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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as "RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point

That is a lie,

I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)

and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"

no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught

easysauce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as "RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point

That is a lie,

I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)

and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"

no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught

The Reinforced Aegis rule does not refer to the Ven. Dread. as a "Dreadnought".
Just like the Brood Telepathy rule does not refer to Ymgarl Genestealers as "Genestealers".
You keep ignoring the fact that this literal exact situation required an FAQ for one book, and pretending that Dreadnoughts are special snowflakes with no rules support.

yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

easysauce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well, only one half of the thread is breaking the tenet, as they are stating their position as "RAW" when no rules back their position up, and are not saying they are arguing RAI at any point

That is a lie,

I have quoted several actual rules (re commisars vs lord commissars, orks ect)

and quoted the rules for Aegis, where it specifically refers to a venerable dreadnaught as a "Dreadnaught"

no rule has been quoted that proves a XXX dread is not a type of Dreadnaught

And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre-FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?

easysauce wrote:
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

I understand that.
Why are you ignoring an exact duplicate situation? The fact that the rule refers to Dreadnought means the rule does not function for anything that is not "Dreadnought". Exactly like Warp Field, Living Battering Ram, Brood Telepathy, and Hive Tyrant Psychic Powers.

 Happyjew wrote:

And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre-FAQ.

If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.

Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre-FAQ.

If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.

Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.

Except for the rules for Warbike specifically says to change troop type to Bike.

 Happyjew wrote:

easysauce wrote:
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?

Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!!

All of that saying if the Venerable dread has a rule that pertains to dreads about transports, then yes it is a dread that can be transported.

 ace101 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

easysauce wrote:
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?

Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!!

All of that saying if the Venerable dread has a rule that pertains to dreads about transports, then yes it is a dread that can be transported.

A special rule saying that it works on Zoanthropes does not mean that anything that has that special rule is a Zoanthrope.

And yes - common sense tells me what the Intended rule is. Does that change what's Written?

edit: Also, the Ven. Dread. has no rule that pertains to dreads about transports.

 ace101 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

easysauce wrote:
yes it does, venerable dread has the aegis rule,

the ageis rule refers to a Dreadnaught

The Doom of Malan'tai has the Warp Field special rule. The Warp Field special rule refers to Zoanthropes. A FAQ was required to clarify that the Doom was a Zoanthrope for that purpose. Where is the FAQ clarifying that a Venerable Dreadnought is a Dreadnought for the purposes of Transports and Reinforced Aegis?

Would it be common sense to assume the Doom is a Zoanthrope? What in the fluff for it made you assume its a different thing other than a zoanthrope. By the description of it in the fluff, i can very safely assume it is a zoanthrope. Besides, if it has a special rule that refers to a unit, didn't GW intend to make the Doom the unit the rule refers to? Since it was not expressly printed in the description that it was zoanthrope do you automatically assume that it needs an FAQ to define what it is; JUST READ THE FREAKING SPECIAL RULE, IT SAYS FOR ZOANTHROPES!!!!!!

Who said anything about common sense or fluff? Everybody who has read the codex knows that the Doom is a Zoanthrope for fluff reason, however, except in certain specific cases, fluff =/= rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

And from a strict RAW standpoint, Reinforced Aegis does nothing for Venerable Dreadnoughts. The same way that Warp Field did nothing for the Doom of Malan'tai, pre-FAQ.

If this is the point of reasoning, then Codex:Orks only contains one unit of Orks, and the entire Codex is unplayable.

Nob Bikers and Space Marine HQ units on bikes are allowed to embark on transports. Their unit type is listed as infantry.

Except for the rules for Warbike specifically says to change troop type to Bike.

One could argue that rule is listed for a diferent unit, I wont though. The SpaceMarine commanders still holds.

Plus, the Imperial Guard Codex doesn't contain any Sentinels. There is a unit entry for Sentinels but no unit in the Unit Profiles listed as Sentinel. And Codex: Orks still only contains one unit with Orks in it. That Ork issue completely breaks the entire codex.

The Heavybolter/bolter argument holds no water, as the precedent is for subsets of MODELS/UNITS of a certain type (genestealers and what ever) not weapons.

the FAQ on zoanthropes does not change the rules,

it simply clairfies, for people who are not reading them properly,
the proper reading of the rules,

it was not unclear about zoanthropes, nor is it unclear about dreads,

at least to those who are reading properly,

The FAQ changed nothing, FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interpret said rules

otherwise GW has to FAQ every single codex, guard, orks, SM, GK, ect

and state that the "terminators" in a GK term squad are grey knights, so they benifit from aegis ect

state that boys are orks, so they benifit from waaaagh

easysauce wrote:
FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules

And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules

And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.

you deny that FAQ's are frequently asked querstions as well?

only amendmants to the rules actually change them,

FAQ's simply answer questions officially, spelling out what an EXISTING rule means, they do not change the rule, they simply prevent the wrong interpretaion of the rule from being used
from GW
"What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?

It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.

Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules

And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.

you deny that FAQ's are frequently asked querstions as well?

only amendmants to the rules actually change them,

FAQ's simple answer questions officially

The Shadows in the Warp FAQ proves that they can change rules.
The recent Out of Range question proves that they can change rules.

