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.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
No that means that arguments become a marathon event rather than a cogent analysis of what is written. This thread is a great example of that.

Nobody has proved that the SR transport rule refers to all dreadnoughts, the BA codex is written differently to the SM codex.
There is an argument to be made that dreadnought is refering to the class but that is not a solid stance.

The argument is and has been greater than that. As the same ruling applies to Drop Pods. I know that the terminology is a relic from past editions, we all do. I've given example after example of why an Ironclad Dreadnought is a Dreadnought.

My arguments were countered, by the same guy!!!! , with grammar arguments, Fluff is not rules, Fluff is rules, a single word is a deffinition, the unit composition in thte unit profile is the only thing that matters, unit composition in the unit profile is irrelevant, the unit entry on page 65 is irrelevant, the unit entry on page 65 is all that matters, FAQ's Change rules, What GW writes is the final word, what GW writes is false, and ,my favorite, the word "context" is at the same time an answer to my question and a specific request for more information.

The points that I have made. All classifications of Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts. 1) It in the name. 2) They all fall under the unit entry of "Dreadnought" much like Commisars, Sentinels, Valk/vendettas 3)The FAQ from GW points out that models of a subtype are considered to be models of the general type.

I did get sucked into the FAQ not changing the rules tangent. Which I countered by pointing out how the only two examples that I was given did not change any rules.

When challenged, I rose to the challenge. I don't see trolling there, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Firstly nobody responded to my examples from the FAQ's. They were ignored.

That is a "class" of units called Dreadnoughts and there is a unit Dreadnought. Which is it referring to? Is it clear that it is either?
In the BA codex each flavour of Dread is called a dread in it's unit composition. In SM this is not true.

No matter how you slice it there is proof that it refers to one or the other in the SM codex. The arguement is no more than that. You can drag it out to more than that but this argument comes down to what is a Dreadnought?

What's a truck?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's a truck?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is......

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
What's a truck?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's a truck?

Depends on what the definition of "is" is......

Well you can be like that or accept that words have more than one meaning.

Idolater - you ignored that the SitW FAQ literally swapped sides during 5th. It was a literal change to the rules, not presented as an errata. This is literally 100% indisputable.

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

Hot shot lasguns could be used by FRFSRF!. But they cant
Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

Nos not to nitpic but is the bolter example great? As it is special ammo goes to some while Lysander's thing goes to most of the rest.

Its just another example where you cant just go "well it has the word "X" in it so it must be of type "X"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Idolater - you ignored that the SitW FAQ literally swapped sides during 5th. It was a literal change to the rules, not presented as an errata. This is literally 100% indisputable.

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

Hot shot lasguns could be used by FRFSRF!. But they cant
Storm Bolters could use Special Issue ammo. But they cant

I had a much longer response but got a 404 error when I tried to post. I will get back to it after this.

I didn't ignore the SitW point. I was informed that the current FAQ for 6th ed doesn't jibe with the FAQ for 5th a year ago. That makes sense. No one informed me when their position changed. I have to assume it was when the actual rules changed. Since there are many factors involved that have to be answered to give a cogent response it's hard to answer.

Those questions would be. When was it changed? Was there an errata change that corresponds with the change in their position? Was there an amendments change that corresponds with the change in their position?

The second part of your post: The FAQ answer regards models not weapons considered to be carried by models. Expanding it to other elements doesn't hold up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Firstly nobody responded to my examples from the FAQ's. They were ignored.

That is a "class" of units called Dreadnoughts and there is a unit Dreadnought. Which is it referring to? Is it clear that it is either?
In the BA codex each flavour of Dread is called a dread in it's unit composition. In SM this is not true.

No matter how you slice it there is proof that it refers to one or the other in the SM codex. The arguement is no more than that. You can drag it out to more than that but this argument comes down to what is a Dreadnought?

What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

A Dreadnought is any model listed on pg 65 of the C:SM codex under the heading Dreadnought.

I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

To be clear, FAQs change the rules all the time. I don't know whose side that favors, but it's just true.

The recent weapon range wound allocation FAQ is a good example.

My example was in 5th edition.

The sw faq changed how modifiers worked in 5th edition.
SW TW Lords were toughness 5 so couldn't be ID'ed by s8 weapons. This was a change of the rules.

The changes to the shooting in 6th edition changed how shooting happens. That is a change of the rules as no such rules were included in the brb.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

What are the rules for magna grapple?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
To be clear, FAQs change the rules all the time. I don't know whose side that favors, but it's just true.

The recent weapon range wound allocation FAQ is a good example.

I said this was a non-issue within this debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What were your Examples of FAQ changing rules? I will be glad to address them. I only saw the two and did address those.

This FaQ chaned the rules.

The normal RAW let you move a flyer with a Magna-grapple, but this FaQ says you can not. Rules changed.


Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

What are the rules for magna grapple?

It's called the grapple special rule. It's in the BA codex on the same page as dreadnoughts.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

What are the rules for magna grapple?

It's called the grapple special rule. It's in the BA codex on the same page as dreadnoughts.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

 liturgies of blood wrote:
My example was in 5th edition.

The sw faq changed how modifiers worked in 5th edition.
SW TW Lords were toughness 5 so couldn't be ID'ed by s8 weapons. This was a change of the rules.

The changes to the shooting in 6th edition changed how shooting happens. That is a change of the rules as no such rules were included in the brb.

I can only answer current FAQ's. Who keeps old FAQ's? It's like keeping an old rulebook as a reference.

its that GW says their FAQ's are not changes to the rules that matters, not what I or any person thinks

we all know GW would never contradict them selves every now and then right?

