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.

Stonerhino wrote:

Kitzz wrote:And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I think you are misunderstanding what's being said.

The FAQ in question is telling you what to do if something that is against the rules happened. Which does not give permission for the restricted action to be attemted. Just how it would be done if you could. So that part of the FAQ is useless.

Which is different then just saying to ignore any FAQ ruling.

I never said that you said to ignore any FAQ ruling. I said you were ignoring implied FAQ rulings. My point was that Orks can take a 5+ invulnerable save on everything in their army, even with an FAQ that implies they can't. To be clear, I'd like to see you answer the following questions:

You're OK with Killa Kans, Dreds, and other Ork Vehicles getting invulnerable saves for 5pts per model?

Or what about this?

Q. Can the AP1 hit from the particle whip be
assigned to any member of a squad or does it
have to be assigned to the model under the
centre of the template?
A. Any model directly under the centre of the
large blast template of the particle whip takes an
AP1 hit. The rules for blast weapons state that the
defending player may remove casualties from the
unit as a whole, not necessarily those under the
template, and this rule still applies here, so the
player can assign the AP1 hit to any model in the
unit.

Notice that the FAQ says to assign an AP1 hit. In the rules, hits are never assigned. Wounds are. Does this mean that the model under the center of the blast has to take an AP1 hit, or does the player get to assign the AP1 hit before rolling to wound? How exactly is that done, as there are no rules for assigning hits in the rulebook? Then again, we can't assume that the second reference of "player" refers to the defending player, because that would be to infer something other than what the author wrote. Perhaps the firing player, then, can assign the AP1 hit? Of course, there still aren't rules for that, so I'm still not sure what you'd have me do in that case.

What about this?

Q. Can a resurrection orb be used if a unit is
wiped out and there are no models of a like type
within 6"?
A. If a unit is wiped out and there are no models
of a like type within 6" (and no Tomb Spyder
around), a resurrection orb does not allow
downed Necrons to make WBB rolls.

So if any unit on the battlefield (as this effect's range of influence isn't specified, and this wording is more specific) is wiped out, and there are no like models/spyders around, every ressurection orb stops working, no matter where it is? Again, this isn't specified to just the models within 6" of the res orb. It also seems to me that I will never get to make a WBB roll with a lord that has a res orb, as it does not allow affected necrons to make WBB rolls at all, and this effect has no reference to the things that negate WBB that the res orb is usually bought specifically to ward against, such as power weapons and weapons/attacks that cause ID.

If you want to make sure people are following the rules as written and not implied, I'm sure you're aware that vehicles are only allowed to shoot either all or none of their weapons when firing, right?

Aun'Va is allowed to take two Honor Guards via the Tau codex. Ethereals also are allowed to take an Honor Guard. Which parts of their two rules are we supposed to use as "most specific?" I think that when you really look at it the rules allow you to take 0-24 Honor Guard and Aun'Va, each of the Honor Guard being statted out like a boss and given an honor blade and allowed the upgrades of a normal Fire Warrior squad, but others assure me this isn't so.

/rant

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read, but I really do mean to ask how far down you are willing to follow the rabbit hole. I assure you, there's plenty more than the above that's still an issue, some of which isn't even resolved between the NOVA or INAT FAQs. At some point, we have to infer what people meant no matter how clear or unclear or poorly worded a given rule is. If you want to go so far as to say that GW wrote a useless ruling or rule and that you will stand by that ruling or rule, you should be willing to agree with any RaW, and there are plenty out there that are misplayed by the vast majority.

Kitzz wrote:You're OK with Killa Kans, Dreds, and other Ork Vehicles getting invulnerable saves for 5pts per model?

The wording in that FAQ makes it seem like everyone should know that vehicles don't wear armor.

Kitzz wrote:Or what about this?

Q. Can the AP1 hit from the particle whip be
assigned to any member of a squad or does it
have to be assigned to the model under the
centre of the template?
A. Any model directly under the centre of the
large blast template of the particle whip takes an
AP1 hit. The rules for blast weapons state that the
defending player may remove casualties from the
unit as a whole, not necessarily those under the
template, and this rule still applies here, so the
player can assign the AP1 hit to any model in the
unit.

