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.

Tri wrote:

Spellbound wrote:It's horrifying, but I can't stop staring, watching Gwar!'s avatar.... it's....revolting......and......yet beautiful.....

another furry is born; slaanesh is pleased

Is it just me, but the longer you stare at it, the faster it goes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.


I have an idea.

Ramming is a special kind of tank shock. That statement defines ramming as a subset of tank shocking.

Oranges are a special kind of citrus fruit. That statement defines ramming as a subset of citrus fruit.

That is all.

Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?

Sigged! Don't question it. When life gives you lemons, BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

Brilliant . . . that is sheer brilliance . . . Citrus fruit must now be involved in every game . . . Need to start an IG army with Lemon Russes =D

Oshova

It shouldn't be that hard to find plastic lemons that I can attach to the front of my Battlewagons. Armoured Brutality with Lemons!

Gwar! wrote:All that will happen is people will try Ramming with Raiders and Trukks now. Woop De Flipping do!

Gwar you ought to know better than this:
No, raiders can't ram and never will unless the DE faq is updated. The upgrade that lets them tankshock has been explicitely faqqed (in the DE faq) to not allow ramming.
Trukk can ram, because the wargear that allows them to tankshock has not been amended to prohinit ramming.

If you can use the BT FAQ for IG, then you can use the Ork one for the DE.

Just pointing out the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another.

Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

And he does know better, he just enjoys being .................

difficult

don_mondo wrote:Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

Funny, I thought the BT FAQ dealt with the BT Codex and the Rulebook FAQ dealt with the Rulebook. How silly of me to think that!

don_mondo wrote:Except, of course, that the DE FAQ deals with a specific piece of vehicle wargear whereas the BT FAQ deals with an explanation of how a core rule works.

And he does know better, he just enjoys being .................

difficult

On principle, any errata or explanations of core rules should be put in the errata or FAQ of the core rules.

If a pair of players do not have the BT codex its rules and FAQ cannot be applicable to their games.

Gwar! wrote:How silly of me to think that!

Exactly. But we've gotten used to it............

Gwar! wrote:If you can use the BT FAQ for IG, then you can use the Ork one for the DE.

Just pointing out the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another.

Oh, please. This kind of thing again?

Sure, Gwar. Go ahead and use the Ork FAQ for your DE army. That's perfectly legitimate.

So you try to ram me with your Raider, I tell you you can't, you hold up the Ork FAQ and say "But look, Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock! Says so right here!"

And I say, "Yep, that's true. But here's the DE FAQ, and right HERE is where it says that Raiders, specifically, cannot Ram, even though you can Tank Shock with them."

And you say, "But Ork Trukks can take a Reinforced Ram, which let's them Tank Shock, and therefore Ram!"

And I say, "Great. So if you happen to be running an Ork Trukk with a Reinforced Ram in your DE army, go ahead and ram with it. Your Raiders, however, still can't Ram."

Specific>General. In general, if you can Tank Shock, you can Ram. However, DE Raiders CANNOT Ram =, even though they can Tank Shock, because they have a specific ruling prohibiting them from doing so.

In short, you have once again brought forth a red herring argument which proves nothing, as you do every time anyone mentions the FAQs. You have not proven "the absurdity of using one armies FAQ for another", you have only further proven the absurdity of your own position.

So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Gwar! wrote:So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Because you cannot show a general rules clarification, only specific rules which apply to specific units.

The BT FAQ gives a general rules clarification. It SHOULD be in the Rulebook FAQ, yes. But it isn't. This still does not stop it from being a general rules clarification, and does not in any way invalidate it.

In short; You should apply ALL the FAQS to ALL of the armies. Since 99% of the things in army FAQs are, appropriately enough, specific to that army, this results in you applying ALL of the general rules clarifications GW has given out to ALL of the armies. They should do this for us, by collecting such clarifications into a Rulebook FAQ, but just because they haven't doesn't mean the rules clarifications don't apply.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So why can I not do that when you feel it is ok for me to go "LOOK I HAVE A BT FAQ LET ME USE IT WITH MY IG HURRRRRRRRRRR!"?

Because you cannot show a general rules clarification, only specific rules which apply to specific units.

The BT FAQ gives a general rules clarification. It SHOULD be in the Rulebook FAQ, yes. But it isn't. This still does not stop it from being a general rules clarification, and does not in any way invalidate it.

No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

It is not the question which gives a general rules clarification; it is the answer. The answer says, "Yes you can". That part applies only to the BTs, because no other army can field an Emperor's Champion.