There's more, but those are trivial to prove.

except plenty of people played that way before the FAQ's on range ect because they can properly interpret the rules,
GW simply officially stated that was the official interpretation of the rule, they did not change the rule, or it would be an errata/amendmant

you are contradicting GW,

GW is the authority here, not you

easysauce wrote:
except plenty of people played that way before the FAQ's on range ect because they can properly interpret the rules,

The current ruling is not an "interpretation" of the rules. It directly contradicts them. There were multiple threads out when that FAQ came down.

GW simply officially stated that was the official interpretation of the rule, they did not change the rule, or it would be an errata/amendmant

Again, demonstrably false.
Shadow in the Warp. GW FAQed it to not have any effect on Psykers inside vehicles. They then reversed this ruling and said it does work on Psykers inside vehicles.
One of those cannot be an "interpretation" and must be a rule change.

GW is the authority here, not you

I've never claimed to be. I'm simply stating facts.

The Shadows in the Warp ERRATA proves that they can change rules.

The recent Out of Range question CLARIFIES the existing rule, it in no way changes the rule (although the "clarification" on Nemesis Force Falchions could be considered a change, as it goes against the rules as written).

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:
I've never claimed to be. I'm simply stating facts.

no you are not,
you are falsey claiming that FAQ's change rules, they do NOT as GW states
they are only the correct interpretation of existing rules (again as GW says, you state FAQ's change rules in direct contradition to what GW says about FAQ's)

erratas and amendmants change rules, As GW states

shadow in the warp was an ERRATA, not an FAQ, those terms are not interchangable as you presume,

GW specifically defines errata amendmant and FAQ as I have posted above, and specifically states that FAQ's do not change rules, only provide the official interpretaion of existing ones

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Shadows in the Warp ERRATA proves that they can change rules.

Awesome, so you ignored the reference I'm making. For reference, I'm not talking about the change from rolling 3d6 to adding a d6.
I'm talking about this question:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic
test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.

Prior to February of last year, that read "A: No."

The recent Out of Range question CLARIFIES the existing rule, it in no way changes the rule (although the "clarification" on Nemesis Force Falchions could be considered a change, as it goes against the rules as written).

No, it absolutely does change a rule. And seriously - you're going to pretend that something that goes against the RAW "could be considered" a change? How is directly contradicting the rules not a change?

again rigel, you are stating that your opinion is more correct then what GW wrote on their FAQ section about what an FAQ is

that may be ok for RAI or HIWPI

but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
FAQ's are not changes to rules, they are just frequently asked questions, and their answers are not changes to the rules, they are just spelling out the correct interpretation for those who are unable to properly interprest said rules

And that's absolutely and demonstrably false.

How is this demostrably false. Here's the GW website disclaimer.

What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?

It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.

Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

Errata are changes to a rules wording. FAQ's are not, they are clarifications on how a rule, as read, should be read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Shadows in the Warp ERRATA proves that they can change rules.

Awesome, so you ignored the reference I'm making. For reference, I'm not talking about the change from rolling 3d6 to adding a d6.
I'm talking about this question:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic
test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.

Prior to February of last year, that read "A: No."

You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)

This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.

To be fair, that's under Errata, not FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
but RAW is that FAQ's only clarify existing rules

Actually no - there is no rule that says that so saying "RAW" is blatantly misrepresenting.

The "What are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?" bit GW puts out there is demonstrably false.

And just because I saw this underneath my post in the "Review Message" window...

Idolator wrote:You mean they changed an answer to a rules question after they came out with a new set of rules?????

Do me a favor and look at a calendar. Find the day 6th edition released. Now go to February 2012 and see if that was before or after 6th edition came out.

Thanks. (hint - 6th edition was released June 30th, 2012. Which is after February. Meaning that they made the original call during 5th Edition and changed it during 5th Edition.)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but stating that a answer is now diferent from what it said in February of 2012 doesn't tell the reader when the answer was changed. I would require proof of when it was changed.

So now the argument has turned to "What GW states has no bearing on what GW states" This confuses me to no end. If we can't trust the official statements of GW that they post online then the entire Shrine of Knowledge must be discounted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)

This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.

while it is easy to mistake the first page of the pdf with the FAQ on it for the FAQ, there are errata, then amendmants then FAQ in the PDF
in actuality DR, the Page 60, 96 – Demolisher Cannon.
The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1,
Large Blast.”

is under the errata part, not the FAQ part


further backing up what I, and GW have stated, that FAQ's do not change rules, only provitde the official interpretation of them


again rigel,

while you may say that the FAQ changes rules,

GW says they do not,

guess who is the authority?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The point is FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

Look at the Blood Angels FaQ it states "Page 60, 96 - Demolisher Cannon. The demolisher cannon should have the type “Ordnance 1, Large Blast.”" (Page 1 of the FaQ)

This is a change from the Codex that states the demolisher cannon is "24 inch range Str 10 AP 1, Ordnance 1." Page 96 BA codex.

This is not a FAQ, That is under the heading Errata. I recently learned that errata means "errors". I was curious.

rigeld2 wrote:
To be fair, that's under Errata, not FAQ.

Well that's true, bad example, but:

Q: If a Magna-grapple hits a zooming flyer, does the Grapple special rule work as normal? (p61)
A: No. (Page 5 BA FaQ).

That one is under FaQ and a change to the rules. Therefore FaQ's sometimes do change rules.

Official Interpretations are rules, correct?
It has been demonstrated that they change Official Interpretations in FAQs. Correct?