Notice that the FAQ says to assign an AP1 hit. In the rules, hits are never assigned. Wounds are. Does this mean that the model under the center of the blast has to take an AP1 hit, or does the player get to assign the AP1 hit before rolling to wound? How exactly is that done, as there are no rules for assigning hits in the rulebook? Then again, we can't assume that the second reference of "player" refers to the defending player, because that would be to infer something other than what the author wrote. Perhaps the firing player, then, can assign the AP1 hit? Of course, there still aren't rules for that, so I'm still not sure what you'd have me do in that case.

The rule in the Necron codex say that the model under the hole is hit with an AP 1 attack. The FAQ says that you can assign that "Hit" to any model in the unit, not just the one under the template. Then if that model would be removed as a casualty the defending player may remove any model from the unit. All that really matters from that FAQ is that one model in the unit took an AP1 hit along with any other hits from the particle whip. So the particle whip cannot be used as a "Sniper" weapon.

It's the same as if you had a Hammerhead with a Railgun/SMS, that shot a unit. If everything hits, the models in the unit would take one AP1 hit along with four AP5 hits. What models took the hits at this point does not matter. Unlike the Particle whip in the Necron codex, untill the FAQ said that it may be asigned to any model in the unit. So all that really matter is that some models in the unit where hit. You then roll to wound as normal.

It's more a case of an FAQ creating a round about way for the writen rule to function in the current rule set then an FAQ creating an implied rule.

Kitzz wrote:about this?

Q. Can a resurrection orb be used if a unit is
wiped out and there are no models of a like type
within 6"?
A. If a unit is wiped out and there are no models
of a like type within 6" (and no Tomb Spyder
around), a resurrection orb does not allow
downed Necrons to make WBB rolls.

So if any unit on the battlefield (as this effect's range of influence isn't specified, and this wording is more specific) is wiped out, and there are no like models/spyders around, every ressurection orb stops working, no matter where it is? Again, this isn't specified to just the models within 6" of the res orb. It also seems to me that I will never get to make a WBB roll with a lord that has a res orb, as it does not allow affected necrons to make WBB rolls at all, and this effect has no reference to the things that negate WBB that the res orb is usually bought specifically to ward against, such as power weapons and weapons/attacks that cause ID.

A Res Orb has never allowed downed Necron to make WBB rolls. Just as the FAQ says. All they have ever done was to remove situations where a downed Necron would be unable to make a WBB roll. In the second printing of the Codex page 13 it even say "This can be over-riden by the res orb". I don't see where this is confusing. Even the Necron Lord's WBB rules are on page 13 and allow a Necron Lord to take a WBB in the situation list in the FAQ. This includes ones that don't have a res orb at all.

Kitzz wrote:If you want to make sure people are following the rules as written and not implied, I'm sure you're aware that vehicles are only allowed to shoot either all or none of their weapons when firing, right?

I'm not sure where this is coming from but page 58 BRB would disagree with you. But if you are using "All it's weapon must fire at a single target unit" then you are over looking the rest of that paragragh where it says "Shoots like other units". And page 16 BRB allows some weapons not to be used by choice or situation.

Kitzz wrote:Aun'Va is allowed to take two Honor Guards via the Tau codex. Ethereals also are allowed to take an Honor Guard. Which parts of their two rules are we supposed to use as "most specific?" I think that when you really look at it the rules allow you to take 0-24 Honor Guard and Aun'Va, each of the Honor Guard being statted out like a boss and given an honor blade and allowed the upgrades of a normal Fire Warrior squad, but others assure me this isn't so.

Aun'Va's, special rule "Honour Guard" is differnt then an Ethereal's special rule "Honour Guard". So if you're using Aun'va then you use his special rule, not combine it with that of a normal Ethereal in some sort of hybrid Frankenstien monster special rule.

Kitzz wrote:/rant

It happens.

Kitzz wrote:Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read, but I really do mean to ask how far down you are willing to follow the rabbit hole. I assure you, there's plenty more than the above that's still an issue, some of which isn't even resolved between the NOVA or INAT FAQs. At some point, we have to infer what people meant no matter how clear or unclear or poorly worded a given rule is. If you want to go so far as to say that GW wrote a useless ruling or rule and that you will stand by that ruling or rule, you should be willing to agree with any RaW, and there are plenty out there that are misplayed by the vast majority.

Actually, I make rulings based off examining the RAW and what can be infered of the RAI. If you only use one or the other then you are not looking at the whole picture.

