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.

*headdesk*

What I said in another thread on this matter:

Yes, and if there is a sensible interpretation and an inane interpretation, half of Dakka feels obligated to stick with the inane one and start countless threads about it on YMDC, even though we all understand perfectly well what they actually meant.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not the correct way to parse that Puma.

No, I parsed the sentences correctly. You're allowing what you know to be the intent of the sentences to direct the way in which you're reading them.

Simply put, the "only" in the rulebook FAQ makes those two units unavailable.

But I really don't care to debate about it. I think it is incorrect and they don't intend on not allowing GK or BA to use their stormravens, obviously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
*headdesk*

What I said in another thread on this matter:

Yes, and if there is a sensible interpretation and an inane interpretation, half of Dakka feels obligated to stick with the inane one and start countless threads about it on YMDC, even though we all understand perfectly well what they actually meant.

Who is "sticking to the inane one" in this thread?

Some people enjoy having a discussion on the structure of the rules, even if both parties know how to play the particular rule. It can be interesting and a good inellectual practice. It is a dicussion forum, after all. And if threads like this irritate you for one reason or another, I'm pretty sure you're not obligated to read them.

 puma713 wrote:


No, I parsed the sentences correctly. You're allowing what you know to be the intent of the sentences to direct the way in which you're reading them.

Simply put, the "only" in the rulebook FAQ makes those two units unavailable.

But I really don't care to debate about it. I think it is incorrect and they don't intend on not allowing GK or BA to use their stormravens, obviously.

Taking account the context is allowed and even required when reading GW rules. They're not written as logical syntax, never have, and I hope people would stop pretending that they are.

Who is "sticking to the inane one" in this thread?

Well, you are...

Some people enjoy having a discussion on the structure of the rules, even if both parties know how to play the particular rule. It can be interesting and a good inellectual practice. It is a dicussion forum, after all. And if threads like this irritate you for one reason or another, I'm pretty sure you're not obligated to read them.

On that, however, you are 100% correct, so I apologise the interruption. Carry on.

 puma713 wrote:

Simply put, the "only" in the rulebook FAQ makes those two units unavailable.

simply put the "only" in the rulebook FAQ is in reference to the units that are not in the specific codexes mentioned.

the FAQ gives codex space Marines the ability to take a storm raven, even though the storm raven is not in the SM Codex.

On another note, can BT take the Stormraven and the Stormtalon or is it just the Raven?

 macc92 wrote:
On another note, can BT take the Stormraven and the Stormtalon or is it just the Raven?

Yes they can take both.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 macc92 wrote:
On another note, can BT take the Stormraven and the Stormtalon or is it just the Raven?

Yes they can take both.

awesome, I see a Stormraven with my Stormtalon in my future then

You can buy them off some GK and BA players, who won't be needing them anymore.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
You can buy them off some GK and BA players, who won't be needing them anymore.

That is still up to debate.

I'm looking at the BA Codex and it has "Stormraven Gunship" listed under Heavy Support.
I've read the FAQ and think that GW should shot whoever wrote that right in the balls. He couldn't take two seconds to clarify what he meant. I'm erring on the side of the BA players... they can't just say "Hey uh... no you can't use that anymore" - I mean... they can but that'd be even more bastardly.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
You can buy them off some GK and BA players, who won't be needing them anymore.

That is not what the FaQ says.

The New FAQ allows Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars to take Stormtalon or Stormraven Gunships even though they may not be in those codexes.

That is all, it does not take the Stormtalon or Stormraven Gunship away from any codex.

As above; you cannot parse the sentence any other way, unless you just flat out ignore context

All I got out of this FAQ was now, while you may have a bunch of Vendettas shooting you with 3 Lascannons, at least it'll be on the front armour instead of the side armour.

Oh, and that I can screw with a buddy and tell him the FAQ says he can't use his Stormraven.