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.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:The rules are very clear, GBF.

Very true.
You know, If any one has a right to complain it psychic users that can't shoot without a fire point, Even those powers that don't need line of sight.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yak on the one hand you state your interpretations are made to facilitate smooth gaming which I applaud, however in the case of the Chapter Master and his orbital bombardment I think we all know he does not have a piece of ordnance bolted onto his armor. He is calling down a strike from the battlebarge.

G

I know its not a perfect science, but in this case it seemed to us that the rules are perfectly clear (even if they don't make complete sense from a 'real world' perspective) and none of us has witnessed most people trying to pull this in games.

If you think we've got it backwards from how most people naturally play, why not create a 'how do you play it' poll (but just make sure to include quotes of all the relevant rules in the thread).

Red_Lives wrote:I also disagree with the ruling on offices not being able to use Vox-Casters on their own squad.

+IG.71I.01 -- Q: If an Officer fails to issue an order to
his OWN Command Squad can they re-roll the result if
the squad has a Vox-caster?
A: No [clarification].

Lets Evaluate the RAW:

If an officer is attempting to issue an order to a friendly unit And both the officers squad and the chosen unit contain a model with a vox-caster, the leadership test to see if the order can be used may be re-rolled if failed.

Now lets examine this

Is a unit friendly with itself? I believe we can all agree it is.

Does the command squad contain a vox-caster? I believe this is a resounding yes.

Does the unit receiving the order also contain a vox? Again yes.

I am just perplexed at this ruling it seems as tho the INAT FAQ. It seems as though there is not justification for this ruling.

Because i've always imagined a Vox-caster repeating everything the officer says verbatim, so the order is heard twice (once by the officer once by the Vox-operator) so i am perplexed as to why this doesn't apply on his own squad. Almost as if the guy trained to repeat the officers words suddenly stops for seemingly no reason.

I posted this earlier and it seemed to have been skipped, i am also just curious as to WHY the INATFAQ ruled the way it did. Again i just don't understand why or how this could be the ruling.

I imagine 'both' heavily implies 'the two things'.

Red_Lives wrote:
I posted this earlier and it seemed to have been skipped, i am also just curious as to WHY the INATFAQ ruled the way it did. Again i just don't understand why or how this could be the ruling.

Sorry about that. I did miss it.

Its as Ridcully said: Ultimately we decided that 'both' meant two separate units.

But to be clear, we have several people on the council who often feel completely opposite on issues, and most of the issue brought up in this thread were ones we had to argue/discuss and eventually take a split vote over, with majority vote ending up as the winner. That tells you that the ruling is certainly not simple and is almost guaranteed to indicate that no matter which way we end up ruling a proportion of gamers (just like the proportion of the voting council) is going to disagree with the ruling.

And this particular issue is certainly no exception.

There were those who felt, by the RAW, that the Vox-Caster should allow an Officer to re-roll the Order Ld test on his own unit, while others felt that the use of the word 'both' in the rule indicated (to them, by the RAW) that you needed to have the Officer's unit AND another unit to be receiving the order.

Obviously at the end of the day the latter won out over the former in the case of the voting council.

I see what you are saying there, but the logic doesn't seem to hold out if you break it down.

The unit is both receiving and giving the order these two things are not exclusive of the other.

In this specific instance both the officer's squad and the unit receiving the order do have a vox-caster equipped model. Do they not?

I do agree with most of whats in the INATFAQ but this one just doesn't sit right with me.

Red_lives, I do really like that question and think we should make another post on it. In order to get more community feedback on it.

yakface wrote:

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

This rule provides two time periods in which the cluster mines must be placed. One is a general range (after terrain is placed could refer to any time in the game after the terrain is set up), while "at the start of the game" only has one possible meaning. Your interpretation completely ignores the part about setting up at the start of the game, which is clearly after the mission is rolled for.

yakface wrote:

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

thebetter1 wrote:

yakface wrote:

No Gate of Infinity out of close combat? I would have respected a ruling that the enemies can consolidate, but this is just a rule change. And what is wrong with using it while falling back? I can't find a single rule that would suggest otherwise.

Gate of Infinity uses Deep Strike to re-deploy the unit, and the Deep Strike rules specify that this does count as movement. Units locked in combat cannot move and therefore cannot use Gate. Also note, that similar abilities, like Skyleap or Veil of Death clearly state that they can be used when locked in combat.

And when a unit is falling back the rules dictate what kind of movement you have to take. Therefore you are not allowed to make a voluntary movement of any kind, including using Gate. This ruling is also consistent with how GW ruled for both Skyleap and Veil of Death regarding units that are falling back.

This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

And with this interpretation, thebetter1 has crossed both yakface and Gwar! May the emperor have mercy, for they will not...

thebetter1 wrote:

yakface wrote:

What did you do to cluster mines? Where in RAW does it say that they are placed before the game begins? I can find a rule that says they are placed at the start of the game, yet the FAQ says to place them before the mission is even determined.

