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.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .

*sigh*

To express it in a positive way: you lack experience.

Tournaments always use the latest set of rules as a base for any decision. Including FAQ.

Thanks for the update yakface. Holy balls, it's a mess.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .

*sigh*

To express it in a positive way: you lack experience.

Tournaments always use the latest set of rules as a base for any decision. Including FAQ.

Thanks for the update yakface. Holy balls, it's a mess.

Cool keep the personal attacks coming!

My point was you get different results in this instance if you go eCodex + FAQ versus paper Codex + FAQ. Not that you don't apply the FAQ. Double Sigh.

If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

/e: The lack of experience referred to you neither being TO nor competitive player and thus don't know how it works.

Yak, you recall correctly. The disembark is covered by the Invasion Beam special rule (which is in the FAQ). The embarkation was covered by a question, which was dropped in the new FAQ.

As it is Gravmyr said it was added to the codex, so I'm curious as to how it was added (since the Invasion Beams special rule only covers disembarkation in the FAQ).

 Sigvatr wrote:
If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

The one with the 7th edition FAQ applied obviously.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

The 'latest one' would be the digital codex combined with the 7th edition FAQ.

The point being, something like the Dark Angels codex, which had its Power Field changed via errata (which is now gone in the 7th edition FAQ) still exists in the newer digital codex.

So the most recent Dark Angels codex would be the digital (with the errata that was in the 6th edition FAQ) and the new 7th edition FAQ added in.

The PROBLEM here is that the digital editions were supposed to be continually updated to incorporate the latest FAQs & errata, which they haven't for the most part been since the 7th edition FAQs dropped.

So there absolutely is no 'right' answer at this moment in 40K. If you are a Dark Angel player using a Power Field on an embarked vehicle, what is the 'right' way to play? It basically depends on which codex you have (paper or digital).

As you can see, having rules arguments at this moment about stuff that was 'removed' from the 6th edition FAQs is tricky, tricky ground right now and everyone should just acknowledge it as such and just wait to see what GW does next in regards to this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yak, you recall correctly. The disembark is covered by the Invasion Beam special rule (which is in the FAQ). The embarkation was covered by a question, which was dropped in the new FAQ.

As it is Gravmyr said it was added to the codex, so I'm curious as to how it was added (since the Invasion Beams special rule only covers disembarkation in the FAQ).

It was added exactly as the text is written in the current 7th edition FAQ. So in this particular issue, it is not a conflict…there is nothing in any version of the codex or current FAQ giving a way for models to re-embark.

However,

A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

B) As I've pointed out, the idea of GW dropping items from the 6th to 7th edition FAQs as being a deliberate 'change' they wanted to make in general is a problematic position for the reasons I've pointed out above. There *are* quite a few instances of the digital codex not matching the paper + FAQ codex now and until we see how GW proceeds on these (fixing the FAQs to bring back the old rulings or removing those things from the digital editions) nobody knows what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Both thumbs pressed for this not taking as long as them updating their FW books to 7th

 yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

You and I are in agreement on this.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

I've quoted from the Cron-Tactic thread, because this stuff should really belong in YMDC:

col_impact wrote:
You guys are weird. I posted that because Jy2 requested and for people's reference. It's the version that was official before 7th edition. It's not going to destroy your soul if you look at it. Sheesh. Grow up.

Besides, you can't really tell what has changed from the penultimate FAQ to the current one unless you actually look at that one.

Does it really matter what has changed?
At the moment we should look at the Codex, the BRB and the FAQ to see what is possible.

Do I think that units can embark on a Zooming Night Scythe? Yes.
Do I want to proof that with an out of date FAQ? No.

The BRB tells us that we cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer unless stated otherwise.
The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

So I think you are right, just for the wrong reasons

col_impact wrote:
Interesting, Night Scythes now no longer have permission RAW to carry infantry. That Q and A item was lost. The codex entry specifies only jump infantry and jetbikes.

Disagree.
The Codex allows them to carry Jump Infantry and Jetbikes.
The BRB allows them to carry Infantry because they are a Transport.
That means the BRB gives me permission to transport Infantry and I see no restriction in the Codex.

Kangodo wrote:

The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

The entire paragraph about 2'' has been removed in the FAQ and replaced with "Access points: 1".

Kangodo wrote:
The BRB tells us that we cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer unless stated otherwise.
The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

So I think you are right, just for the wrong reasons

There is just one small problem with this argument.

The FAQ changes the entire paragraph regarding Access points (including the 2" from the base to embark), to "1 (the base of the model)".

As that paragraph no longer exists, it cannot be used as an argument of codex trumps rulebook to allow embarkation.

Aah, that is true. I did miss that one line!
They hid it, really unfair.
Then it's clear: No embarking upon a Zooming Night Scythe.

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

Is it slop? I don't know enough about the context to evaluate slop or not there. If common sense leads a TO to see it as slop then a TO can patch the slop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW does a bad job maintaining its rule set. I am comfortable with a TO playing an active role and not being enslaved to RAW.

