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.

I know a lot of people who already said this is not an issue and will continue to play as is. My stance is the same.

Nevermind.

Can anbody provide a legit argument based on fact as to why necrons Do NOT get a wbb from str 9 or 10?? All I have seen so far is well it makes no sense, use common sense, etc. Facts here people I will gladly not allow WBB on str over double toughness but there is no sound argument to support it I have seen yet.

Just because it was widely accepted one way for a while doesn't make that way right. I thought synapse prevent instant death vs str 9 and 10 was widley accepted and it wasn't right. So can anybody please supply a legit sound argument?? I think not.

Most people who will still play it the same are probably non-necron players. If you go to a tournament and they allow it then what? Do you have any argument to present to them? They can present a few to support their views.

Yes the sound arguement is that the WBB wording is specific to state that the WBB is negated by weapons that are exactly double the strength of the necron!

It does not add in "double OR MORE" nor does it state, "Necrons suffering an attack causing instant death". It strictly states, "strength that is double the toughness".

That's pretty sound.

Posted By Green Bloater on 08/18/2006 2:38 PM
I know a lot of people who already said this is not an issue and will continue to play as is. My stance is the same.

I know a lot of guys that choose to have their bolters be Assault 10 str 10 AP 2 and will continue to play as is.  My stance is the same. 

Dang that was easy.  Can I  ignore other rules for my armies too?  The whole point we're making here Green Bloater is that the rules should assume to affect armies the same.  If not, then were just making up rules for each army based on what "makes sense."

I agree DATRON GOB. I meant sound argument against that. I can only see sound argument for it.

OOOOOPS my bad Magine.

 

EDIT: and i like the new nickname for me... DATRON GOB.

@ DIG

I just wanted to say that although I do not share your opinion I do respect your concern.

@ DIG

I just wanted to say that although I do not share your opinion I do respect your concern.

That's cool. But I am not giving you a hug.

That's okay seeing orks are not the huggy type.

I agree with ironkodiak. As players we do not have the luxury to pick and chose what rules to follow. If the rules are ambiguous, than as good sportsmen we should always strive to not manipulate the rules to our own benefit. However in this case, GW's FAQ specifically states how this wording is to be interpreted. As such, if you chose to disregard it in this case, what's to stop anyone from interpreting any rules as they see fit?

I think as a player if someone pointed this out to me, I would come to the same conclusion that WBB does in fact apply to necron warrior when they are wounded by S9 or S10 weapons, even if it makes no sense what so ever. But than again, when has common sense ever been applied to GW rules?

 

Good post. But now you are getting into a whole new area of discussion.

You basically have 3 types of discussions.

1-RaW, by far the biggest majority on this forum

2-Rules Questions (turns into RaW discussions really quick)

3-Common Sense Practice.

Now, I believe one of the big rules in YMDC is that we discuss RaW to the point of blood being drawn so that we can squeeze every last drop of arguement out here BEFORE it ruins a personal game or a tournament. As I said to Freefall via PM I used to NOT like dakkadakka because of how the YMDC forum worked. But after a few weeks of watching and reading I started to understand something that I would like everyone to remember...

..A good sportsman takes the route that is the least advantageous when discussing rules at tournaments.

On Dakkadakka, all bets are off. Draw blood if you have to but argue away!!! Bring up that outrageous interpretation on a rule, argue about the situations that CAN occur. Even if you sound like an idiot (or get called an idiot) remember it;s not YOU we hate, it's the ambiguous rules we hate.

Love,
D.I.G aka DaTronGob (hahaha)

I think that what's interesting here is not the RaW side of the issue (I think we're all in agreement that Necron Warriors get WBB from S9 and S10 weaponry according to the rule), it's the 'common sense practice' side of the issue.

GW's just set a really strong precedent for playing by the RaW in this case, and a moderately strong precedent for playing by the RaW wherever it can be done without breaking the game. We have plenty of evidence that they originally meant for Tyranids to be immune to most forms of instakill, but they've just said that, regardless of what they originally meant, you ought to simply play by the rule as writte, since it offers a consistent method of playing the game and is quite unambiguous.

I think that one can now make a strong argument that GW intends for you to ignore their intent when intent and RaW diverge. The way that GW intends the game to be played and the way the rulebook tells you to play the game are now, by definition, one and the same. Sure, it's possible to construct an argument in favor of playing the game as GW originally intended it to play, but that's really hard to maintain consistently (for example, the Eldar were pointed to be balanced in a field of opponents that don't include the Necrons and the Tau - they were never intended to play against those two races. How does one deal with this?).

Generally, I think that this is a good move for the game as a whole - there are going to be many fewer rules arguments (which are almost always RaW vs intent or common sense) and games will proceed faster, and this policy might well encourage codex authors to be more careful with their wording. However, I think this is generally a miserable way to go about establishing the supremacy of the rules as written. They should have simply said 'in the absence of a FAQ, we intend the game to be played as the codices and rulebook say' and then gone ahead and changed the things that they wanted to change in the FAQ.

Of course a Gobbo from Tron would be arguing in favor of the robots.

Another question brought up by the new FAQs involing Necrons is the monolith and Deep Strike. Land Speeders count as moving over 12" when they Deep Strike, does a Monolith also count as moving 12"?

Posted by Will on 08/18/2006 4:55 PM
As players we do not have the luxury to pick and chose what rules to follow.

Yes you do indeed have the luxury to pick and choose what rules you use in friendly games. They're called house rules and as long as your opponent agrees you can pick and choose to your heart's content.  It's only in leagues and tournaments that you would not have that luxury, but as a member of a league you would have an equal say with your fellow league members as to what house rules to use.

IMHO the real issue with the new FAQ's is not just that they set a new precedent re instant death.

