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.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Well for one: it isn't a weapon, it is a special ability.

The question is specific to weapons, not everything that doesn't need to roll to hit or hits automatically.

and to take the stance that it is not a weapon means that you can not add the strength of the attack to the D6 roll to pen. So right there you have an instance of the rules not working correctly, so that interpretation can not be correct.

If it is considered a weapon, then you can add the Strength to the armor pen roll. Of course that also means that you can not hit a zooming flyer with that ability.

DUDE! That has nothing to do with this topic so stop bringing it up!!

So don't bring up anything that pokes holes in your argument? Right.

Wether or not LoTS lightning hits can penetrate vehicles is at best tangically related to wether or not LoTS can hit a flier. The only common ground between them is the fact that they involve LoTS in some capacity. If
you'd like to discuss wether or not LoTS lightning hits can penetrate a vehicles' armor, perhaps you should consider starting a new thread? as this one is about a different topic which is obviously not the one you want to discuss.

Is LotS an attack? If not, why not?

 reds8n wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
hey Red! long time no see... you know I can be alot worse though... you gotta be a little proud that Im doing better right?

I'm sure that if you put your mind to it you could craft weapons from words that would wound the Gods themselves, leave daemons weeping and searching for redemption and leave injuries that an eternity of time will not heal. Yet, mainly due to those pesky ol' forum rules, code of conduct and basic human decency that we expect users to abide by, we'd much rather you left such artifices for elsewhere and elsewhen, mayhaps for situations slightly more important that the ins and outs and whathaveyous of a game of toy soldiers.

Makes for a better experience for all.

Thank you.

I think Im being civil... opinionated and all that lol

But I am curious about the either crystal too, as you ignore the base for reasons of movement only, as the vehicle is actually above the ground

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote: There are other FAQs where answer given is goes far beyond what was asked. Good examples are: IG FAQ entry about priests and enginseers, SW FAQ entry about Leaders of the Pack and Tyranid FAQ entry about Mawloc.

I'm sorry, you seem to be saying that the FAQ should be extrapolated from in addition to being a set of answers to specific questions.

What I'm saying that FAQ can answer other things than just the explicit question asked. Usually they also answer stuff directly related to the participants of the question, sometimes they add new rules, in others they make up answers to other questions. Typical example would be:
Q: Can X do Y?
A: No. X also cannot do Z.
This is no way related to the specific question asked, but it is related to participant of the question.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like you to provide a reason for that: Do any of those examples you've listed above indicate that they extend beyond the explicit scope of their own questions to provide specific rules interpretation to non-specifically addressed related ones?

Yes, those all do. That's why I used them as examples. It really would have been common courtesy to read them through before asking this.

As far as answer going beyond the explicit scope of the question, and addressing related ones, you can find many in the rulebook FAQ itself:

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)

These all answer related concerns. Note that saying which things cannot hit Flyers is very much related to a question that asks "Can X,Y or Z hit Fliers".

Luide wrote:As far as answer going beyond the explicit scope of the question, and addressing related ones, you can find many in the rulebook FAQ itself:

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)

These all answer related concerns. Note that saying which things cannot hit Flyers is very much related to a question that asks "Can X,Y or Z hit Fliers".

I come from a place with different debate preferences i guess, where it is considered a courtesy to validate your own arguments rather than ask the opposing party to research them him or herself (though of course it always behooves both parties to be as educated as possible, sure.)

Regarding your FAQ questions listed above: can you indicate what you believe about them supports your position please? At the risk of sounding lacking in common courtesy; i'm not seeing how they prove your point from the information you've provided.

Every answer provides a direct answer to the question asked AND also gives additional answers related to the question, but only indirectly

Meaning that FAQ answers do, indeed, go beyond the scope of their question, and do so on a regular basis. Meaning that to posit a position stating that is not possible is highly unsafe

Can you provide a specific example of such and how it indicates that? I'm curious what you are using for your precident.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

Specific question - can PSAs be fired as Snap Shots.
Answer - Yes.
Supplemental Answer - Cannot be used for Overwatch.

I'd like to note that your answer 'and' supplemental answer there are specific to PSAs, as is the question.

A closer analogue to the point that some folk seem to be trying to make would be something like this example:
Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

(and the attempt to apply it to every kind of attack rather than just PSAs based on the verbiage above)

The point is the faq provided information that was never asked. There is no rule or extend to what that extra information may be. In the case of the flyers we got an answer that covers all cases. Which actually is the best GW could have done.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd like to note that your answer 'and' supplemental answer there are specific to PSAs, as is the question.