Is anyone here making the counter claim that GW does a solid job maintaining its rule set?

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

 Happyjew wrote:
Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

You're talking about a new edition of the codex, correct?

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:


Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

I guess the issue there is what is defined as 'slop' by yourself may be seen as intentional by someone else. For example why did they leave it out of their FAQs this time around? Surely it was deliberate, in fact it would have been easier for them to simply upload an identical FAQ to the previous one. The fact they removed it seems to be purposefully done.

Unfortunately, as it stands, you cannot use a previous FAQ as a supplement to the given rules. Currently, there is no active FAQ available that clarifies the issue. Poor move on GW, perhaps, but seeminly intentional.

If a TO hasn't seen the last edition of the FAQs, how am I as a player supposed to appeal for the TO to 'patch' this?
(Keeping in mind I'm also asking because I plan to run a Veiltek in a cron list at a tourney next month and the TO isn't aware of the alst FAQ therefore will not let the rule work in the way it was previously FAQ'd to work)

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:


Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

I guess the issue there is what is defined as 'slop' by yourself may be seen as intentional by someone else. For example why did they leave it out of their FAQs this time around? Surely it was deliberate, in fact it would have been easier for them to simply upload an identical FAQ to the previous one. The fact they removed it seems to be purposefully done.

Unfortunately, as it stands, you cannot use a previous FAQ as a supplement to the given rules. Currently, there is no active FAQ available that clarifies the issue. Poor move on GW, perhaps, but seeminly intentional.

If a TO hasn't seen the last edition of the FAQs, how am I as a player supposed to appeal for the TO to 'patch' this?
(Keeping in mind I'm also asking because I plan to run a Veiltek in a cron list at a tourney next month and the TO isn't aware of the alst FAQ therefore will not let the rule work in the way it was previously FAQ'd to work)

Basically you are stuck with what the TO decides and you soldier on and that is 100% fine. However, if you are lucky enough to have access to a TO organization (BAO/NOVA) who are active about handling issues of slop then you have much more recourse. And once they settle on a course of action that FAQ then can become a standard that you can at least point your particular TO toward.

We know this -- for this game to really become a great tournament game some entity needs to step forward and take on the task of actively managing the rule set for tourney play, since GW isn't. Passively taking a hands off the slop, strict RAW approach is more punishing the players than anything else.

Do what you can to support those TOs who take an active role in managing the ruleset.

 Happyjew wrote:

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

That is a different scenario where the codex explicitly denies this permission. The prior FAQ was given due to unclear wording in the previous codex because it was written before 6th edition was introduced. I play Nids and I DEFINITELY wanted to be able to still use biomamcy, but there is no basis for it upon reading the codex

Well it's a win win situation actually. So if the TO strictly follows RAW, although you lose the ability to re-embark, you gain a 3+ invuln on the CCB with PS. And the ability to join units with the CCB. And the ability to instant death any T4 warlord with the. Abyssal staff. Ignoring the old FAQ brings with it many more benefits.

So disembark the Deathmarks and try your best to score a Slay the Warlord!

I actually think the best current interpretation would be to deny CCB invulnerable and joining units, as well as wraith extra attacks for having a particle caster, but allow re-embarking onto the night scythe. This is allegedly how the BAO will operate (pending an update to their FAQ - I emailed Reece and he was good enough to clear that up) and I think it makes a lot of sense

In the long run I wouldn't be surprised to see CCB be able to join units, but rules clarifications would be necessary on a couple levels.

My post was half in jest. I agree with col_impact that more needs to be considered besides exactly RAW.

On another point which was raised, I am no TO nor competitive player but that doesn't make me any worse with rule interpretation, does it? If it does matter, I'd better go organize a 4 man tournament with my mates. That'll make me a TO and an authority on rules.

What did the FAQ 'fix' with the Veil that is no longer fixed?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
What did the FAQ 'fix' with the Veil that is no longer fixed?

This Q and A item was dropped

I thought the Abyssal Staff potential abuse is much worse. You get to roll 2+ to wound when with Deathmarks and now you can cause instant death to T4 warlords because of the loss of the FAQ saying to use the target's Leadership to work out Instant Death. I don't see any errata for it in the new FAQ. Unless someone has the digital codex and can check it?

For Veil, it is a loss of utility though.

 milkboy wrote:
I thought the Abyssal Staff potential abuse is much worse. You get to roll 2+ to wound when with Deathmarks and now you can cause instant death to T4 warlords because of the loss of the FAQ saying to use the target's Leadership to work out Instant Death. I don't see any errata for it in the new FAQ. Unless someone has the digital codex and can check it?

For Veil, it is a loss of utility though.

Yes, the abyssal staff gets a buff for sure. Against Space Marines you can ID psyker HQs and other multi-wound targets which is definitely handy.

Even so, I would rather not benefit from slop. I would rather play in competitive environment that is free from random changes brought about by slop.

(this is indeed interesting, wouldn't know what to support)