Stonerhino wrote:"Can a Unit teleport after it had already moved that movement phase"??? The rules say "No". Untill the rules say that yes a unit can move before they are teleported (which they currently do not) that part of the FAQ is not saying anything. It might as well say "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, then the Necrons auto win that game" since it still can not happen. Because as long as the real rules (the ones that are not "Studio house rules") say you can not do something you can not do it, no matter what something that is not a rule says. This is even more true when the "Studio house rule" tells you what to do if something happens, when in game it can't happen.

You have to come up with something a lot better then "An FAQ tells us to do this when something that the current rules prevent from happening happens". As a reason as to why it can happen and overule the actual rules.

The FAQ is newer than the codex rules.

And I'm done arguing with you on this, you apparently don't get it.

The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

Deadshot wrote:The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

So, the Monolith can snipe individual characters then with the Particle Whip?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Deadshot wrote:The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

So, the Monolith can snipe individual characters then with the Particle Whip?

I wouldn't pay attention to that. Go to a tournament and try to pull something that is FAQ'ed, then tell your opponent that the FAQ "doesn't supercede. . ." yadda yadda yadda and see who the TO rules with. I'd be willing to be that 99 times out of 100, the TO rules with the FAQ. That's why people use them (some TO's print them out for the players).

Yes in general,the FAQ is used.But that is only in Tournies,where the rules er giving to you,or when both players agree to use them.

I am not agreeing with him.


The only thing I can say, is that if your opponent disallows you something that was in FAQs,then you must disallow all the stuff.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

Unless both players agree to use them(which most players do), then yes, FAQs are worth less than £0.01,or $0.01, or 1pt, depending on currency.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are there to help people answer questions, and to provide an optional rules update.Errata, on the other hand, is essentially the spell-check, where as FAQs are the suggestions for misspelled words.

Deadshot wrote:Yes in general,the FAQ is used.But that is only in Tournies,where the rules er giving to you,or when both players agree to use them.

I am not agreeing with him.


The only thing I can say, is that if your opponent disallows you something that was in FAQs,then you must disallow all the stuff.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

Unless both players agree to use them(which most players do), then yes, FAQs are worth less than £0.01,or $0.01, or 1pt, depending on currency.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are there to help people answer questions, and to provide an optional rules update.Errata, on the other hand, is essentially the spell-check, where as FAQs are the suggestions for misspelled words.

This applies to ANY rule for that matter! There are many playing groups that have developed "house rules" to address certain rule ambiguities. In many ways, the FAQs are just GW's way of standardizing many of those house rules.

In every tournament I've played, the FAQs are used (as well as others, such as the INIT). This is done, if for no other reason, to have a common point of interpretation of the rules. When there is a discrepancy, the two players either work it out (ultimately by a D6) or call the TO to resolve the issue. In friendly games, the two players work it out.

But to flat out state the FAQs are bullocks and shouldn't be consider when discussing rules counters what is discussed in most places including YMDC. The FAQs are QFT far most often then not.

So, no, the FAQ don't have to be used, I understand that. I also understand most players use them to help guide them through the more murky interpretations of the rules. If you are one of the few that chooses not us the FAQ, fine, that's how you play. I'm not here to challenge the righteousness of the FAQs nor defend them beyond that's what most of the community uses to help interpret the rules.

WanderingFox wrote:If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?),

Yes, you missed it, I posted it, next to last post on the bottom of page 2.....................

And Rhino has explained it very well, the FAQ says what to do if you could teleport through the portal (as was once allowed). It does NOT give permission to do so and therefor does NOT overrule the specific statement in the codex disallowing it.

Thank you don_mondo, i did in fact miss it

Also, I agree. Hell, the first sentence in the FAQ explicitly states to ignore redundant information and that it was left in specifically to deal with the older 2002 codex. I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this anymore :3

don_mondo wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?),

Yes, you missed it, I posted it, next to last post on the bottom of page 2.....................

And Rhino has explained it very well, the FAQ says what to do if you could teleport through the portal (as was once allowed). It does NOT give permission to do so and therefor does NOT overrule the specific statement in the codex disallowing it.

And I disagree. The FAQ states that a unit that has moved can be teleported through the Monolith. How can the Q&A be interpreted any differently?

FAQ Necron 2009 wrote:
Q. Can a Necron unit that teleported through a Monolith's portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn't already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn't already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally.

The question DIRECTLY asks if the a ported unit can move and the answer (underlined by me) DIRECTLY states a unit that has moved prior to teleporting can only deploy within 2" of the Monolith.

