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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.

The one I've always remembered was from way back at the beginning of 5th edition - the Deff Rolla (an Ork vehicle upgrade that inflicted D6 S10 AP- hits to a unit that it tank shocked). Someone asked YMDC whether Deff Rolla's bonus could be used against a vehicle that was rammed, since ramming was listed part and parcel of the tank shocking rules.

Oh boy was it contentious. There was a poll I recall being almost 50/50 split on the issue. There was much name calling and shouts of "rules lawyer!" and "WAAC jerk!" and "TFG! TFG! TFG!"

This carried on for a while. Both sides argued that the other side wasn't employing common sense. On the "Allow" side, it was common sense that ramming and tank shock were the same action, so that it was only natural that the Deff Rolla would be used during a Ramming attempt. On the "Prevent" side, it was common sense that the combination was never intended by the authors because giving a unit multiple S10 attacks was unheard of and obviously unfair and un-fun.

Both sides used rules-arguments, fluff-argument, and everything in between to try to prove their point. In the end, no consensus was ever reached (with both sides walking away feeling that the other side was a bunch of cheating losers trying to twist the rules to their own advantage) until finally GW released an FAQ coming down on the Allow side.

Took a while for the dust to settle on that one, believe me.

Point being, "common sense" is not some universal truth that everyone instinctively knows, and not everyone who disagrees with "your" (not directed at anyone) interpretation of something is out to deceive and defraud you.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.

And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.

Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.

For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.

I suppose we have no choice but to wait until the official FAQ is out.

I strongly suspect that common sense will prevail, at least, for the most part.

Traditio wrote:
Here's a criterion of common sense:

What if you had a week to read the rulebook (or just enough time to give it a thorough, fair reading, but not enough time to scrutinize every line and their interrelations) and then, all of a sudden, all of the rulebooks were burned.

Everyone has to play from their general understanding of how the game works and the justifications presented in italics.

That isn't "common sense" it's "try to play a ridiculously complicated game with half-remembered rules and make up most of it as you go along because you can't remember what the rule was supposed to be." Or "it worked that way back in 4th edition, and I forgot we changed the rule in 6th". Or a great many alternatives that have nothing to do with any conventional definition of "common sense".

That's probably how GW employees themselves play.

Of course they do, but this is not a good thing. It's yet another example of GW's incompetence at writing and developing rules.

Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.

And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.

Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.

For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.

I suppose we have no choice but to wait until the official FAQ is out.

I strongly suspect that common sense will prevail, at least, for the most part.

And for the nth time common sense isn't common, different groups have different common sense.
So saying common sense will prevail is like saying the sky is blue. No matter the out come, common sense will win. It might not be your or mine though, but rather that of an underpaid intern who has no idea what they are doing.

Peregrine wrote:That isn't "common sense" it's "try to play a ridiculously complicated game with half-remembered rules and make up most of it as you go along because you can't remember what the rule was supposed to be."

For the most part, it's not that complicated, if you make the following assumption:

The rules are basically supposed to make sense.

It makes absolutely no sense that someone driving a skimmer can make fancy dodge moves when his skimmer can't move.

It makes absolutely no sense that you can reroll a 1 on a die that doesn't even have a 1 on it.

It makes absolutely no sense that cover be granted to an MC because it has its big toe at the very edge of a forest.

If you combine the "it's supposed to make sense" rule with the "read the italics rule" with "no grammar naziism," the rules become a lot more simple.

Of course they do, but this is not a good thing. It's yet another example of GW's incompetence at writing and developing rules.

Or maybe it's symptomatic of the variance between the product that GW is intending to sell and their intended target audience, on the one hand, and the product that at least some customers are expecting to receive.

But this is a dead horse that I've already beaten enough.

As I said before: I await eagerly the official FAQ, which, I strongly suspect, will vindicate many of my expressed opinions and provide me with all the bragging rights and smug satisfaction that comes with it.

 insaniak wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:
Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong?

Clarity, mostly.

