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:
Did the RULE change? Yes.

Which is what we are saying. The recent change to Out of range being another classic example - there is no way to get from the written rules to their ruling, so it must be a change to the written rule.


It works every time. If you do [quote=NAME] text [/quote] you also put their name in (or any text)

Thanks, I'll try that. It's not especialy intuitive. I've seen mods have the same issues that I have.

Anyway. The Rule didn't change. It's their position of how it should be read. You may have a different one. Yo are not bound by it for play purposes.
If a league or tournament requires that you use the FAQ's to play in the league/tourney then it is they, not GW, that have instituted a rules change. It is much the same a the BAO or INAT FAQ. Some people consider them as cannon, but they aren't. The GW FAQ, INAT FAQ, and BAO FAQ all carry the same weight.

About the Out of Range rule. The original rule was that as long as model was in range of the Enemy when to hit rolls were made the model is considered in range.

To paraphrase the FAQ question. Does that mean as long as they are in range of any of the models in the firing unit A; yes.
See didn't change the rule, it made it clear that: Yes indeed, by "Enemy" we meant any model in the firing enemy unit


And I still screwed it up!

 Idolator wrote:
I see what they did, they consider the "drag" rule to be a form of assault. Since it implies contact from a ground model to a flier as it has the ability to cause the flier to come into contact with the firing model, and this is expressly forbidden. They have the same position on wrecking balls, boarding planks and deff rollas.
Their position is that it creates contact. It didn't change how the rule is worded.

It also seems that the Magna Grapple works like "Ram" which is also expressly forbidden against fliers.

Did the wording of how a Magna Grapple works change in any way? Neither did wrecking ball. They consider it a form of assault. I get it.

The Magna Grapple is still "Contacting" the Flyer if it hits.

Magna Grapple does not work like ram. It is a shooting attack with a Shooting profile that uses the users BS to hit a target.

It just does not get to use the Grapple rule, and that is a rule change.

wrecking balls and deff rollas do not roll to hit, boarding planks assume that the model is disembarked and charging. None of that has any similarity with the Magna-Grapple which is a Shooting weapon used in the shooting phase.

The rule certainly did change. As written there is no restrictions on a Zooming Flyer, so they should be moved like any other vehicle. The FaQ tells us this is not possible, ergo the rule changed.

What was once allowed is no longer allowed.

and the Out of Range rule Did in fact change.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I see what they did, they consider the "drag" rule to be a form of assault. Since it implies contact from a ground model to a flier as it has the ability to cause the flier to come into contact with the firing model, and this is expressly forbidden. They have the same position on wrecking balls, boarding planks and deff rollas.
Their position is that it creates contact. It didn't change how the rule is worded.

It also seems that the Magna Grapple works like "Ram" which is also expressly forbidden against fliers.

Did the wording of how a Magna Grapple works change in any way? Neither did wrecking ball. They consider it a form of assault. I get it.

The Magna Grapple is still "Contacting" the Flyer if it hits.

Magna Grapple does not work like ram. It is a shooting attack with a Shooting profile that uses the users BS to hit a target.

It just does not get to use the Grapple rule, and that is a rule change.

wrecking balls and deff rollas do not roll to hit, boarding planks assume that the model is disembarked and charging. None of that has any similarity with the Magna-Grapple which is a Shooting weapon used in the shooting phase.

You know, you seem to have a point on this one, it does appear that they attempting to use the FAQ to subvert the rules without issuing an ammendment.

Not diminishing, the correctness of your argument, it is the only one cited that I've not been able to completely comprehend. Good find.

It still stands that these are not cannon. You don't have to play by them and I would understand your point that it is able to do the whole drag thing. Those FAQ's carry the same weight as INAT and BAO faq's.

It's in the BA FAQ?

These FAQ's carry far more weight than the INAT or BAO.
The GW FAQ's are from the rulesmakers themselves. The other two are from some guys who know the game well.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
These FAQ's carry far more weight than the INAT or BAO.
The GW FAQ's are from the rulesmakers themselves. The other two are from some guys who know the game well.

I can see that, as they are more universaly accepted. You get my point though.

Hopefuly you also get my point that I have no issue with being wrong. In that case, I was.

Tyranid FAQ pg3 prohibits tyranids from manual firing emplaned weapons and weapon emplacements. Since the BRb allows any model in b2b and bs > 0 to fire these weapons, this is also a rule change in a FAQ.

FAQs change rules regularly, this cannot be debated.

That aside, this thread should be closed for several reasons.

 Idolator wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
These FAQ's carry far more weight than the INAT or BAO.
The GW FAQ's are from the rulesmakers themselves. The other two are from some guys who know the game well.