This supersedes the codex! Otherwise we get to question all aspects of the Necron FAQ including whether the Monolith can snipe a model from within a unit.

TGA - actually no, it does not state that. It tells you what happens IF the unit has already moved. It does not tell you that they CAN move then teleport, only what to do IF this occurs.

Since the codex prohibits this from occurring it is a useless answer. It's like telling you what to do if bikes have to disembark from a wrecked transport - this does not give you permission to break the "infantry only" rules for transports.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - actually no, it does not state that. It tells you what happens IF the unit has already moved. It does not tell you that they CAN move then teleport, only what to do IF this occurs.

Since the codex prohibits this from occurring it is a useless answer. It's like telling you what to do if bikes have to disembark from a wrecked transport - this does not give you permission to break the "infantry only" rules for transports.

The FAQ doesn't place any restrictions on the type of movement (voluntary or otherwise), just that if the unit moved and yes, this does override the codex, just like all the Q&A in the FAQ.

Sure, check the codex for the ruling first, which stipulates a unit a cannot move prior to being teleported. Then check the FAQ and see that, indeed, based on an answer to a question about moving after teleporting, a unit that has moved may be teleported but only deployed within 2" of the monolith.

Just like: Can the Monolith snipe a model within a unit? Checking the codex the ruling is yes. However, checking with the FAQ, no, since the answer to the question is although the specific model is, indeed hit, the wound can be allocated to any model within the unit.

If we distill this whole argument, it boils down to something like this.

I tell you if you can pull a red marble out of a bag of marbles then you get a free battleforce.

The bag of marbles only contains blue marbles.

While the provision exists for you pulling a red marble out, it is not possible to do so because its denied earlier in the situation.


In this specific example, the 2002 codex would be a bag of marbles with both red and blue marbles, while the 2003 codex would be a bag of just blue marbles. The statement of pulling a red marble out gets you a new battleforce was made generally to function regardless of what bag of marbles was used.

That was very well said Wanderingfox

Sounds like a GW style of deal there...

I always play by the FAQ's and so does everyone i've ever played that wasn't trying to put one over on me

TGA - again, no, youre wrong, and Wandering Fox told you why.

You are told what you can do IF a situation occurs. This is not permission for that situation to occur, just a statement of what is possible IF it does

Until you can find the line "a unit may move before being teleported" you have no rule, not at all, that says what you are saying. Please find said rule, or actually respond to the arguments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - again, no, youre wrong, and Wandering Fox told you why.

You are told what you can do IF a situation occurs. This is not permission for that situation to occur, just a statement of what is possible IF it does

Until you can find the line "a unit may move before being teleported" you have no rule, not at all, that says what you are saying. Please find said rule, or actually respond to the arguments.

You're looking at both rules and applying the codex then the FAQ. I'm saying the FAQ supplants the codex.

The rules in the BRB permit a unit movement. The Necron codex states a unit moved cannot be teleported. The Necron FAQ states if a unit moved it can be teleported. The two rules are orthogonal to each other. When such a situation occurs, generally, the latest written rule prevails.

You're marble bag analogy only works if both the codex and FAQ rules are combined. I'm saying the two rules are mutually exclusive, and to carry your analogy further, the BRB rules permit red and blue marbles in the bag and the FAQ talks about what happens when a red marble is pulled.


So a simple application of the rules:

A unit of Warriors move within teleport range of a Monolith. The question is can the Warriors be teleported. The codex states a unit to be teleported may not move, so going by the codex, no the Warriors cannot be teleported. However, the FAQ states if a unit has moved, which, in this example, the Warriors did, the unit can be teleported through the Monolith but limited to being deployed within 2" of the Monolith's entrance. So, going by the FAQ, yes, the Warriors can be teleported.

And, again, you are making things up. The FAQ DOES NOT STATE YOU MAY TELEPORT A SQUAD THAT HAS MOVED.

It tells you what happens IF they moved before being teleported, and how they deploy in that instance. It does not say they may do so.

At no point does it give you PERMISSION to teleport them. Please, do as was asked of you and fnd the *rule* that lets you teleport them. Not an "If they move before being teleported", which is not permission.

If you continually ignore this point, you are breaking the tenets of YMDC

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

So a simple application of the rules:

A unit of Warriors move within teleport range of a Monolith. The question is can the Warriors be teleported. The codex states a unit to be teleported may not move, so going by the codex, no the Warriors cannot be teleported. However, the FAQ states if a unit has moved, which, in this example, the Warriors did, the unit can be teleported through the Monolith but limited to being deployed within 2" of the Monolith's entrance. So, going by the FAQ, yes, the Warriors can be teleported.

