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.

So the rules for the Ta'unar Supremacy Armour has dropped from Forge World and the thing is a beast.
ref: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/Datasheets/Tau-Kx139-Ta%E2%80%99unar.pdf

However, there is something odd with the rules. Normally Gargantuan Creatures have Feel No Pain, as is listed in the BRB. However, the Ta'unar lacks that rule in the parenthesis about Gargantuan Creatures.

So here is the question, does the lack of listing Feel No Pain on the Ta'unar restrict it from having Feel No Pain, or does the permission that Gargantuan Creatures have Feel No Pain mean it does have it?

Id like it to not have it, but it says its a GC, GC's have FNP as per the BRB.

I'd say it has all the standard GC rules, and the omission is accidental/business as usual for the FW rules writers.

I'd love them to answer one of their emails with "yes we intentionally left that out of the special rules."

That being said right now the straight up RAW is that they have fnp once and all their other rules twice-over apparently.

It is a GC and follows all the rules for GC unless otherwise stated, a reminder listing of rules is not otherwise stating; it is a simple omission.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It is a GC and follows all the rules for GC unless otherwise stated, a reminder listing of rules is not otherwise stating; it is a simple omission.

Indeed. Should we list Bulky and Deep Strike on Assault Marines with Jump Packs? Move Through Cover for Monstrous Creatures? Relentless on Bikes?

We really don't know if the omission is intentional or not.

BTW, it is also missing the Stomp special rule.

I'm sure they've been bombarded with emails about the matter and sooner or later we'll get 5 different responses on it which are all different and make no sense.

Okay, okay, I'll stop.

As I recall, when they first came out with the rules for the R'varna, people were complaining about it and so FW did come out with a revision for it....like maybe half a year later....and still with experimental rules. Lol.

it has both stomp and FNP, BRB trumps data slate.

die toten hosen wrote:
it has both stomp and FNP, BRB trumps data slate.

Last bit is exactly backwards. At least as far as rules priority goes.

What the reality of the situation is: Those rules are only lost from the GC rules if it specifically states they are lost; omissions are simply omissions. This is why Eldar can still technically use Maelific psychic powers; it is not on their list, and the omission in this case is pretty much guaranteed to mean that RAI they cannot use it, but the permission exists in the BRB as "Unless otherwise stated". Lack of any statement about it at all is not stating the discipline is denied, simply an omission(of course the Maelific discipline did not exist, and thus no codex had a statement against it when the 7th edition rules added it, and HIWPI along with fairly expected RAI was that the eldar should not have access to maelific, the BRB allowance is never disputed in the Eldar codex; the omission of certain GC rules in a list of what the GC in this experimental datasheet is not an all inclusive list in the same manner)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
it has both stomp and FNP, BRB trumps data slate.

Last bit is exactly backwards. At least as far as rules priority goes.

What the reality of the situation is: Those rules are only lost from the GC rules if it specifically states they are lost; omissions are simply omissions. This is why Eldar can still technically use Maelific psychic powers; it is not on their list, and the omission in this case is pretty much guaranteed to mean that RAI they cannot use it, but the permission exists in the BRB as "Unless otherwise stated". Lack of any statement about it at all is not stating the discipline is denied, simply an omission(of course the Maelific discipline did not exist, and thus no codex had a statement against it when the 7th edition rules added it, and HIWPI along with fairly expected RAI was that the eldar should not have access to maelific, the BRB allowance is never disputed in the Eldar codex; the omission of certain GC rules in a list of what the GC in this experimental datasheet is not an all inclusive list in the same manner)

While it is safe to assume these rules are a first release draft, it lacks the experimental denotation from past Forge World releases. It is possible that it has been dropped all together as the other recent Forge World datasheet also lacked any experimental notation.