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.

It all boils down to what you believe:

1) that when GW says replaces the relevant rules, you replace everything, including limitations.
or

2) that when GW says replaces the relevant rules, you replace the rule description, but the limitations in the appropriate codex remain.

And it can go either way.  I interpret it as #2, as the BGB "UNIVERSAL" rules would obviously NOT be able to list every single exception to every single piece of wargear, and list every single case when that skill or rule might not be able to be used. 

To my reading, all the BGB does is tell you how the rule works.  The codex tells you who can use it and when. 

But, as mentioned above, I'll hope and pray that GW releases that FAQ sometime before 2009, and actually includes relevant info (like this one).

Actually, sorry, I was incorrect about Terminator Armor; they can't take Infiltrate due to it not having an asterisk next to it in the armory. The FAQ also does say that models in Terminator Armor cannot Infiltrate (although it says it in a section stating that terminators cannot take Stealth Adept because models in Terminator Armor cannot Infilrate, when this is rather pointless because Stealth Adept itself says models in Terminator Armor cannot take it...).

But, still, models with the Mark of Khorne, on bikes, or statured princes can, by the RAW, use Infiltrate.

Posted by Lord Solar Plexus on 06/28/2006 1:55 PM
Are you insinuating that I have not read that, or that I am not discussing RAW?

After your comments that the Universal Special Rules only 'compliments' the rules in the codices when it quite clearly states in black and white that it replaces the rules in the codex in full it is very clear that you're not discussing the rules as written.

I am with Ghaz on this one!

Lord Solar Plexus, are you dense or just pretending to be dense for comedic effect?

This stuff is all very clear cut, and I'm curious why you bothered to resurect the thread so that you could incorrectly quote the rulebook and then use that as a basis for renewed argument.

Please, read the damn rulebook before you comment and/or leave it to those with a better understanding of the word "replaces" to discuss the rules.

Ridiculous.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/28/2006 10:52 PM you're not discussing the rules as written.

Of course I am. When I said that, I was referring to the FAQ, where it does not say 'replace' but 'takes precedence'. In black on grey. I have already admitted that the intro to the USR eluded me at that point. Since you dismiss and ignore this, I am led to believe that you do not consider the FAQ part of the rules, which in turn seems quite arbitrary.

Posted By Bloody_T on 06/29/2006 7:33 AM I am with Ghaz on this one!

I don't think anyone instituted a democracy here but hey.

Posted By mauleed on 06/29/2006 7:47 AM Lord Solar Plexus, are you dense or just pretending to be dense for comedic effect?

mauleed, is that a catch question or just your natural charming way? I?m new to the forum and the rules, and I thought it would be nice to find some solid ground on which to base future arguments. It may also be that my understanding of English is sometimes distorted, not being a native speaker and so. No need to get all excited.

This stuff is all very clear cut,

Well, why did you not say so beforehand! Now you?ve got me all convinced.

and I'm curious why you bothered to resurect the thread so that you could incorrectly quote the rulebook and then use that as a basis for renewed argument.

I did not quote the rulebook. I quoted - or rather referred to - the FAQ. I stated this several times, and you chose to ignore it. I incurred from the fact that Terminators may still not infiltrate that all those other limitations were still in place. Yes, it does not say so explicitly but I have admitted that before, too. I was also not aware that you had placed a time limit within which I have to reply to a given thread. What do you consider adequate behaviour, so that my posts are no detriment to your testosterone level anymore?

I incurred from the fact that Terminators may still not infiltrate that all those other limitations were still in place. Yes, it does not say so explicitly but I have admitted that before, too.

What you're missing is that termis can't infiltrate via RAW, with or without the FAQ -- the restriction on termis infiltrating exists in places other than the Chaos version of Infiltrate.

Posted by Lord Solar Plexus on 06/29/2006 9:47 AM
Of course I am. When I said that, I was referring to the FAQ, where it does not say 'replace' but 'takes precedence'.

And exactly pray tell which FAQ is that? I know of absolutely no FAQ for the main rulebook, nor of one that states that the Universal Special rules only 'takes precedence' instead of replacing the rules as the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook states.