I can see that, as they are more universaly accepted. You get my point though.

Not really. The GW notes say that the questions aren't as solid as the brb but they are interpretations of those rules. These interpretations have introduced new aspects or rules to the game from the rulemakers. They are not more accepted than the INAT or BAO, they are cannon and the other two are not. The faq's and errata are the top of the cannon pile, over the codices and the brb.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Tyranid FAQ pg3 prohibits tyranids from manual firing emplaned weapons and weapon emplacements. Since the BRb allows any model in b2b and bs > 0 to fire these weapons, this is also a rule change in a FAQ.

FAQs change rules regularly, this cannot be debated.

That aside, this thread should be closed for several reasons.

Honestly, I've never understood that at all. It goes so far beyond reasoning that it's an island unto itself.

Yeah this topic is done.

"Canon", as well

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Canon", as well

You got me.

I would like to point out one thing: If GW intended to only allow a standard, un-specialized Dreadnought to be transported on a Stormraven, GW will need to follow the precedent they set and either errata or answer a FAQ stating this as their intention. Until that occurs, 93% of the responders to this poll are correct and playing by the rules as written. The precedent I'm refering to are the numerous FAQ answers such as the Hotshot Lasgun, Nemesis Force Falchion, Grapple, and other such rulings.

Until such a time, we will not know what GW's intent was. As it stands, there can be made equal cases for or against "1 Dreadnought" meaning "any 1 of the units listed on the unit entry for Dreadnoughts" or "only 1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)". As there is no specific rule written-cited-quoted that tells us to select the specific interpretation over the general interpretation, the only precedent we can follow is that unless otherwise noted, the general interpretation has more weight because in choosing it, no new precedent is set that causes further issues with other rulings.

This is not to say one side of the argument is right while the other is wrong, it is to say that both sides might be correct until such time as proven otherwise by GW, leaving us to use the interpretation that causes the least amount of problems for now.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I would like to point out one thing: If GW intended to only allow a standard, un-specialized Dreadnought to be transported on a Stormraven, GW will need to follow the precedent they set and either errata or answer a FAQ stating this as their intention. Until that occurs, 93% of the responders to this poll are correct and playing by the rules as written. The precedent I'm refering to are the numerous FAQ answers such as the Hotshot Lasgun, Nemesis Force Falchion, Grapple, and other such rulings.

Until such a time, we will not know what GW's intent was. As it stands, there can be made equal cases for or against "1 Dreadnought" meaning "any 1 of the units listed on the unit entry for Dreadnoughts" or "only 1 standard Dreadnought (no variants)". As there is no specific rule written-cited-quoted that tells us to select the specific interpretation over the general interpretation, the only precedent we can follow is that unless otherwise noted, the general interpretation has more weight because in choosing it, no new precedent is set that causes further issues with other rulings.

This is not to say one side of the argument is right while the other is wrong, it is to say that both sides might be correct until such time as proven otherwise by GW, leaving us to use the interpretation that causes the least amount of problems for now.

SJ

Or perhaps they need to state in an FAQ that other are Dreadnoughts exactly the same way they did with Tyranids.

 Happyjew wrote:
Or perhaps they need to state in an FAQ that other are Dreadnoughts exactly the same way they did with Tyranids.

There is no need, as they already stated which units are considered Dreadnoughts in the Dreadnought unit entry found in each of the codices in question. The only need to be more specific is if GW intended for us to only use one of the three varients in the SM codex, rather any of the three variants listed in the same entry. Since we have the precedent of the BA codex noting all four of their Dreadnought variants to be Dreadnoughts, while the SM and GK list all of their Dreadnought variants under the same Dreadnought unit entry in their respective codices, GW has given us a generic definition of what is considered a Dreadnought within the context of each army. I cannot speak for the BT or DA codices, as my copies aren't at hand.

SJ

In C: BT, Venerable is an upgrade for Dreadnought (there is only one option).

In C: BA All Dreadnought units have a unit composition of 1 Dreadnought.

C: DA is written the same way as C: BT in that there is only one Dreadnought entry that can be upgraded to a Venerable Dreadnought.

C: GK, C: SM, and C: SW all have different compositions for the various units.

So the question is, does the transport ability refer to the model Dreadnought, or the generic group dreadnought?

 Happyjew wrote:
In C: BT, Venerable is an upgrade for Dreadnought (there is only one option).

In C: BA All Dreadnought units have a unit composition of 1 Dreadnought.

C: DA is written the same way as C: BT in that there is only one Dreadnought entry that can be upgraded to a Venerable Dreadnought.

C: GK, C: SM, and C: SW all have different compositions for the various units.