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

Familiar with the idea of composite nouns?

"Heavy Flamer" refers to a unique item in the 40k world. Try it

Idolator - The FAQ changed its mind in February 2012. 6th edition came out later in 2012. It was a change to a rule within an edition, from "NO" to "YES". Indisputable.

I keep old rulebooks and codices for reference. There have been times when people bring up a rule from an older edition.

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"*Grapple: If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, His actual statement was that the current FAQ was now different than the FAQ issued in February 2012? He didn't claim that the answer in the February 2012 FAQ was a change from an earlier answer.

Next, If that was indeed a change in the answer, what other changes, if any were made in the Errata and Amendments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"Heavy" is a type of weapon, so "Heavy Flamer" by the "logic" presented here would be a Heavy weapon. But they arent.

We already covered why comparison that fails. That's like saying a Missile Cruiser is a missile....it's not, but it most definitely a Cruiser.

Are you familiar with the idea of adjectives? Usually come before nouns?

Familiar with the idea of composite nouns?

THat's not actually a thing. Nouns can be more than one word---and the line between a multi-word noun and noun with an adjective can be fuzzy. Regardless, if there's an adjective in there, it's less core to the concept than main noun word.....that's just common sense.

Why do you continue to ignore that Missile Cruiser example? It's perfectly illustrative. I feel you're just being obstinate, now.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I believe when the SitW question was brought first mentioned (by rigeld), he stated when the change was. He was then challenged on it and stated again when the change was.

He stated that the current FAQ was different that it was in February 2012. That was all. He never pointed out when it was changed. It's quite possible that they didn't change it until after the 6th came out as, until recently, GW would let long periods of time lapse between updates.

Without the entire Errata, Amendments and FAQ document, when the change was made, it would be impossible to make a case either way. As an Errata or ammendment change would cause a position change.

He said prior to Feb 2012 the FAQ said one thing, then it changed. You made the exact same claim about the change not being until 6th edition. Here was his reply to that:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, His actual statement was that the current FAQ was now different than the FAQ issued in February 2012? He didn't claim that the answer in the February 2012 FAQ was a change from an earlier answer.

Next, If that was indeed a change in the answer, what other changes, if any were made in the Errata and Amendments?

Prior to Feb 2012, SitW did not affect embarked Psykers (per the FAQ), they changed the answer to that question with that FAQ release. There were no changes to SitW in the Errata and Ammendments at that time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor valye nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

The Magna-Grapple can fire as a snap shot. the additional thing is a special rule, similar to the extra hits caused by tesla weapons.

Idolator - during 5th edition they initially stated SitW did not affect psykers embarked in a vehicle. Later, during 5th edition they changed this to say they WERE affected. 100% one of those was a change to the rules.

Another 5th edition example is COunter Attack + Furious charge. Initially they said passing CA meant you also got the benefit of FC. They then reversed this.

there are many, many examples where they change the way the rules are read to mean something entirely different, and do this as a FAQ.

The easy way for you to check the SitW one is to search on google, restricting the search to site:dakkadakka.com, and look for SitW

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What are the rules for magna grapple?

"*Grapple: If the Magna-grapple shot hits a vehicle and the target is not destroyed, roll a D6 and add 8 to the score. If the result is lower than the targets highest armor value nothing happens. If the result is equal to or higher than the target's highest armor value Move the vehicle 2D6" directly towards the Dreadnought. The target does not change facing and will stop if it comes within 1" of Difficult terrain, Impassible terrain, another vehicle, or a unit locked in close combat. Treat any non-vehicle unit the target moves over as having been tank shocked. Once the drag has been completed the Dreadnought releases the grapple - if the target survives the ensuing assault phase, it'll be able to move normally next turn." P. 60 BA Codex (I left out some fluff)

With this rule Flyers were able to be moved by the Magna-grapple, but the FaQ changed that for Zooming Flyers.

Does it use the models BS to fire? Can it be fired as a snapshot?

Yes sorry the profile on the Magna-grapple is Range 12" Str 8 AP2 Heavy 1 Grapple* (Grapple is the quoted rule above).

 Happyjew wrote:

Prior to Feb 2012, SitW did not affect embarked Psykers (per the FAQ), they changed the answer to that question with that FAQ release. There were no changes to SitW in the Errata and Ammendments at that time.

How can I possibly even answer that honestly, without the relevant information in front of me. I mean really. I'm not trying to spike your argument here. But I'm supposed to give my argument based on information that I don't have based on your assurances that the information that you are giving me is true. I would not expect you do do the same. I need to see both the pre 02/12 Errata and post 02/12.

The Magna-Grapple can fire as a snap shot. the additional thing is a special rule, similar to the extra hits caused by tesla weapons.

I see what they did, they consider the "drag" rule to be a form of assault. Since it implies contact from a ground model to a flier as it has the ability to cause the flier to come into contact with the firing model, and this is expressly forbidden. They have the same position on wrecking balls, boarding planks and deff rollas.
Their position is that it creates contact. It didn't change how the rule is worded.

It also seems that the Magna Grapple works like "Ram" which is also expressly forbidden against fliers.

Did the wording of how a Magna Grapple works change in any way? Neither did wrecking ball. They consider it a form of assault. I get it.

Did the RULE change? Yes.

Which is what we are saying. The recent change to Out of range being another classic example - there is no way to get from the written rules to their ruling, so it must be a change to the written rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - very easy to do quotes.

If you do the following:

[quote] text you want to quote [/quote]

It works every time. If you do [quote=NAME] text [/quote] you also put their name in (or any text)