The real issue is that they set the precedent for RAW to be the way that the rules are to be interpreted at all times as that seems to be the way that all the questions have been answered (that or "Ignore this paragraph/Should have been written as Skilled Rider")

I've just noticed that the guy who wrote the UKGT rules FAQ can't spell his own name.

The name "Aderson" can't be found in the residential phone directories for London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Nottingham. It looks like the name "Anderson," so I'm assuming he made a mistake. And didn't get anyone to proofread his document.

Since when does an FAQ for one codex apply to all (or any other) codeci?  Just because the developers made a ruling for the Nids to keep them balanced (their view not mine), it does not mean you can or should apply the same ruling/"precedent" to all other codeci/armies.  Those other armies might not need the ruling iot keep them balanced.  Saying that Necs should get or not get WBB is comparing apples to oranges because Necs and Nids have specific rules that are not like any other army and were designed for balance and theme.  Using the Nid's new FAQ ruling to "clarify" the issue for any other army is a mistake IMHO.  The only way to get clarity for the Necs is when (if) a Nec FAQ comes out- or God forbid- an FAQ for the rulebook.  In the meantime, GW has forced us to wallow in our own misery of rules debating to no real or "official" end.

And to add my irritation with GW over all this- I am completely unimpressed by the FAQs they just put out- they show no attention to detail and an obvious lack of effort (they had pages of questions handed to them on a silver platter but chose not to address them). 

"Since when does an FAQ for one codex apply to all (or any other) codeci? Just because the developers made a ruling for the Nids to keep them balanced (their view not mine), it does not mean you can or should apply the same ruling/"precedent" to all other codeci/armies."

That's a valid point, however, the rules need to obey basic rules of grammar and logic or no-one could understand them. The grammar and logic of the WBB and Nid IK rules are the same, but the results are contradictory in game terms.

My opinion is players will tend to disregard FAQs which don't make sense.

Normally, I am totally with you on ignoring things that make no sense... But this is a game with many exceptions and outright contradictions from one army to another. The Nid FAQ clarifies an issue for the Nids. Unfortunately GW has not seen fit to clarify any number of issues for Necs- insta-kill/WBB being one of them. The Nid and Nec rules are distinct departures from the main ruleset. They depart in different ways and have different effects for the army in question. It is (IMHO) illogical to apply a rule/FAQ "clarification" for one specific army to any other different army. The devs have not decided to "clarify" the WBB issue so you have to go with what is in the ruleset and the codex until such time as they get off their lazy duffs and support their customers by producing a FAQ for Necs (and the rulebook). How you interpret a rule is one thing, but using a different army's FAQ as justification is invalid (again IMHO). Likewise, disregarding an FAQ becasue you don't like what it says (whatever your justification) is tantamount to seeking an advantage the designers specifically sought to prevent. (No personal accusation intended...)

But the specific problem with the Necrons vs Nids is that players must either interpret the same grammar and logic differently in the two cases, or else must give an advantage to Necrons or a disadvantage to Nids. How to decide which way to go? The easiest option is to ignore the FAQ and return to the "status quo ante" which at least had common usage going for it.

But the specific problem with the Necrons vs Nids is that players must either interpret the same grammar and logic differently in the two cases

That's my point. There are many, many contradictions and deviations in this game, all made by the devs to "create balance". The main ruleset is used for most situations by most armies in any given situation. Players need to understand that any two armies can't be compared side by side because rule deviations are different for any two armies. Yes, all armies need to be played under the same ruleset, but with the specific deviations listed in the codex (and now clarified for the Nids in their FAQ). The rule deviations for one don't necessarily apply to other armies. In order to play 40K, logic must first be suspended...

All that being said, I am with you in spirit on going to status quo ante becasue I think these FAQs are such an abomination that they are an insult. But as soon as you do that, some player will come along and complain that they are official and make a stink about ignoring them. Then the issue of touney vs. friendly play comes and now you have to start remembering which rules to use when and that is just plain annoying.

Believe it or not it appears GW realized they were talking out their arse with the new Nid FAQ, and have retracted it. See the New & Rumors forum here on Dakka

Hallelujah! Maybe they will now get a clue and produce a FAQ that actually reflects a bit of brainpower and answers more questions than it creates... I wonder who got sacked over this most recent debacle... Actually, someone probably got promoted if logic within GW is a reflection of their rules-writing ability.

I think the point of this thread is now moot since the revision in the FAQ's about the RAW.

http://us.games-workshop.com/membership/eshare.pl?do=ShowArticle&BoardID=4&ID=5203285
http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/TyranidsFAQ.pdf

They've done what we thought they'd do. This is good work by GW.

Is it just me or the new version of the faq says that Tyranid creatures within synapse are not affected by instant death, but in the next question (about wraithcannon), they say they ARE instant killed by the Wraithcannon "as if they were hit by a weapon with a strenght of more than double their Toughness"!?!?!?!?!?

What the hell????

Phil

Is it just me or the new version of the faq says that Tyranid creatures within synapse are not affected by instant death, but in the next question (about wraithcannon), they say they ARE instant killed by the Wraithcannon "as if they were hit by a weapon with a strenght of more than double their Toughness"!?!?!?!?!?

I would ignore the reference to the instantkill in the Wraithcannon ruling. They changed the main problem....

They have apparently fixed the wraithcannon problem as well. It reads fine to me.

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/TyranidsFAQ.pdf

So, now all of you tyranid players can stop crying. Apparently there is no possible way to instant-kill your precious monsters. Oh, and normal blast rules don't apply to you guys either so feel free to destroy vehicles with ease with the bio acid mines. What the heck was the problem with that before? People couldn't divide their results by 2? How was this even a Frequently Asked Question?