So the question is, does the transport ability refer to the model Dreadnought, or the generic group dreadnought?

the rules on the venerable Dreadnaughts themselves refer to it as just a "Dreadnaught"

if GW is putting rules on them that refer to them in such a way, then its clear what they say a "Dreadnaught" is

even in GK codex, the aegis rule on the ven dread refers to it as a "Dreadnaught"

And as pointed out, numerous Tyranid models have special rules that refer to other units and had to be clarified they worked for those units.

easysauce wrote:
even in GK codex, the aegis rule on the ven dread refers to it as a "Dreadnaught"

So the Reinforced Aegis on a Venerable Dreadnought technically doesn't work for them?
Ha! Just like The Aegis rule on all Grey Knights technically does nothing. Fun times.

 grendel083 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
even in GK codex, the aegis rule on the ven dread refers to it as a "Dreadnaught"

So the Reinforced Aegis on a Venerable Dreadnought technically doesn't work for them?
Ha! Just like The Aegis rule on all Grey Knights technically does nothing. Fun times.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. As I said before when you brought it up.
Just like Brood Telepathy didn't work for Ymgarl Genestealers prior to the FAQ, or Warp Field on the Doom of Mal...

Incorrect, Rigel. Brood Telepathy and Warp Field did in fact work for Ymgarl and Doom, respectively, previous to that FAQ, all the FAQ did was clarify to players that GW intented for those rules to work with those specific units.

While people may think the rules as written were changed, no errata was issued to actually change the wording. All that did change was that a small portion of the player base was given a pointed reminder that if a unit is given a special rule, GW intended for that unit to use that special rule.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Incorrect, Rigel. Brood Telepathy and Warp Field did in fact work for Ymgarl and Doom, respectively, previous to that FAQ, all the FAQ did was clarify to players that GW intented for those rules to work with those specific units.

While people may think the rules as written were changed, no errata was issued to actually change the wording. All that did change was that a small portion of the player base was given a pointed reminder that if a unit is given a special rule, GW intended for that unit to use that special rule.

That's of course your assumption, as there is nothing anywhere that says that.
And you seem to still be saying that FAQs cannot change rules despite the fact that it has been proven they do.

 grendel083 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
even in GK codex, the aegis rule on the ven dread refers to it as a "Dreadnaught"

So the Reinforced Aegis on a Venerable Dreadnought technically doesn't work for them?
Ha! Just like The Aegis rule on all Grey Knights technically does nothing. Fun times.

right,

like waagh doesnt work on most units with that,

and lord commissars dont execute,

and you cant take henchmen with special character inquisitors because they are not inquisitors,

and most special rules on units that simply call out something by name dont work on the units they are on


because GW thoroughly intends those units not to have those special rules, thats why they have them,
that is why GW has purposefully written those rules in the units description right?

RAW has those rules on those units, for what purpose?

to not give them those rules, or to give them those rules?

easysauce wrote:
right,

like waagh doesnt work on most units with that,

and lord commissars dont execute,

and you cant take henchmen with special character inquisitors because they are not inquisitors,

and most special rules on units that simply call out something by name dont work on the units they are on


because GW thoroughly intends those units not to have those special rules, thats why they have them,
that is why GW has purposefully written those rules in the units description right?

RAW has those rules on those units, for what purpose?

to not give them those rules, or to give them those rules?

You're defiantly confusing RAW with RAI.
By the strict letter of the rule, there are many things that don't work. And that is what this branch of the forum (YMDC) is here to discuss.

Of course the intention is for these rules to work, and in any game this is not how anyone would play it.

But we're discussing the rules in their strictest sense as they are written. And in this regard, rules like The Aegis simply don't work.

If you want to discuss RAI or HIWPI, then be clear that is what you're talking about, not RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Incorrect, Rigel. Brood Telepathy and Warp Field did in fact work for Ymgarl and Doom, respectively, previous to that FAQ, all the FAQ did was clarify to players that GW intented for those rules to work with those specific units.

While people may think the rules as written were changed, no errata was issued to actually change the wording. All that did change was that a small portion of the player base was given a pointed reminder that if a unit is given a special rule, GW intended for that unit to use that special rule.

That's of course your assumption, as there is nothing anywhere that says that.
And you seem to still be saying that FAQs cannot change rules despite the fact that it has been proven they do.

Nothing is assumed. It's the GW stated policy. Now there have been a few examples that really don't seem to make sense in this respect. (Magna Grapple, Nid not shooting emplaced weapons) Those instances are very few. Since GW doesn't give their reasoning behind the answers, just the answers, one cannot know why this is the case.