When they change a rule in an FAQ without any explanation for the change, we're all left wondering if the FAQ answer is a mistake, if the original rule was a mistake, or if the rule was written as originally intended but some reason had cropped up since then for changing how it worked.

This exactly. If the BRB says YES, and the FAQ says NO, which is it? If an ERRATA said NO, we would have an unambiguous answer.

Traditio wrote:
For the most part, it's not that complicated, if you make the following assumption:

No, 40k is incredibly complicated. Have you seen the 40k rulebook lately? In sheer page count it's way beyond what most games have.

The rules are basically supposed to make sense.

Except when they don't make sense. Why does a model with one fingertip poking out from a behind a wall get the same cover save as a model that is visible from the waist up? It doesn't make sense, but that's indisputably what the rule is.

But besides that you're missing the point. You suggested writing FAQs as if you read the rulebook once and then threw it away, I pointed out that the inevitable outcome of that is forgotten rules, not "common sense" rules. Trying to play 40k from memory like that is inevitably going to result in mistakes about things that are not controversial at all: forgetting how many attacks a model has on its profile, using the old 5th edition vehicle damage table instead of the 7th edition table, etc. You definition of "common sense" is the exact opposite of common sense!

Or maybe it's symptomatic of the variance between the product that GW is intending to sell and their intended target audience, on the one hand, and the product that at least some customers are expecting to receive.

Nope. GW's rules are garbage no matter what the target audience is, unless you assume that the target audience is "billionaire masochists who love wasting money on badly-designed products". It's incompetent game design no matter how you look at it.

As I said before: I await eagerly the official FAQ, which, I strongly suspect, will vindicate many of my expressed opinions and provide me with all the bragging rights and smug satisfaction that comes with it.

I have no doubt that it will make you smug about your opinions, but that doesn't make them right. It just means that GW issued a bad ruling, like many bad rulings before it.

Traditio wrote:

The rules are basically supposed to make sense.

Yes, and no. The rules are supposed to simulate a battle using static models. As such, many things are represented by abstracts that don't actually make a lot of real world sense.

For example, it makes no sense that the guy closest to the enemy is always the first guy to catch a bullet. It makes no sense that no other squadmember can pick up the melta gun when the guy holding it dies. It makes no sense that a guy counts as being in cover for having a toe on a terrain piece (and less sense that this would apply to some models and not others...).

And yet all of those things are played exactly as written, regardless of the fact that common sense would tell us to play them otherwise.

Looking at which interpretation of an unclear rule makes the most sense is a handy way for players to pick one or the other for their own games. It's absolutely useless for determining which one is 'correct'.

I realize history isn't on their side, but can we at least give this group a chance and get back to discussing the rules?

I keep checking this thread and we're still talking about word-smithing and what GW didn't do, mean, say etc. etc.

Have they updated any further clarifications people have asked yet?

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:

The rules are basically supposed to make sense.

Yes, and no. The rules are supposed to simulate a battle using static models. As such, many things are represented by abstracts that don't actually make a lot of real world sense.

For example, it makes no sense that the guy closest to the enemy is always the first guy to catch a bullet. It makes no sense that no other squadmember can pick up the melta gun when the guy holding it dies. It makes no sense that a guy counts as being in cover for having a toe on a terrain piece (and less sense that this would apply to some models and not others...).

And yet all of those things are played exactly as written, regardless of the fact that common sense would tell us to play them otherwise.

Looking at which interpretation of an unclear rule makes the most sense is a handy way for players to pick one or the other for their own games. It's absolutely useless for determining which one is 'correct'.

Or the biggie, it makes no sense that my army stands around with their thumbs up their rear ends letting the entire enemy army unload on them until half of them are dead before returning fire.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
I realize history isn't on their side, but can we at least give this group a chance and get back to discussing the rules?

I keep checking this thread and we're still talking about word-smithing and what GW didn't do, mean, say etc. etc.

Rules? I thought we were watching to see if Traditio would injure himself while padding himself on the back.

is it that hard to let toxicrenes live for a round or two against guardsmen? sick of of them getting blasted away by krak 'nades over silly RAI

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
I realize history isn't on their side, but can we at least give this group a chance and get back to discussing the rules?

