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.

I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the BGB FAQ.

Eldar FAQ ...
"Q. If an army has two Autarch, does it get +2 to its Reserve rolls?
A. The player may choose each turn whether to add +1, +2 or no bonus to his reserve rolls."

IG FAQ ...
"Q. If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack?
A. No. The advantage of having multiples of these Regimental Advisors is that you can still gain the benefit of the Telepathic Relay/Intercept Reserves rules should one Astropath/Officer of the Fleet be killed. The confusion created by having so many advisors simultaneously vying for a Commander’s attention negates any potential benefit."

IF GW was able to answer the same question in the same way each time then we could use one FAQ to answer another, but they don't so we can't.

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.

That line of reasoning goes a bit far.

And as far as I can tell and/or remember, no one's tried that!

Gwar has a point in that if it's a general rule clarification or change it should be in the general rulebook FAQ. Otherwise a player has to read every FAQ for every army out there to make sure he/she is up to date with all new developments of the core gameplay. That's more than annoying.
Now, if I would deny an opponent something based on it being in the FAQ of an army he's not playing depends a lot on what exact rule is refered to.

Gwar! wrote:If it were a general ruling, it should be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

Fixed it for you.

I agree; all general rulings ought to be in the Rulebook FAQ. But sadly, they aren't. The location has no bearing on what they say.

For purposes of ramming, are artillery (ie a thunderfire cannon) considered to be vehicles? I am fairly new to 40k and under the artillery section of the rulebook it states that the gun itself has a profile of a vehicle with 10 armour all around. However the tables in the back of the rulebook dont list them under the vehicle tables at all.

jensenm1 wrote:For purposes of ramming, are artillery (ie a thunderfire cannon) considered to be vehicles? I am fairly new to 40k and under the artillery section of the rulebook it states that the gun itself has a profile of a vehicle with 10 armour all around. However the tables in the back of the rulebook dont list them under the vehicle tables at all.

they're treated as infantry in this case .. you would tank shock them.

Gwar! wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It does seem to lead towards a more general ruling though, doesn't it?

If it were a general ruling, it would be in the General Rulebook FAQ.

I'm afraid this is a false premise. GW isn't that well organized, as we all know. If GW gives a ruling on the interaction of general rulebook rules within a given codex's FAQ (as they have repeatedly done; like in 4th ed the clarification in the Eldar FAQ that Skimmers Moving Fast worked against Close Combat attacks too), it's just willful blindness to ignore it. Nothing in the FAQs themselves or in the introduction to them on the site indicates that the rulings within them are exclusive to them.

Gwar! wrote:It isn't though, it is in the Ork FAQ. Just as how you would not try and use a Skaven or Dark Eldar FAQ for Necrons, you wouldn't use the Ork one for anything else.

Skaven is irrelevant. Different game. If there were a ruling in the DE FAQ which clarified how a given core rulebook rule worked, it would be entirely appropriate to use the clarification if Necrons had a similar situation come up.

Gwar! wrote:No, but it is in the Ork FAQ, so it applies to the Ork army only.

And that's where you keep going wrong.

Yes, it's in the Ork FAQ... but it's a clarification of a general rule. The Deff Rolla can be used to ram because Ramming is a type of Tank Shock.

While the original rule being questioned is an Ork rule, the reason for that rule to work as they're clarifying is down to an interaction of the standard rules of 40K.

What it boils down to is that GW have clarified that something that allows you to Tank Shock also allows you to Ram, and have given the reason that it works that way. There is absolutely no reason to not apply that same reasoning to anything else that functions in a similar fashion, unless that other item has a specific ruling that says otherwise... because it's not a ruling based on the Ork rules. It's a ruling based on the standard mechanics of the game.

I believe this was added to the BRB FAQ too, so is now a moot issue.

Uriels_Flame wrote:I believe this was added to the BRB FAQ too, so is now a moot issue.

I'm not seeing it in there...

The Spanish version

But seriously, I looked again and didn't either....

I was sure I read it there after GW(ar) started this line of questioning just this week.

Hmm... conspiracy...

Tri wrote:I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the BGB FAQ.

It's really hard to take Gwar seriously on the matter though when he always uses ridiculous examples in explaining his perspective.

Mostly he talks about using the Skaven FAQ with his warhammer 40k army, which is not only absurd, but doesn't even invalidate the argument, because if there was an answer in the Skaven FAQ that pertained to something like how GW use a certain term in their writing, it could in theory be applied to interpreting Warhammer 40k rules.

edit: To be clear, the reason it's absurd is because the Skaven are using an entirely different base ruleset which the answers pertain to, thus why about the only valid thing to pull is something explaining the use of the english language in the design studio, If someone can't see the difference between a question about how skaven interact with the WHFB rules, and how two USRs from 40k function together on a certain Space Wolves unit, they are being intentionally obtuse.

I'm not trying to say there isn't an issue with how GW do the FAQs, these things that can effect multiple armies should be in the rulebook FAQ, and far too many things that should be errata get thrown in as FAQs, for example instead of release this Deff Rolla thing in the ork FAQ on it's own, maybe put that FAQ in, then release an errata for the rulebook which modifies the Ram rules to read "Ramming is a special kind of Tank Shock move, and as such any special rules that effect Tank Shocks will also effect Rams. It is executed in the same way as a Tank Shock..." and then errata in the Dark Eldar FAQ "Torture Amps allow Dark Eldar vehicles to Tank Shock, but not to Ram". Sure it may require more additions to the FAQ files, but it means that you have a hard and fast ruling on how everything that says it works with a tank shock, works with ramming.

Basically, if GW didn't run their FAQ service so poorly, I probably would agree with Gwar, but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues, and so I tend to be a bit flexible with regard to it, I would never assume a FAQ to be cross-compatible, and would expect you to bring it up to a TO before an event, or an opponent before a game, but if someone did ask me and could justify why both rules are largely the same, I would allow it.

