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.

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

So the end result is that Hecaton is thinking this is a double mistake by GW, one undetected all this time?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

Or that is what the rule is supposed to say, but in typical GW fashion it is too muddled to easily get across the desired point.

Doesn't really matter. The FAQ tells you what the rule is supposed to say. It is correct because GW said so. You can't argue with the rules writers on their intent when they tell you what it is.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

Or that is what the rule is supposed to say, but in typical GW fashion it is too muddled to easily get across the desired point.

Doesn't really matter. The FAQ tells you what the rule is supposed to say. It is correct because GW said so. You can't argue with the rules writers on their intent when they tell you what it is.

When it's blatantly wrong you can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the end result is that Hecaton is thinking this is a double mistake by GW, one undetected all this time?

Is that far-fetched for GW?

Hecaton wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

Or that is what the rule is supposed to say, but in typical GW fashion it is too muddled to easily get across the desired point.

Doesn't really matter. The FAQ tells you what the rule is supposed to say. It is correct because GW said so. You can't argue with the rules writers on their intent when they tell you what it is.

When it's blatantly wrong you can.

The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong"??? Really?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

Or that is what the rule is supposed to say, but in typical GW fashion it is too muddled to easily get across the desired point.

Doesn't really matter. The FAQ tells you what the rule is supposed to say. It is correct because GW said so. You can't argue with the rules writers on their intent when they tell you what it is.

When it's blatantly wrong you can.

The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong"??? Really?

Yup.

In your opinion.

Hecaton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

Hecaton wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
The advanced rules don't state that, however. Occam's razor is that whoever wrote the faq misread the core rulebook.

Or they read it, realized there may be a loophole, and closed any possibility of it.

Or that is what the rule is supposed to say, but in typical GW fashion it is too muddled to easily get across the desired point.

Doesn't really matter. The FAQ tells you what the rule is supposed to say. It is correct because GW said so. You can't argue with the rules writers on their intent when they tell you what it is.

When it's blatantly wrong you can.

The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong"??? Really?

Yup.

Well, your statement is clearly incorrect then, because you say The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong", but GW printed the rules and they literally wrote the rules, your opinion means nothing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well, your statement is clearly incorrect then, because you say The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong", but GW printed the rules and they literally wrote the rules, your opinion means nothing.

When we're assessing the competence of GW rules, it means quite a bit.

Hecaton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well, your statement is clearly incorrect then, because you say The rules they printed are "blatantly wrong", but GW printed the rules and they literally wrote the rules, your opinion means nothing.

When we're assessing the competence of GW rules, it means quite a bit.

It really does not.

Your opinion on what the rules should say has no bearing in a RAW forum.

Does this mean the imperial knight oath Defend the Realm, honoured's ability of granting an additional 1CP in your command phase prevent you from also gaining one from the warlord trait Cunning commander (on a succesfull roll)?

Yep, you've gained your one for the battleground.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, you've gained your one for the battleground.

Wrong. Defend the realm extends the battleforged CP bonus, the battleforged CP bonus is exempted from the 1CP per battle round limit. A knight player can get 3CP per battleround from duty and wisdom and cunning commander.

Battle-forged CP Bonus: In this mission, at the start of each player’s Command phase, both players gain 1CP, not just the player whose turn it is. These CPs are Battle-forged CP bonuses, and so the limit of gaining a maximum of 1CP per turn does not apply to CPs gained as a result of this rule.

Duty and Wisdom: At the start of your Command phase, the Battle-forged CP bonus grants you 1 additional Command point (this will typically mean you gain 2 CPs, instead of 1).

CUNNING COMMANDER
At the start of your Command phase, if this WARLORD is on the battlefield, roll one D6: on a 5+, you gain 1 Command point.

Apologies, forgot it was a bonus to the bf bonus cp