I keep checking this thread and we're still talking about word-smithing and what GW didn't do, mean, say etc. etc.

Rules? I thought we were watching to see if Traditio would injure himself while padding himself on the back.

Haha. Agreed! The past three pages were just congratulations to himself that GW ruled similarly to his interpretation.

On topic, can't wait to see how colossal gets handled. That's the ruling I care about.

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.

The one I've always remembered was from way back at the beginning of 5th edition - the Deff Rolla (an Ork vehicle upgrade that inflicted D6 S10 AP- hits to a unit that it tank shocked). Someone asked YMDC whether Deff Rolla's bonus could be used against a vehicle that was rammed, since ramming was listed part and parcel of the tank shocking rules.

Oh boy was it contentious. There was a poll I recall being almost 50/50 split on the issue. There was much name calling and shouts of "rules lawyer!" and "WAAC jerk!" and "TFG! TFG! TFG!"

This carried on for a while. Both sides argued that the other side wasn't employing common sense. On the "Allow" side, it was common sense that ramming and tank shock were the same action, so that it was only natural that the Deff Rolla would be used during a Ramming attempt. On the "Prevent" side, it was common sense that the combination was never intended by the authors because giving a unit multiple S10 attacks was unheard of and obviously unfair and un-fun.

Both sides used rules-arguments, fluff-argument, and everything in between to try to prove their point. In the end, no consensus was ever reached (with both sides walking away feeling that the other side was a bunch of cheating losers trying to twist the rules to their own advantage) until finally GW released an FAQ coming down on the Allow side.

Took a while for the dust to settle on that one, believe me.

Point being, "common sense" is not some universal truth that everyone instinctively knows, and not everyone who disagrees with "your" (not directed at anyone) interpretation of something is out to deceive and defraud you.

I remember that well and in the end my faction easily won out. Even the FAQ mocked the people who didn't think a Ram was a type of Tank Shock in wording and tone. But the deniers were still heard since the biggest Nerf in the current codex is the current Deff Rolla which exactly 0.00% of people use now so I guess the naysayers won out after all. Because Orks are so OP. And as far as the one grenade per assault phase, that also hurts Orks more than any other army. It's 2016. There should be a constant open dialogue between consumer and creator and monthly or bi-monthly updates. That would only help GW sales in the end.

GW makes so many bizarre decisions though. How is a Gorkanaught a non-SHV and the Wraithknight is a GMC?!? They're practically the same cost!

Fragile wrote:

gungo wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.

This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.

hi there, could someone clarify what this exactly means? i neither play necrons nor space marines, so what you guys just wrote could have been in chinese for all i care

nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

That might be clarified in the Faction Specific FAQ's.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

We'll have to see if it's in the codex-specific FAQs, but I don't really think upgrading a captain to a chapter master is the same as exchanging a tank commander for Pask. That would be more like exchanging a captain for Pedro Kantor. Chapter Master is an upgrade available to the Captain. Pedro Kantor is a completely separate model with completely different rules.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.

The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"

Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.

nekooni wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.

The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"

Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.

You do realize pask is not a seperate special character datasheet.
He is literally an upgrade option for the tank commander on the tank commanders datasheet.

The chapter master is a completely different datasheet.

No, Chapter Masters and Captains share the same Datasheet/Army List Entry.

They are an upgrade to Captains.


The problems stem from the fact that when GW say "1 Captain" they could mean "1 Captain (Datasheet)" or "1 Captain (Model)"

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No, Chapter Masters and Captains share the same Datasheet/Army List Entry.

They are an upgrade to Captains.


The problems stem from the fact that when GW say "1 Captain" they could mean "1 Captain (Datasheet)" or "1 Captain (Model)"

Well if you saw the Skitt and Mech FAQ, they said "1 Dunecrawler" was not a unit.. it was specifically the model. So I am thinking that they mean the Captain model there as well.. We will see soon though!

