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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?

I would prefer not to drive 2.5 hours nor leave the country to ask a store clerk something that you cannot verify coming from the parent company. Especially since the last time I was at a GW store the clerks told people they could charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons. So yeah. I don't put much faith in GW red shirts.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Fling can you cite a source that states the printed codex is more official than the electronic version?

That's what I'm really interested in at this point.

Go down to your local GW store and ask to see their open copy of the official rules and see what they show you. The rules in Exterminatus are the official rules and they do not contain anything about the 2+. There is no FaQ or Errata that changes this.

As for which is more official. Lets just look as any other ruleset that doesn't tell us explicitly which format is most official. For instance Law a police website telling you what you can and can't do or the hard copy of the Law which is more "official"?

So I can go down to my local GW store and ask to see their open copy of Codex: Legion of the Damned? That's awesome.

I've already posted the rules in from the BRB stating that unit entries come in a variety of GW publications. I've posted the copyright info showing that the the eBook version is a GW publication. I've demonstrated using rules that the eBook version is an officially sanctioned (by the printed BRB itself) source of rules for unit entries. Can you do the same to demonstrate your point?

Nobody agrees with you. That should tell you something.

What I say is that:

There is a discrepancy between two official sources.

In one source, the rule-as-written doesn't actually function, and in fact cannot even really be parsed without departing from the language of the game.

In the other source, it makes perfect sense and isn't even in contention.

I would utilize the second source.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Kangodo Now not only are you disagreeing with what the rules say (as the 2+ is not present in the official rules), you're also making rules up from a typo in your copy of the rules.

So in summary;

RaW: 2+ doesn't exist.

RaTIE (Rules as Typo'd in Ebook): 2+ does nothing.

So? RAW you cannot take an invulnerable save, I've never seen that stop anyone.
The intent is just as clear as with Inv-saves, so there shouldn't be a problem.

So do we agree that an official source has it as 'Executioner (2+)' ánd that the intent is quite obvious?

The other option for resolution of two equally official sources is that the player whose army it is plays what he owns.

col_impact wrote:
The other option for resolution of two equally official sources is that the player whose army it is plays what he owns.

Yup. If I bring my army and I have my codex with me and it's an official publication with no FAQs or Erratas available, I play using the rules in the book. You play with your codex.

So? RAW you cannot take an invulnerable save, I've never seen that stop anyone. 
The intent is just as clear as with Inv-saves, so there shouldn't be a problem. 

So do we agree that an official source has it as 'Executioner (2+)' ánd that the intent is quite obvious?

in the official rules the 2+ doesn't exist RaW. As for intent the fact that the 2+ isn't in the rules gives clear intent that it does nothing. If there was a 2+ on Executioner the intent would not be clear. Precision shots 2+ likewise doesn't have a clear intent resolution as functionally it would work the same as all hits are precision strikes but how they word that is covered by several other incidences (like Pathfinders, Illic, Vindicare). So if the 2+ was there (which it isn't) then the most likely intent is that you hit on a 2+, which may or may not all be precision strikes. As the 2+ in the typo is located on Executioner they could well mean that you hit on a 2+ and have the precision strikes rule. Or you precision strike on any 2+ or you precision strike on any successful hit of a 2+.

One thing is abundantly clear that the typo in the ebook is meaningless without further information from both a RaW & RaI perspective. So why not just play by the official rules that don't contain the currently meaningless 2+ typo?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

I'm not going to play by rules that differ from the official rules without prior agreement. So you can't expect to change the official rules without an FaQ, Errata or without us agreeing to a houserule before the game.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you're not going to allow digital copies of the rules just because it can be edited, then obviously you don't allow people to use digital only rules like assassins and inquisition right?

I'm not going to play by rules that differ from the official rules without prior agreement. So you can't expect to change the official rules without an FaQ, Errata or without us agreeing to a houserule before the game.

They are official rules. GW made them. That's what makes them official.

I have the official rules and there is no 2+ in them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I have the official rules and there is no 2+ in them.

I have the official rules and the 2+ is there

They're both official

Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

So, can you stop with the trolling now or do you want us to call in a moderator?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

GW is terrible at writing rules and has several instances of non-functioning rules (see psychic units, Vehicle LoS on Flyers, flamer templates) or rules with no determinable answer on how to function (HoW vs Chariots, Walker Transports locked in combat, FMC coming with the Deep Strike USR, Psychic Shriek and rolling to hit).

