to argue that those 30 minutes means the Faction FAQ is outdated, if you want. Don't get upset when people look at you like a TFG, though. There's an FAQ that specifically say it don't work. Dropped the same day as the FAQ that says "Overwatch counts as a Shooting Phase." Pretty sure the general rule of thumb is that specific trumps general.
Except the fact that the rule that says Overwatch is magenta and the previous is black so semantics not rules!
"always use the most up to date rule"
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 22:01:47
If they didn't replace it, it's still the most "up to date" rule concerning Inescapable Accuracy. Specific over general. This is an FAQ dealing with IA specifically. Unless you have another FAQ that says "Can IA be used in Overwatch? Yes.", then the previous FAQ still applies.
flandarz wrote: If they didn't replace it, it's still the most "up to date" rule concerning Inescapable Accuracy. Specific over general. This is an FAQ dealing with IA specifically. Unless you have another FAQ that says "Can IA be used in Overwatch? Yes.", then the previous FAQ still applies.
You are ignoring RAW by doing that.
FAQ April is stating the Overwatch is the shooting phase for abilities.
A PREVIOUS FAQ mentioning A PREVIOUS wording of a rule. Says NO, UNLESS [Insert CONDITION is met]
The April FAQ is the MAIN RULEBOOK and it is changing the way the game is played.
That being "As if" Phase do indeed use any applicable rules. An Overwatch is the SHOOTING phase for attacks.
So Dark Reapers get to shoot 3+ in Overwatch as their rule says
"model's in this unit always hit on a 3+ when firing a ranged weapon in the shooting phase regardless of any modifiers."
I do not care about how you, TOs some dude in his garage will play it. However this is the RAW of this interaction. An YMDC is RAW!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 22:13:32
A PREVIOUS FAQ mentioning A PREVIOUS wording of a rule. Says NO, UNLESS [Insert CONDITION is met]
No. (And by 'no', I mean 'no', and not 'yes'.) There is no 'unless' there. It says "No. <reasons.>" That the reasons may be bogus do not remove the no.
I kinda think you're ignoring RAW by doing that. What we got is two rules, that are not mutually exclusive. One says that OW acts as the Shooting Phase. The second says that IA does no work in OW. Neither of these contradicts the other. You have a general rule that says the former and a specific call out that states the latter.
It'd be like your job starting Casual Fridays, but specifying that tank tops are not appropriate to wear. The former doesn't override the latter.
A PREVIOUS FAQ mentioning A PREVIOUS wording of a rule. Says NO, UNLESS [Insert CONDITION is met]
No. (And by 'no', I mean 'no', and not 'yes'.) There is no 'unless' there. It says "No. <reasons.>" That the reasons may be bogus do not remove the no.
No, IA works only in the shooting phase.
So IF any mechanic/game state/change/makes it the shooting phase IA WILL work, the No gets invalidated.
As English sentence structure is later takes precedence not former.
April FAQ says Overwatch attacks are resolved as Shooting Phase for abilities [etc]
So yet again 3+ Overwatch [Side note with guide re-rolls] KEK!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/02 22:28:10
As a side note, this is inaccurate. YMDC is "You Make Da Call". It is a place to discuss either RAW or RAI. When there is a debate, you can often find RAW and RAI at odds and it is important for the thread to distinguish which one you're discussing. In my years in YMDC, I have found that discussing RAW simply to discuss the RAW is often fruitless, especially if it is in regard to contentious subject. Most times, people are trying to understand the RAI and if the RAW backs it up, then even better. But to pound the table and scream "RAW, RAW, RAW" isn't worth much.
In fact, back in 5th Edition, there used to be a thread here about how pages and pages of rules in the BRB/Codices didn't actually work because of their RAW wording. But there's no point in really going into great detail on them because if you tried to pull one of the examples on your opponent, you would find yourself out of friendly games. Just something to think about.
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