Drunkspleen wrote:[... but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues,...

More to the point, it's how GW have always done their FAQ's. Or at least for as long as they've had Codex-specific FAQ's, anyway.

Drunkspleen wrote:[... but as it stands, far too often they are making rulings in FAQs for a codex when they are based on rulebook rules issues,...

insaniak wrote:More to the point, it's how GW have always done their FAQ's. Or at least for as long as they've had Codex-specific FAQ's, anyway.

Tri wrote:I've got agree with gwar ... If GW want to make a genral answer they should have made it in the

It should be FAQ in BGB's FAQ since there is already a ruling going the other way ... that way we get a specific answer for DE and general answer in the BGB.
If nothing else it requires a player to carry round up to date copies of all the FAQs not just the ones dealing with his army and the core rules.

Oh and i agree that Skaven are not usable ... but if it was a FAQ for planet strike or apocalypse?

In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

Kilkrazy wrote:In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

So why should an FAQ for Codex A (which is inherently a Variation of the core rules) apply to Codex B?

I agree with Gwar. It is perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the BRB. As that is where the general rules are. Specific rules are in codices as that is where specific rules are.

So therefore, general FAQs are in the BRB FAQ/errata. And specific FAQs are in the codex FAQ/errata.

So no a Raider can't ram, as it says in the DE FAQ that it can't. And the BT FAQ doesn't relate to IG. And unless a 'General' FAQ is in the BRB FAQ then it can't be used for another army.

Why on Earth should I carry round 20 different FAQs . . . . or in fact READ 20 different FAQs that don't relate to the armies I play or the general rules.

Oshova

It's not perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the rulebook. The rulebook contains rules for both general situations, and rules for specific situations: the most prominent of which are the Universal Special Rules (the biggest midgets...), but also things like Instant Death, Smoke Launchers, etc.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In my view PlanetStrike and Apocalyse (and Cities of Death) are blocks of variant rules not core rules, therefore an FAQ for them would not apply to the core game.

So why should an FAQ for Codex A (which is inherently a Variation of the core rules) apply to Codex B?

It shouldn't, however history shows that GW use this method for making changes to core rules.

See the Eldar 4e codex changes to the old Skimmers Moving Fast rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I say "GW use" the term should be taken very loosely.

GW put out rules, errata, revisions and FAQ answers in all kinds of somewhat dodgy ways. I don't think there is any organisation behind it.

There isn't. Hell, I don't even believe more than one person works on an FAQ.

InquisitorFabius wrote:There isn't. Hell, I don't even believe more than one person works on an FAQ.

And even then, most of their work is just copying it from other sources

Tri wrote:If nothing else it requires a player to carry round up to date copies of all the FAQs not just the ones dealing with his army and the core rules.

That's a good idea anyway... And something that I've always done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oshova wrote:It is perfectly logical that a general rule would be in the BRB. As that is where the general rules are. Specific rules are in codices as that is where specific rules are.

So therefore, general FAQs are in the BRB FAQ/errata. And specific FAQs are in the codex FAQ/errata.

It's logical that the FAQ's should work like that. But (again) it's not, and never has been, how GW do it.

insaniak wrote:It's logical that the FAQ's should work like that. But (again) it's not, and never has been, how GW do it.

Can you prove this?

I could dig back through the old FAQ's for those rulings where GW actually specifically said that a ruling made in a codex FAQ applied to everybody, if I felt a need.

But quite frankly, I don't see the point in 'proving' it. You're going to see the rules how you see fit anyway, and apparently your way is to ignore a ruling that fits the situation because you don't agree with where it's written. Which is fine. Your choice. I'll stick with using appropriate rulings wherever they apply, as that way results in more of the rules issues actually being resolved, and because more than 15 years of experience with GW's rules writing says that's the way they do it.

The effect of the rule is that (for Orks at least) bonuses from wargear/upgrades/etc that would apply to Tank Shock are also applied to Ramming.

Aside from the Dark Eldar raider (which is already handled in it's own faq) are there any other units on other armies that would even be affected by this?

I look at it that if there is an Ork FAQ that includes a BRB rule, it only applies to Orks and how THEY interact with the BRB rule.

While the BRB allows us to basically play the game, individual codex entries and rules dictate how the individual army interacts with the BRB.

In this case, the Ork FAQ dictates how Orks interact with the BRB ramming/tank shock rule. No one else.

Brother Ramses wrote:In this case, the Ork FAQ dictates how Orks interact with the BRB ramming/tank shock rule. No one else.

So you're saying that Ramming is only a type of Tank Shock for Orks?

No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

Brother Ramses wrote:No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

How exactly? The ruling clearly clarifies a BRB rule where the RAW was hotly contested for months.
Are you saying that the BRB RAW is still arguably unclear on the ramming/tank shocking relationship and isn't what the faq says it is when playing with other races... just because the general clarification only exists in a racial faq?

Brother Ramses wrote:No, I am saying the FAQ only dictates how Orks deal with that rule.

Ramming is a type of Tank Shock is already in the BRB for every other race. The Orks have a FAQ that only addresses how they deal with it with deffrollas. To then step beyond just orks you then drift into RAI verus RAW.

That's the thing, though: The FAQ addresses Deffrollas, yes. But what it does is simply point out that Deffrollas work when Ramming because of the interaction between two general rules. The Deffrolla, which has a stated effect that applies when performing a Tank Shock, works when Ramming because of the interaction of the Ramming and Tank Shock rules. Not because of any Ork-specific rules.

So claiming that this clarification can only apply to Orks is, at the very least, a bit odd, because Ramming and Tank shock are not exclusive to Orks.