It could be simply how they read the rules or it could be, once again, piss poor editting and they didn't include the errata/ammendment that should have also been printed. We all know that the books, errata, ammendments and FAQs contain numerous errors all the time.

On a side note, I don't have the Nids book to see how they work with other units, but the only reasoning that I can see for disallowing the Nids from usning emplaced weapons is that they cannot have allies and all of the buildings/emplaced guns fall into that sort of category. After all Nids don't have buildings, ships, vehicles or even guns everything that they use is also biological entitiy, they simply can't make them work. That's my opinion on their opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

You're defiantly confusing RAW with RAI.
By the strict letter of the rule, there are many things that don't work. And that is what this branch of the forum (YMDC) is here to discuss.

Of course the intention is for these rules to work, and in any game this is not how anyone would play it.

But we're discussing the rules in their strictest sense as they are written. And in this regard, rules like The Aegis simply don't work.

If you want to discuss RAI or HIWPI, then be clear that is what you're talking about, not RAW.

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

no where does GW define Dreadnaught as having dreadnaught only, and not XXXX dread in the unit composition,

that is an assumption,

GW refers to venerable dreads as "Dreadnaughts" in the special rules they have writen in as being on venerable dreadnaughts (ie aegis, reinforced aegis)

that GW would write rules onto units for the express purpose of them not having it defies logic

easysauce wrote:
that GW would write rules onto units for the express purpose of them not having it defies logic

They're called mistakes, and there are many examples.
Read The Aegis rule, it doesn't work.
And remember, we're discussing the Rules as Written, not how they should be played.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

Unit entry is the entirety of page 65.

Are you refereing to the Unit Profile in the back of the book? What is a Space Marine? Is a Loota and Ork? Is a Vendetta a Valkyrie? Is a Lord Commisar a Commisar? A word is not a deffinition.

So, if fluff definitions aren't considered deffinitions and we can all agree that a word is not a definition. The only way to determine what type of model something is would be it's unit entry page. The Unit profiles don't define anything.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
We all agree that the only deffinition of Dreadnought is in the fluff.

The "against" argument has been "Just because it's called a Dreadnought and is listed in the Dreadnought entry and allowed to take a Drop Pod according to Dreadnought rules; that does not make it a Dreadnought."

The "FOR" arguments have been using RAW and following up with established examples of why the RAW show that it is indeed a Dreadnought.

Actually I'm pretty sure there are 2 definitions of a Dreadnought. there is the fluff definition (SM hurt badly put into a walking sarcophagus so he can keep fighting), and the 'rules" definition (aka unit entry).

Unit entry is the entirety of page 65.

Are you refereing to the Unit Profile in the back of the book? What is a Space Marine? Is a Loota and Ork? Is a Vendetta a Valkyrie? Is a Lord Commisar a Commisar? A word is not a deffinition.

So, if fluff definitions aren't considered deffinitions and we can all agree that a word is not a definition. The only way to determine what type of model something is would be it's unit entry page. The Unit profiles don't define anything.

I'm sorry. I should have said the Army List Entry for Dreadnoughts.

 Happyjew wrote:

I'm sorry. I should have said the Army List Entry for Dreadnoughts.

That's where I went with it. The Definition of Dreadnought is the ENTIRETY of pg 65. Not just a single sentence or word. The unit profiles in the back break down the different types of a specified unit.

One would have, more profound argument that the different types of Land Raider were not to be considered Land Raiders as they have different Unit Entry pages. This is not the case with Dreadnoughts.

Further adding to the case that all Dreadnoughts are Dreadnoughts is the fact that in subsequent Codexs, Dreadnought variants are simply refered to as Dreadnought.

Someone made a specious argument that if that were the case then they could equip a Dreadnought variants with a Seismic hammer. The argument was invalid because you can equip a Dreadnought with Seismic Hammers, the unit profiles denote that if you do, you must also equip them with Ironclad assault launchers. As there are no rules restricting a model so equiped from boarding a Drop Pod, the Dreadnought so equiped may embark.

I was thinking of something related to an earlier post. You no longer require a special rule for Jump Infantry to board a transport. They have the Bulky rule and are no longer forbidden. This is a further example of how the modifier does not change the designation of the model itself, (Damn GW and their weird capitalization policies)

 Idolator wrote:
I was thinking of something related to an earlier post. You no longer require a special rule for Jump Infantry to board a transport. They have the Bulky rule and are no longer forbidden. This is a further example of how the modifier does not change the designation of the model itself, (Damn GW and their weird capitalization policies)

Actually Jump (infantry) are still forbidden from embarking into transports, it's in the transport section.
They have Bulky for those rare cases they are allowed to embark.