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.

Because, in context, you are not allowed to use the scout move to move 6" onto the board.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because, in context, you are not allowed to use the scout move to move 6" onto the board.

No, really - that's not true. You're applying the context of the second question and ignoring the first.

Not at all, both questions compliment each other.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, both questions compliment each other.

No, actually you're pretty much ignoring the first question.

Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

Then why even print the second question?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

Nothing in the answer removed the scout rule from the model. To outflank the model only needs to have the scout rule. It has no need to be able to make use of the scout rule, which only covers turn 1 deployment.

Kevlar wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

SO than Vendettas can't outflank. As they do have the same answer.

Nothing in the answer removed the scout rule from the model. To outflank the model only needs to have the scout rule. It has no need to be able to make use of the scout rule, which only covers turn 1 deployment.

False. The model doesn't have Outflank, it has Scout which, as an effect, grants Outflank.
If the Scout rule has no effect, it can't grant Outflank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the first and second questions go hand in hand, that is why they have one answer.

... and that one answer (to both questions) obviates the need for the second question.
To say that the first question is scoped by the second question doesn't make sense - especially when the answer isn't scoped at all.

Then why even print the second question?

Because pink elephants are cool? Why is that relevant?

This one is very clear.

It is relevant because the context of the second question modifies the context.

GW needs to FAQ this FAQ! Being serious now, I can see both sides of the argument and would say roll off.

DeathReaper wrote:It is relevant because the context of the second question modifies the context.

"Do you want an apple? Red or green?" "No." You don't get to ask, "Yellow?" as I've already said no.

Necrosis wrote:GW needs to FAQ this FAQ! Being serious now, I can see both sides of the argument and would say roll off.

Agreed.

Simply put each side of the argument is favoring one of the two questions over the other. As I stated further.. There are two questions but it is one complete statement. IMHO I believe it is only referencing the first turn scout move... otherwise they would of just taken the scout rule from the model.

How does anyone get RAI? If it was intended for the Vendetta to outflank, then why not just make an errata to add it to their rules.

 Tomb King wrote:
Simply put each side of the argument is favoring one of the two questions over the other. As I stated further.. There are two questions but it is one complete statement. IMHO I believe it is only referencing the first turn scout move... otherwise they would of just taken the scout rule from the model.

Saying a rule has no effect is taking it away.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
How does anyone get RAI? If it was intended for the Vendetta to outflank, then why not just make an errata to add it to their rules.

That argument swings both ways. If it was intended for the Vendetta to NOT outflank, then why not just make an errata to remove the scout rule?

i think that if my opponet said that i could NOT deploy my Vendetta's along either of my table edges, i would simply stop, reach across the table, and slap the crap out of them............

because. wait for it......... no where in the rules does it say i cannot slap the crap out of you.

and Booom goes the dynamite!!!!!!!

seriously, have they not been able to out flank prior to the "supposed" change?

 RegulusBlack wrote:
i think that if my opponet said that i could NOT deploy my Vendetta's along either of my table edges, i would simply stop, reach across the table, and slap the crap out of them............

because. wait for it......... no where in the rules does it say i cannot slap the crap out of you.

and Booom goes the dynamite!!!!!!!

seriously, have they not been able to out flank prior to the "supposed" change?

You could try, but nothing in the rules say he can't snap your arm either ^^ Or for that matter we play on tables that are about 4.5' high and 4' across, are you an Albatross?

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Outflanking is an effect given from the Scout(s) rule on the Vendetta.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

"You could try, but nothing in the rules say he can't snap your arm either"

have you seen the people that play this game, most couldn't snap a dorito in half.....wait check that, most know their way around a dorito better than the rules.

(pssst ithink its because doritos are cheaper.)

anyway sorry for being a little combatative, but really who is going to claim that the clear intention of the statement was "clarifying" that flyers with scout cannot enter play on turn one. thats it. anything else is arguing just to argue, any of these rules can be misconstrued, but who does that benefit in the long run. absolutely no one thats who.

i take this kinda personally as i purchased three of these stupid birds, at about 70 bucks a pop, plus lascannon upgrades, to actually give my army the "Air Assualt" feel that Vendetta's could bring to the table.
now 6th comes along and bammo i cant play them the same as before (at minimum 1 less turn on the table) now all the sudden they have to come in on the back. thats dumb and anyone that says otherwise is being silly.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

That's because it is an effect.

Scout Confers outflank

Conferring outflank being the effect.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

FAQ says Scout has no effect.

Actually!

What effect if any does the scout special rule have on a Valkyrie or vendetta?

A: It has no effect!

If we look into this even further we have no clarification of what it means when it states "it". IT COULD REFER TO THE VALKYRIE AND VENDETTA.... *GASP* this could me that the Valkyrie or vendetta can no longer effect anything.... no pue... pue!

or another argument...

Why is outflank an effect of scout? GW doesnt define effect do they and I am pretty sure it doesnt label it as an effect in the rulebook....

I won't argue it's a poorly written FAQ.

I will argue RAW they lose outflank.

The Subject (It) is most defnitely Scout Special rule.
Guess I did learn something in school (haha)

Per the rule book page 41. The scout rule confers the outflank special rule. So anyone with scout has outflank... its not an effect. You applied that it was an effect.

That's because it is an effect.

Scout Confers outflank

Conferring outflank being the effect.

Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

 Tomb King wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

The cause is the rule, the outcome is the effect. An effect of fearless is that you automatically pass leadership checks.
An outcome of scout is that you gain the outflank rule.

Have you heard of the term "Cause and effect"? Even by your admission there is a cause, having scout.

 Tomb King wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Effect is something that is caused by something... Example: Double toughness = instant death. Any model with scout automatically has outflank. Nothing has to be done to cause this. Simply having scout means you also have outflank.

Any wound that is double your toughness is Instant Death.
Any model that has Scout has Outflank.

Outflank is an effect of having Scout.
The cause is "having the Scout USR". The effect is "has Outflank".

In short, your assertion is the opposite of correct.

Ill define an effect:
A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Nothing happens to cause this beyond having scout. Scout does nothing to cause outflank! Ergo Scout has no effect. Outflank has an effect and is still used.

If that was the case, you could remove Scout from the equation and the model would still have Outflank.
Is that the case here?