No.
They.
Cannot.

Again, as you seem to keep missing it. All the FAQ does is say what happens if you do teleport a unit that has moved (as was once allowed by the codex). Nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission for the unit to move and then be teleported.

I'm honestly amazed this is still going on... The FAQ answers this exact kind of issue in the first paragraph of the FAQ. It's a provision to deal with the older codex. Not only that, simple logic (as my previous post clearly shows) also answers the question in the exact same way.

Could I borrow the dictionary you're using because I don't think we're speaking the same language here :3

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, you are making things up. The FAQ DOES NOT STATE YOU MAY TELEPORT A SQUAD THAT HAS MOVED.

It tells you what happens IF they moved before being teleported, and how they deploy in that instance. It does not say they may do so.

At no point does it give you PERMISSION to teleport them. Please, do as was asked of you and fnd the *rule* that lets you teleport them. Not an "If they move before being teleported", which is not permission.

If you continually ignore this point, you are breaking the tenets of YMDC

You're purposefully being antagonistic. The FAQ is the rule that permits the teleporting just as the other rules are detailed in the FAQ.

The question in the FAQ is: "Can a Necron unit that teleported through a Monolith's portal move after emerging?" A very specific question to a very specific rule. The answer is also very specific: if the unit moved, it can only deploy within 2" of the portal; if the unit didn't move it can deploy within 2" of the portal and then move. The answer is clear and concise and details how to handle teleporting through the Monolith when a unit has moved and when it hasn't.

Since the FAQ is written AFTER the codex and and contains a details of a very SPECIFIC rule it takes precedence over the codex. So when a player asks: can this unit be teleported through a Monolith? that player can consult the FAQ and show that, yes, yes it can but may not move any further depending on whether or not the unit moved prior to being teleported.

You're implying.

The FAQ question simply denotes the outcome. It does not say it can cause it.

The answer says IF it has moved. If is a conditional statement, it is not a statement of fact.

I can do the same thing. If I go to Alpha Centauri I can have a billion dollars. That does not mean I can actually get there, it simply is describing the result of it happening.

If god is real, I get to go to heaven. Again, denotes a result to a condition, not that the statement that it is conditional on is true or false.

By your logic every time anyone said if it would imply the condition was possible, which by basic definition of logic is a fallacy. I can easily say If 1=2 then I'm a purple dog, but that doesn't make me suddenly turning into a purple dog possible.

So did anyone ever actually answer the OP's question about the particle whip? I can't remember ><

Yes, its fired from any of the weapons on the monolith, which is generally considered any of the 4 guns on the model.

Just to be clear then, I can definitely take the 5 point invulnerable save upgrade on my Ork vehicles?

Only if you model them with actual Ork cyborks bolted/tied to them. In any other case vehicles don't wear armor.

Do FAQs create rules or clarify them?

If they create, then I could maybe - by a stretch - see where the "I can teleport after moving camp is coming from.
If they just clarify, then WanderingFox is 100% right. (I'm in this camp.)

By the definition of frequently asked questions, one would assume that they clarify questions about uncertainties presented in the original material.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that any time GW has made an actual change to a gameplay element of a codex they have either re-released the codex, or they have put it in the errata or amendments sections of the FAQ document, and not in the actual FAQ section. However, seeing as I have not gone through every codex and FAQ, I cannot state that as fact.

WanderingFox wrote:You're implying.

The FAQ question simply denotes the outcome. It does not say it can cause it.

The answer says IF it has moved. If is a conditional statement, it is not a statement of fact.

Again, the FAQ specifically addresses whether or not a unit can move after being teleported. It describes, in detail, how to handle the only two outcomes of teleporting a unit during the movement phase: either it moved or it didn't. The answer clearly details that a unit that moved can be teleported but only deploy while a unit that hasn't moved can be teleported, deploy, AND move.

By your logic every time anyone said if it would imply the condition was possible, which by basic definition of logic is a fallacy. I can easily say If 1=2 then I'm a purple dog, but that doesn't make me suddenly turning into a purple dog possible.

Actually, no. My logic is the FAQ Q&A specifically replaces the codex ruling not some convoluted mishmash of the codex rule and FAQ rule.