Read the whole 2nd paragraph for Cluster Mines. You place them after terrain has been placed, which by the layout of how a game is set-up in the rules happens before selecting a mission.

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Primarch wrote:Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

I suppose I did! That ruling comes down mostly because of the majority of people playing the model before any FAQ was out naturally played that way. It also keeps the precedent set by Drop Pods allowing models to arrive via Deep Strike that don't have that special rule.

yakface wrote:

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

I forgot that you guys adopt the more restrictive interpretation in any given situation .

olympia wrote:
I forgot that you guys adopt the more restrictive interpretation in any given situation .

\


Well, not always. But when there seems to be two pretty equal interpretations, then it is usually the better way to go.

yakface wrote:

olympia wrote:

"At the start of the game, after terrain is placed..." (Space Marine codex, page 67).

I agree with thebetter1.

p.86 Organising a Battle
1. Agree points limits and choose forces.
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. Deploy Forces
5. Start the Game!

So when it says "the start of the game" for Cluster Mines it would be reasonable to conclude that refers to step 5.

You are correct that would be a reasonable conclusion just as our ruling is a reasonable conclusion as well, IMHO. But going with your interpretation would mean that the mines get placed AFTER everybody is deployed which, makes them much, much more powerful, and doesn't match the intention of the rule or the fluff IMO. I think it is far better to stick with the more strict interpretation in a situation like that (where you have two different reasonable conclusions).

Primarch wrote:Did you also miss my questions regarding the Vendetta and Outflanking with Vets?



Clay

I suppose I did! That ruling comes down mostly because of the majority of people playing the model before any FAQ was out naturally played that way. It also keeps the precedent set by Drop Pods allowing models to arrive via Deep Strike that don't have that special rule.

The problem with the Drop pod association, is that the Drop Pod rules are fairly RAI, there is no other way to play them as a dedicated Transport. I will let it drop after this, but seriously, if the Vendetta was not allowed to bring in Vets in an Outflanking move, then it could still transport troops and work just fine within the confines of the game. Also, that is a different rule and should be brought up on its own, as I've argued before.


Clay

thebetter1 wrote:This does not fit into RAW at all. Also, the Skyleap and Veil of Death rules are not even in the same codex. I suggest you do some of your own research too. If you really want to rule against RAW, you have to call it a rule change, not a clarification.

Y'know, I was going to comment on the sheer amount of testicular fortitude it takes to make this comment to Yakface, but then I realized how short a time that TB1 has been a dakkaite.

At the risk of sounding confrontational (without meaning to sound anywhere near as confrontational as the above highlighted sentence is), I think just about any dakkaite that's been here 6+ months will agree that Yakface has done more research onto this and any other rule issue you can think of than yourself or anyone you know.

This is the second (I believe) year of the INAT, with a third on its way for the 2010 Adepticon. Yak, being one of the FAQ council members, has to study up on EVERY one of the questions that comes up. This goes so far as to posting threads here on YMDC that often run 10+ pages, then moving on to How do YOU Play It polls to try to mesh poorly worded rules with how the majority of players around the country/world choose to play it.

If you do make a little use of the search function, you will discover that your assertion is not new or original in the context of GoI. The question has been debated ad nauseum ever since the codex first came out. As obvious as it seems to you that the INAT's view of this question is inconsistent with RAW, there are other people who think it is completely obvious to them that the INAT view of the question is completely in line with RAW.

So, in short, be nice.

PS. Do a little research yourself; it's Veil of Darkness.

edit: Spelling (I really can't type today).

Primarch wrote:The problem with the Drop pod association, is that the Drop Pod rules are fairly RAI, there is no other way to play them as a dedicated Transport.

Sure there is. We can play by your "interpretation" where they are totally useless!

I still don't understand why you need to mix rules Gwar. The drop pod has NOTHING to do with a Vendetta, absolutely NOTHING.

If you want to bring up the merits of dropping or not dropping in pods, we can start a thread dedicated to that topic.


As for my personal beliefs, one more time, since you keep missing it.


I like to follow the RAI, when its blatantly obvious, things like Drop Pods being able to *gasp* Drop with Troops inside.


When the RAI is not blatantly obvious *Vendettas carrying Vets and Outflanking*, I do prefer to use the RAW. These are not the only 2 examples, but they are the ones that keep popping up here.


For the record, I don't play a Drop Pod army, or a Vendetta heavy IG list, so neither of these rulings will affect me unless I am playing against someone using them.


Clay

You brought it up. Why is it when I and others point out the flaw in your logic you suddenly accuse us of "mixing rules"?

So when a unit is embarked in a vendetta, does the vendetta have to obey that unit's restrictions on movement? Or is it just outflanking you find issue with?

Gwar! wrote:You brought it up. Why is it when I and others point out the flaw in your logic you suddenly accuse us of "mixing rules"?