However, the REST of the answer is a general rules clarification, which CLARIFIES a GENERAL RULE, and thus applies to everyone using that general rule; that is, all armies with an HQ choice that does not use up an HQ slot.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies how the Emperors Champion Works.

The question it answers is:
Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
Not
Q. Can I field a Techpriest Enginseer as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

It is not the question which gives a general rules clarification; it is the answer. The answer says, "Yes you can". That part applies only to the BTs, because no other army can field an Emperor's Champion.

However, the REST of the answer is a general rules clarification, which CLARIFIES a GENERAL RULE, and thus applies to everyone using that general rule; that is, all armies with an HQ choice that does not use up an HQ slot.

No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

So then, it's not a general rule that you must take one HQ choice?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it clarifies the rules as they apply to the Emperors Champion, not to anything else. By your logic, Raiders can Ram now because of the Ork FAQ.

So then, it's not a general rule that you must take one HQ choice?

Is that what the rules say?

Gwar! wrote:Is that what the rules say?

No, so why are you saying it?

Allow me to be specific; the answer in the BT FAQ NOT ONLY addresses an issue specific to the BT Codex, it ALSO makes a GENERAL ruling which applies to all armies. The only way you can claim that this general ruling doesn't apply is to claim that only the BT are affected by the general rule under question; that is, that a player must take at least one HQ choice.

So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

Dashofpepper wrote:Holy trolling here.

Jihallah wrote:So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

Or (for the actual IG HQ units) at any event using the INAT..................................................

Jihallah wrote:So you can take a Emperors champ as your one compulsory HQ choice. I'll let you field it in your IG when a unit called "The Emperors champ" is in the codex.

The point is that the BT FAQ entry does two things:
- It answer the question as to whether you can take an EC as your compulsory HQ
and
- It explains why you can do this.

The first obviously only applies to BT's, since they're the only army with an Emperor's Champion at present.

The second is an explanation of the general rules for building armies. It is in no way specific to BT's. It simply explains the interaction between 'not taking up a slot' and 'counting as a compulsory FOC choice'... So there is no reason to not apply that same logic to any other similar situation.

The Tank Shock/Ramming clarification is the same. The Ork FAQ gives a specific answer (The Deff Rolla can be used against vehicles) which is specific to the Ork army, and gives a clarification of the way the rules work (Ramming is a type of Tank Shock) that addresses the general rules of the game. So the first applies only to Orks, while the second applies any time those rules are used.

This is what is meant when people refer to using an FAQ for other situations. Not that specific rulings count for different units in different codexes (although they can certainly be used to establish a precedent in order to create a house rule) but simply that where GW clarify how a general rule works as a part of that answer, that clarification should always apply because it's about a general rule, not an army specific one.

So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

Since we're applying multiple FAQ answers, we can apply the extremely specific DE answer about that specific situation:
Q. Does a torture amp allow a Raider to ram
other vehicles?
A. No.

The fact that this doesn't match the strict BRB raw implication from the ork faq doesn't matter, as the faq specifically says it doesn't work in this specific situation and the faq is an official rules source in this forum. Faqs break the strict raw all the time.

Without the specific faq answer denying it, torture amp raiders most certainly could ram if allowed to tank shock, as that is the BRB raw as confirmed in the ork faq.

See how easy that was?

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

No, because the Dark Eldar FAQ is more specific.

Seriously, Gwar, I know you understand the way the whole General vs Specific works... The trolling is completely unnecessary.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So by your logic Dark Eldar Raiders with a Torture Amp can Ram, because the Ork FAQ allows any model that can Tank Shock to Ram.

No, because the Dark Eldar FAQ is more specific.

Seriously, Gwar, I know you understand the way the whole General vs Specific works... The trolling is completely unnecessary.

I am not trolling. I am asking why you feel one armies FAQ can apply to another. I have yet to see a satisfactory response to that question.

And you've been answered multiple times in multiple threads. You simply choose to ignore the answer.

Let me ask you this: Does the statement 'Ramming is a type of Tank Shock' refer to any rule specific to the Ork Codex?

insaniak wrote:And you've been answered multiple times in multiple threads. You simply choose to ignore the answer.

Let me ask you this: Does the statement 'Ramming is a type of Tank Shock' refer to any rule specific to the Ork Codex?

No, but it is in the Ork FAQ, so it applies to the Ork army only.

So, are you saying because it doesn't refer to anything in the Ork codex it cannot be used?

It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.