Posted" by="" lowinor="" on="" 06/29/2006="" 9:21="" am="">

What you're missing is that termis can't infiltrate via RAW, with or without the FAQ -- the restriction on termis infiltrating exists in places other than the Chaos version of Infiltrate.

Ah, that indeed changes things! I only wonder why no-one pointed this out before - perhaps all of you know each and every sentence by heart or there are never newbies around this place making funny assertions. Actually I am astonished that the majority seems to play it the other way around, disregarding RAW. Or so I understand. I mean if this is so utterly clear and simple

@Ghaz: v 4.0.1

Ah, that indeed changes things! I only wonder why no-one pointed this out before - perhaps all of you know each and every sentence by heart or there are never newbies around this place making funny assertions. Actually I am astonished that the majority seems to play it the other way around, disregarding RAW. Or so I understand. I mean if this is so utterly clear and simple

You appear to be completely and utterly missing the point.

The majority of the people on the thread arguing for infiltrating statured princes and zerkers are also arguing that it is not reasonable to play that way.

I (as well as a lot of the more regular YMTC folks) remain unconvinced that it is even possible to play a complete game of 40k going entirely by RAW. Regardless of how pointless playing entirely by RAW is, statured princes and zerkers can infiltrate purely via the rules as written. Convention is irrelevant to the actual rules, and this forum is set up for the discussion of actual rules. Playing by the convention of "4th edition USRs replace mechanics of the rules in codices, but not restrictions on which units or models may use them" is, in reality, how I play, but I do so under the full understanding that it is a house rule. It's a good house rule -- in my opinion, at least -- but it is not RAW.

Hey all you egotistical jerks, Lord Solar Plexis is correct that it says that terminators cannot infiltrae in the FAQ which you all keep ignoring. From column 2, bullet point 4:

 

"Legion-specific abilities/wargear may not be taken by models in Terminator Armour unless stated otherwise, or unless that would contradict another rule. For example, models in Terminator Armour may not take Stealth Adept, as models in Terminator Armour cannot Infiltrate."

The italics are there in the FAQ, I did the bolding. It does not mention Statured Princes though.

Hey, I already corrected myself. Regardless of whether or not it's in the FAQ, termis can't Infiltrate for other reasons as well.

Right, thanks everybody for putting me on the right track. I didn't have my rulebook with me when I first replied and will make sure to look that up beforehand next time. It's just that the OP mentioned the FAQ, of which I was aware, so that and the two infiltrate paragraphs were my starting point.

Would anyone be so kind and point me to the relevant parts were it says that termis cannot infiltrate? It appears that I'm quite confused by the plethora of rules in various publications.

One last general question: Do you regard the FAQ's, errata or whatever they're called as an integral part of the rules, following the 'last published is valid' train of thought?

The official FAQs on the GW website are indeed integral to RAW. The FAQ says the BGB takes precedence, the BGB says it's USRs completely replace the older versions of those rules. Its not 'takes precedence' or 'replaces', its both.

It seems like the argument got stuck on infiltrating Termies. I don't think anyone is actually arguing for that.

What loki said for what counts as canonical.

There is the issue of the 4.3 FAQs, which were made available on the GW UK site briefly and then removed; consensus here seems to be that they are not canonical as the currently 'published' version is 4.0.1.

As for terminators infiltrating, see the box on page 14 of the Chaos codex: "Models in Terminator Armor may only use items marked with a *." Infiltrate bears no *.

Posted By blue loki on 06/30/2006 8:58 AM
Its not 'takes precedence' or 'replaces', its both.

That?s what I recognized too late and then was slow to retreat to safer argumentative ground.

It seems like the argument got stuck on infiltrating Termies. I don't think anyone is actually arguing for that.

Sadly I can imagine at least one person in my gaming group who will do exactly that. I can already hear him saying things like ?abilities are no items?.
So how do you guys react if you chance upon someone who insists on playing this RAW? Play under duress? Quit? Hit him with a deamon prince?

Posted By Lowinor on 06/30/2006 9:46 AM
What loki said for what counts as canonical.

There is the issue of the 4.3 FAQs,

Thank-you. I support the notion that this should not be regarded as canonical, simply because only a portion of players will actually have seen it and cannot produce it for proof.