A closer analogue to the point that some folk seem to be trying to make would be something like this example:
Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

(and the attempt to apply it to every kind of attack rather than just PSAs based on the verbiage above)

The additional answer had NOTHING to do with the question. It answered a question that was not asked

This proves that any position that FAQs may only answer the question asked, and nothing wider, has no basis in fact

 Neorealist wrote:
I come from a place with different debate preferences i guess, where it is considered a courtesy to validate your own arguments rather than ask the opposing party to research them him or herself (though of course it always behooves both parties to be as educated as possible, sure.)

You can't really call it "research" if I give you exact citation of the FAQ question where you can see situation I pointed out. And I'd consider giving example and specific place where to find the exact text "validating" my argument.

 Neorealist wrote:
Regarding your FAQ questions listed above: can you indicate what you believe about them supports your position please? At the risk of sounding lacking in common courtesy; i'm not seeing how they prove your point from the information you've provided.

None of them only answers the specific question asked. They all extend beyond the explicit scope of the question asked. So exactly as I said earlier: "What I'm saying that FAQ can answer other things than just the explicit question asked. "

I've posted all FAQ entries here so I can get Neorealist to read them, as apparantly reading them from the actual FAQ documents would be considered "forcing him to research them and thus forcing him to validate my arguments".
I've also underlined the portions of the answers that were not specifically asked about in the question.

Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a
roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the building interior to disembark from the battlements. Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the rules on page 95

Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1"
away from the vehicle.

Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No. However, if the Mawloc cannot be placed because a Zooming Flyer or a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is in the way, move the obstructing model by the shortest distance so that they are 1" away from the Mawloc when it is placed.

Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to
count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission
that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard
unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting,
who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those
packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

tl;dr version: FAQ entries do make rulings that affect things that were not specifically asked about. Just because question is "Can A do B" doesn't mean that answer cannot be "No. Also C cannot do B".

Ah good you've finally indicated what you believe each one is stating that proves your contention, so i can respond to such. I've split up your post to make it easier on me to address individual points.

Luide wrote:Q: Can psychic shooting attacks be fired as Snap Shots (assuming that the Psyker has enough Warp Charge available and requires a roll to hit)? (p13)
A: Yes, but only in your own Shooting phase. This means that psychic shooting attacks cannot be made when firing Overwatch.

I've addressed this one already: but i'll reiterate that all the relevent rules in both the question and the answer are specific to PSAs, no more general context is provided for any other form of attack in either the question or the answer. Being unable to fire a PSA as an overwatch shot is a clarification based on the fact that they (psychic powers) can only be used on the psykers' owners' turn unless explicitly stated otherwise, not an additional rule or restriction.

Luide wrote:Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the building interior to disembark from the battlements. Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the rules on page 95

Both components of this answer deal with disembarking from battlements, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1" away from the vehicle.

Both components of this answer deal with Tank Shocking a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Both components of this answer deal with firing overwatch shots from a fortification, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Luide wrote:Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No. However, if the Mawloc cannot be placed because a Zooming Flyer or a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature is in the way, move the obstructing model by the shortest distance so that they are 1" away from the Mawloc when it is placed.

Both components of this answer deal with the effects of the Mawlocs 'Terror from the Deep' special rule, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Luide wrote:Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting, who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

This is explicitly about how Wolf Guard work within the context of their own rules (both the question and fairly lengthly answer). How can this be interpreted to provide general rules apart from what it explicitly states?

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can a vehicle Tank Shock a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature? (p49)
A: No. If a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature would end up underneath the Tank Shocking vehicle when it reaches its final position, move it by shortest distance so that it is 1" away from the vehicle.

Both components of this answer deal with Tank Shocking a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling.
(In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

Luide wrote:Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the fortification.

Both components of this answer deal with firing overwatch shots from a fortification, as does the question itself. How can this be construed to provide a more general ruling on some aspect not explicitly mentioned in the question, and if so, what is that general aspect not covered in the question?

How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Luide wrote:Q: If a Wolf Guard Pack Leader has joined a unit of Troops, does that unit cease to be a scoring unit? And does the Wolf Guard cease to count as an Elite model? (p86)
A: When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes. For instance, a Pack Leader that leads a Troops unit will still be able to claim an objective even if his Troops unit is wiped out – he is considered to be part of that Troops unit. He would also still be able to deploy in a mission that only allows Troops units to be deployed at first. Conversely, a Pack Leader that leads a Long Fang unit is counted as part of a Heavy Support choice, even if under the effects of Logan Grimnar’s The Great Wolf special rule. This also applies to the calculation of victory points – the Wolf Guard who have been split off from their original Wolf Guard unit count as part of their assigned unit in all respects. For example, I have a Wolf Guard squad of 10 and I like to split 3 of them off to be Wolf Guard Pack Leaders, one to lead my Blood Claws, one to lead my Grey Hunters, one to lead my Long Fangs. My opponent would score one victory point if he kills off all 7 of the Wolf Guard left in the squad after splitting, who are still forming a ‘normal’ unit. He doesn't need to kill all 10 of the Wolf Guard to get that victory point, as the other three Wolf Guard are now part of other squads. Conversely, because the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are attached to these new squads, he would not score a victory point for killing those squads unless he kills ALL of the models in those packs, including the Wolf Guard Pack Leaders.