Considering how bad GW's rules are normally, what's to say the typo'ed digital rule isn't correct? (plus the 2+ could get explained in the new necron codex)

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

When the new dex comes out the issue may be resolved. Until then just follow the RaW.

Debating with FlingitNow is a waste of time. He doesn't cite rules and repeats the same beliefs over and over with no backup other than is own HIWPI. I suggest we all put him on ignore.

The electronic copy is clearly official and there is a clear error in publishing... whatever that error may be. From a RaW standpoint, the (2+) is both in and not in an official rules source.

I, for one, believe that GW intended to grant Precision Strikes (2+), but had both a missing bit in the OLDER published rules as well as poor writing. That is HIWPI.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Mod should really lock this since it's devolved to a "yes it is, not it isn't" argument.

 CrownAxe wrote:
GW is terrible at writing rules and has several instances of non-functioning rules (see psychic units, Vehicle LoS on Flyers, flamer templates) or rules with no determinable answer on how to function (HoW vs Chariots, Walker Transports locked in combat, FMC coming with the Deep Strike USR, Psychic Shriek and rolling to hit).

Did you ever notice how the BRB only tells you how to take Armour Saves?
Step by step it tells you to throw a dice, compare it to the Armour save and what happens then.
It does not tell you that Cover and Invulnerable should be taken in the same way, so technically they cannot be taken at all.

I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry when I read that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When the new dex comes out the issue may be resolved. Until then just follow the RaW.

How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

2 versions don't have the meaningless typo. One does simple weight of evidence should be enough. But some people want to interpret the rules a certain way regardless of the RaW.

So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Kangodo wrote:
How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

The issue (to my understanding) is that Edge of Eternity lets you precision strike on 2+ which is odd since as a melee weapon you hit on at best 3+.

It might have been written with the new codex in mind (which i'm pretty sure it is since it doesn't take the time to explain how relics are taken) and their might be ways to hit on 2+ in the new codex.

How the hell can a Codex fix any of this?
Edge of Eternity is from Exterminatus and a new Codex isn't going to change any of that.

Executioner could become a standard Necron rule that certain weapons have and be explained better giving us a precedent to work with. Or it could be that they release a FAQ/Eratta for Exterminatus in line with the Codex update.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well you can't change the official rules without an Errata or FaQ. The official rules do not have the 2+ in them.

I'm not saying the rule is changed, i'm saying that two official rules sources have conflicting information.

One is right, but being physically printed doesn't make it more official then the digital version. So its up in the air.

One version of the rules works and is clearly written. The other version has a meaningless typo. So it is not so much up in the air now is it?

Even if the printed rule is correct, you still have not shown that printed is more official than electronic.

2 versions don't have the meaningless typo. One does simple weight of evidence should be enough. But some people want to interpret the rules a certain way regardless of the RaW.

Actually, some people want to know which official source has the error. You've already made up your mind that the eBook has the error and that the printed copy is correct. We have no confirmation that this is correct. YOU have no confirmation that this is correct, or presumably you would have posted it. Circumstantial evidence could go either way. For one, the (2+) doesn't really seem to do anything. Then again, GW regularly writes rules that don't seem to do anything, yet we play with the all the time. Another main point is that the Ebook is the more recent source. GW would have been able to make changes up until the day before it was posted. They clearly ADDED in the (2+) AFTER the book went to the printer. This is pretty compelling evidence that the (2+) was intentional and accidentally left out of the printed copy.

FlingitNow... you have no evidence that you are correct. You have already made up your mind, refuse to acknowledge that GW publications are official and are effectively arguing RaI and not RaW. If you'd like to continue contributing to a RaW discussion, please provide rules citations demonstrating that electronic copies aren't offical. If you can't or won't and wish to continue contributing, please mark all future comments as either RaI or HIWPI.

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

We have FOUR formats and it's present in TWO of them. You obviously don't understand how the eBook releases work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So it's a meaningless typo?
Can you PLEASE provide some official source saying it's a meaningless typo?

Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exterminatus ebook edition is the official source that states it is meaningless as it has no rules meaning. Exterminatus Hardback and Softback editions prove it is a typo as we have 3 formats for the 2 and this typo is not present in 2 of them.

So we have 4 sources.
2 of them tell us the 2+ shouldn't belong there (I will just trust you that BOTH books have it without the 2+)
2 of them tell us that there should be a 2+.

That's it.
Nothing more.
It's not meaningless.