RedNoak wrote:

Fragile wrote:

gungo wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.

This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.

hi there, could someone clarify what this exactly means? i neither play necrons nor space marines, so what you guys just wrote could have been in chinese for all i care

There was a debate on the Canoptek Harvest Formation where it says 1 Spyder, 1 unit of Wraiths, 1 unit of scarabs. Some people were claiming that the Spyder was able to be upgraded to 3 spyders since Formations only list "units" and purchasing additional Spyders is part of that unit options. The FAQ states that formations can also list "models", so the Harvest can only have 1 Spyder.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No, Chapter Masters and Captains share the same Datasheet/Army List Entry.

They are an upgrade to Captains.


The problems stem from the fact that when GW say "1 Captain" they could mean "1 Captain (Datasheet)" or "1 Captain (Model)"

Well if you saw the Skitt and Mech FAQ, they said "1 Dunecrawler" was not a unit.. it was specifically the model. So I am thinking that they mean the Captain model there as well.. We will see soon though!

That's not what was said in the Skitarii and Mechanicus FAQ.

Cult Mechanicus FAQ First Draft wrote:Q: The Dominus Maniple Formation lists ‘1 Onager Dunecrawler’ as part of the Formation. Does this mean one unit or one model? For example, can I have a full unit of 3 Onager Dunecrawlers in this formation?
A: It means one Onager Dunecrawler model.

Skitarii FAQ First Draft wrote:Q: The Dominus Maniple Formation lists ‘1 Onager Dunecrawler’ as part of the Formation. Can additional Onager Dunecrawlers be purchased for this unit?
A: No. The Formation entry is not for a unit of Onager Dunecrawlers, but a single model.

The Dominus Maniple Formation lists "One(1) Onager Dunecrawler".
This is what should be common sense, but people have been arguing the ridiculous "A model can be upgraded to a unit, thus 1 becomes multiples" line for a long time because of the Necron Tomb Spyder nonsense.

gungo wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
nobody specifically asked that question so there is no absolute answer

however somebody did ask whether a tank commander could be upgraded to the special character pask in one of the formations and the answer was no

so it is more probable than not that the specified captain cannot be upgraded to chapter master in a battle company formation

I absolutely disagree.
Pask is a named, unique character upgrade.
The Chaptermaster is more like an Apothecary - he's a generic guy replacing the Captain model in a Captain unit, just like the Apothecary does with a Veteran model in a Command Squad unit.

The entire argument whether or not a Chaptermaster is a valid choice or not was entirely based on balance concerns, the rules as written never supported anything but "yeah take him"

Q: Can I upgrade an HQ choice to a Unique character in a specific Formation? For example, the ‘Emperor’s Fist’ Armoured Company Formation mentions you must take a Tank Commander; can that Tank Commander be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask?
A: No.

You do realize pask is not a seperate special character datasheet.
He is literally an upgrade option for the tank commander on the tank commanders datasheet.

One Tank Commander may be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask for 40pts.
KC Pask has his very own Datasheet in the current Codex: Astra Militarum, and that Datasheet tells you that he is a Character and Unique. A "unique character", therefore - and that's what the FAQ entry is all about.

The chapter master is a completely different datasheet.

Not in my 7th Edition Codex:Space Marines.

Fact checking is a nice thing.

Inadvetantly, Canoptek Harvest just became a little easier to deal with. Kill the one Spyder, and the Wraiths go down easier.

Someone should have them make a point about this in the BRB FAQ. Formations with "1 X" literally mean ONE not a unit.

Yes, let's not muddy this up folks.

Actually read the FAQ before posting please and thank you!

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Yes, let's not muddy this up folks.

Actually read the FAQ before posting please and thank you!

I swear I didn't see the reference to 1 vs 1 unit when I looked through the FAQ.

Not being critical! Just don't want another 3 pages of debate over something that is not there

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Not being critical! Just don't want another 3 pages of debate over something that is not there

In this case, the rule was actually there and I missed it. It was question #1 on Detachments and Formations. Makes Canoptek Harvest less broken.