Negative Gwar, this is what you keep accusing me of. Please read the ENTIRE thread before throwing out nonsense. I brought up the Vendetta outflanking, I did NOT bring up the Drop Pod Deepstriking.



As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....


Clay

Primarch wrote:As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....

So why do you not have a problem with Drop Pods Carrying Tactical Marines? Same situation. Smacks of Double Standards and Faulty Logic methinks.

According to the RaW, the Valk can outflank even with the Vets inside.

Gwar! wrote:

Primarch wrote:As to the other post, yes, the Outflanking is the only thing I have issue with. Obviously if the Vendetta doesn't outflank, then it can carry Vets just fine, according to the RAW that is. Something Gwar decided he doesn't like so much all of a sudden....

So why do you not have a problem with Drop Pods Carrying Tactical Marines? Same situation. Smacks of Double Standards and Faulty Logic methinks.

According to the RaW, the Valk can outflank even with the Vets inside.

No, it cannot. The rules tell you EXACTLY who can Outflank. Passengers are not included. There is no passage that says the ability to Outflank is conveyed to the Vets. The Vets, as per the rules for coming in from reserve, must enter the table in a couple of ways. If they come on inside a Vendetta, then they are indeed Outflanking, which by the Outflanking rules, is not allowed. Not much here that is unclear.


Clay

Passengers are are not included in the movement either, because they are not on the table.

Primarch wrote:No, it cannot. The rules tell you EXACTLY who can Outflank. Passengers are not included. There is no passage that says the ability to Outflank is conveyed to the Vets. The Vets, as per the rules for coming in from reserve, must enter the table in a couple of ways. If they come on inside a Vendetta, then they are indeed Outflanking, which by the Outflanking rules, is not allowed. Not much here that is unclear.

The rules also tell you exactly who can Deep Strike. Please stop Ducking the Question.

Sigh....

I am trying to be patient, but can you read?


The reason I think the Drop Pod can in fact drop WITH Troops in it, even though you are correct, by RAW it cannot, is because it is, at least to me, BLATANTLY obvious that it should work this way. It couldn't transport troops any other way. Is that clear enough for you? Ive said the same things to you at least 5 times now, but you choose to ignore this part of all my posts.


The reason I believe that the Vendetta cannot Outflank with Troops inside that DO NOT have the ability to do so on their own, is because if you take that interpretation, there are several ways a Vendetta can still function as a 40k unit. It can, transport troops that ARE allowed to Outflank and perform an Outflank move, it can Deploy at the start of the game with Vets or whatever can legally ride in it, and move/deploy/whatever on turn 1, or it can be held in reserves/off table, and move on NORMALLY, again with anything legally allowed to board the transport.


If you take away a Drop Pod's ability to drop with troops inside, then it, as you said above, becomes almost useless.

I hope you can read, and digest everything I have read here, and for once, instead of repeating your tired argument of me not answering you, come up with an ACTUAL argurment as to why the Vendetta should be allowed to Outflank with a Unit that cannot Outflank riding inside it.


Clay

Primarch - answer this simple question:

Do vehicles have to obey the movement restrictions of the units they carry inside them? If not, why not?

According to your faulty logic what is contained within the vehicle affects the vehicles ability to Outflank, so you should at least be consistent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do vehicles have to obey the movement restrictions of the units they carry inside them? If not, why not?

If transports had to obey the restrictions of their passengers, then most of them wouldn't ever more more than 6" in the movement phase.

Primarch wrote:The reason I believe that the Vendetta cannot Outflank with Troops inside that DO NOT have the ability to do so on their own, is because if you take that interpretation, there are several ways a Vendetta can still function as a 40k unit.

That may be so, but ruling that a rule works one way for one unit and differently for another unit, regardless of how effective or ineffective that makes one of them, is confusing and awkward.

The INAT ruling keeps things consistent. A unit embarked in a vehicle gets to utilise that vehicle's rules for moving about.



Mod hat on: to everyone, please keep replies limited to the argument, not the poster. If you're finding yourself getting a little frustrated by others' responses, go take a walk before posting.

I know: however Primarch seems to believe that the unit inside the transport somehow dictates what the transport can do, namely if they don't have access to Outflank they cannot outlfank tin the vehicle.

This leads to the logical conclusion that, if a unit affects what a transport can do it must do so in a consistent manner - and as the unit does not have permission to move over 6" (as it is infantry) then the vehicle cannot do so either.

This is, of course, rediculous, and shows how flawed Primarchs argument is. Unfortunately I don't see them actually getting this, so we will have 3 mroe pages of "you can't Outflank Vets in a Vendetta!!!" despite having no actual written, relevant rules to support the argument.

You can outflank vets in a Vendetta as the Vehicle has permission to Outflank, and nothing ANYWHERE in ANY of the rules for vehicles states that an embarked unit puts constraints on what a vehicle may do. In fact the rules are written the other way round - the embarked unit is constrained by the vehicles actions.