This is explicitly about how Wolf Guard work within the context of their own rules (both the question and fairly lengthly answer). How can this be interpreted to provide general rules apart from what it explicitly states?

Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

rigeld2 wrote: Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

I'm afraid you've lost me with this comment. Can you clarify what part of that ruling involves Crypteks, or why you feel a literal interpretation of it's contents somehow 'opens up quite a few cans of worms'?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

"Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote: Without that we have no idea how to treat Crypteks. If you assert that it only ever counts for Wolf Guard you've opened up quite a few cans of worms that need to be resolved - and currently cannot.

I'm afraid you've lost me with this comment. Can you clarify what part of that ruling involves Crypteks, or why you feel a literal interpretation of it's contents somehow 'opens up quite a few cans of worms'?

How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Not true. The latter, underlined portion explains what happens when a Tank Shocks a unit on the opposite side of a SFMC but stops underneath it (for whatever reason). General Tank Shock ruling. (In other words, the underlined portion does not, as you assert, deal with Tank Shocking a SFMC as that would be ludicrous - it's already been stated that you cannot do so)

You are generally not allowed to have models taking up the same location on the board. Flying monstrous creatures use the 'Jump Units' ruleset (found on page 47) to determine legal moves/positions for them on the board as modified by the flying monstrous creature rules themselves. The FAQ answer reiterates that aspect of their rules, not creates and/or modifies them pursuant to the question.

rigeld2 wrote: How can "they do not count as embarked inside the fortification" not be construed as a more general ruling?

Easily? The less flippant answer would be that units on the battlements count as not being embarked on a fortication by virtue of the fortification rules themselves regarding battlements, not the content of the FAQ. In other words, again that latter part is a clarification of how the rules already work, not a change or modification to those rules.

Isn't the FAQ entry that we're discussing just a clarification of how the rules work? Someone asked a question about how certain weapons interacted with flyers, the answer clarifies that rule in the the same way as the examples we've seen. I honestly don't see a difference between the the HtH FAQ entry and any of the ones posted by Luide.

As i understand the current argument:

Idea 1: There are sometimes general principles outlined in the FAQ answers that are independant of the specific question being asked and which can be applied to rules not specifically mentioned in the question.

Idea 2: The answers are specific to the question being asked, and should not be applied to rules outside the scope of what is presented in the questions themselves.

Here is the contentious FAQ entry itself , editted to show the ideas with greater clarity:
1:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (including all types of attacks, even those not specifically mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

2:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (specifically those mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

So far all the FAQ entries that have been posted here appear to include clarifications of the original rule presented in the question rather than modifications to it.


edit: Sure, i love tangents!

rigeld2 wrote:Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

Sure thing. (from the tank shock rules on page 85) "If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not) these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between thern and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board."

rigeld2 wrote: "Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

The only thing 'like other' implies there is that a unit on the battlements is not fearless like the other units in the building. The unit is embarked on the battlements, not inside the building and is therefore not fearless. (see the 'unshakeable' rule on page 94)

rigeld2 wrote: How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

1 victory point
no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course.
yes
The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (for all intents and purposes). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (and count as it for all intents and purposes.)

 Neorealist wrote:
As i understand the current argument:

Idea 1: There are sometimes general principles outlined in the FAQ answers that are independant of the specific question being asked and which can be applied to rules not specifically mentioned in the question.

Idea 2: The answers are specific to the question being asked, and should not be applied to rules outside the scope of what is presented in the questions themselves.

Here is the contentious FAQ entry itself , editted to show the ideas with greater clarity:
1:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (including all types of attacks, even those not specifically mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

2:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks (specifically those mentioned in the question above). that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.

So far all the FAQ entries that have been posted here appear to include clarifications of the original rule presented in the question rather than modifications to it.

Whether they are clarifications or modifications is irrelevant. All of the examples go beyond the specific question being asked and give a broader answer.

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Yeah but a battle tank doesn't take much damage from lightning either. Its super lightning that's the problem

And yes it hits flyers. It causes D^ automatic hits against ANY unit/vehicle on the board

 Ridealgh wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Yeah but a battle tank doesn't take much damage from lightning either. Its super lightning that's the problem

And yes it hits flyers. It causes D^ automatic hits against ANY unit/vehicle on the board

Can you cite a relevant source? Other than just your opinion.

For example; Only snapshots may hit flyers, or something of the sort?

Otherwise I can just say "Nuh-Unh"

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

Luide wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Luide wrote:Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

I had to look this one up; and found that neither model can be taken as/in a HQ slot, and therefore cannot fulfill the force organisation requirement of at least one HQ per army. (so each must be taken in addition to at least one other model). How is this anything but a specific answer to a specific question?

Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

Off-topic, I'm wondering why they cannot be the Warlord. Both are characters, both are HQ choices. Nothing in the Warlord rules state that your Warlord has to be a model from the HQ Slot on the FOC.

Luide wrote: Read the underlined portion again. And tell me, where in the question was the word "Warlord" used (requirement for the specific) or where in the rules is there requirement for a Warlord to be chosen from you mandatory HQ choice (requirement for directly related)?

This is one of the very few FAQs that actually go out on their way to give out second ruling that is only peripherally related the the question asked.

Many other people have responded to the posts here, but my stance is still the same:
"FAQs may contain rulings not only about the specific question being asked, but also about issues related to the subject or object of the question asked."

From the 'Choosing your Army' page: (specifically the Force Organisation sub-section, on page 108) ....Every army contains at least one Headquarters unit, and a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord...

note this is reiterated in the Warlord rules themselves: ...It is is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership..."

Relevent to your point: specifically this means a model selected for a HQ FOC slot must be chosen as your warlord. It doesn't have to be your 'only' HQ, just one of the ones picked to fill an HQ slot. (which the guard ICs mentioned in the FAQ do not qualify for, despite otherwise being treated as HQ units).

 Neorealist wrote:
. It doesn't have to be your 'only' HQ, just one of the ones picked to fill an HQ slot. (which the guard ICs mentioned in the FAQ do not qualify for, despite otherwise being treated as HQ units).

The underlined is not said in any of those rules you have quoted.

One says "Headquarters unit" the other says "HQ choice" The Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers are both a "Headquarters unit" and an "HQ choice". unless you are saying you do not choose to include a Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer in your army because they are automatically chosen for you and added into your army.

The rule from the Force Organisation section telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

I'm bemused by your latter comment however: By what astounding leap in logic did you go from what i actually 'said' to presuming i'm espousing that the engiseer and priest are automatically chosen for you by some method?

 Neorealist wrote:
The rule from the Force Organisation section telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

So the Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer is not a "Headquarters unit"?

Where does it say "HQ FOC slot"?

I did not see that amongst your quotes.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm bemused by your latter comment however: By what astounding leap in logic did you go from what i actually 'said' to presuming i'm espousing that the engiseer and priest are automatically chosen for you by some method?

Basically when you said "note this is reiterated in the Warlord rules themselves: ...It is is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership..."

I thought you meant that it had to be an HQ unit you Choose (the HQ choice) that has the highest LD.

 Neorealist wrote:
The rule from the Force Organisationsection telling you that you can only pick from the model(s) you've selected for your Headquarters unit for your warlord isn't a specific enough a reference for you?

Underlined mine. Priest is obviously HQ units, something you seem to have ignored whole time. Now, what you'd need is rule that tells us "Warlord must come from HQ Selection that uses up FOC Selection/slot", but there is no such rule in the rulebook. You've just assumed there must be such rule, because FAQ infers that such rule does exist. Problem is that the FAQ writer just made new rule.

 Neorealist wrote:
While the Engiseer and Priest do count as HQ units for all other purposes, they are explicitly 'not' something you can select from for an HQ FOC slot (aka: an HQ Choice) as per their own rules.

Actually, you're wrong again. They're explicitly something that does not use up FOC selection, according to their own rules.

Codex IG, page 93, Ministorum Priest wrote: Priests do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

Note that the wording very much indicates that they are in fact HQ selection. If they weren't FOC selection, they would have said "Priests are not a HQ selection". Also, if they weren't a HQ selection, how could you select them as part of your army list?
Note: As per page 109, FOC choice is synonymous with FOC selection.

Luide wrote: Underlined mine. Priest is obviously HQ units, something you seem to have ignored whole time. Now, what you'd need is rule that tells us "Warlord must come from HQ Selection that uses up FOC Selection/slot", but there is no such rule in the rulebook. You've just assumed there must be such rule, because FAQ infers that such rule does exist. Problem is that the FAQ writer just made new rule.

Note that the wording very much indicates that they are in fact HQ selection. If they weren't FOC selection, they would have said "Priests are not a HQ selection". Also, if they weren't a HQ selection, how could you select them as part of your army list?
Note: As per page 109, FOC choice is synonymous with FOC selection.

I've never ignored that priests and engiseers are units. Quite the opposite really, as i've explicitly stated that very thing in a prior post:

Neorealist wrote: ...despite otherwise being treated as HQ units...

What i'm saying is that the do not count as a 'HQ FOC selection', and therefore do not count as an 'HQ choice'. If something explicitly does not use up (fill, is, etc) any FOC selections, it cannot be said to 'be' an FOC selection regardless of it's type.