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.
I've never said
FAQ cannot change rules. I have stated that Errata change rules, while
FAQ clarify rules. The difference being that Errata changes the wording of the rule, which oddly enough "changes" the rule, while
FAQ provide an answer as to the intent behind the rule in question. One actually changes the rule, the other advises on how the design team would interperate the rule they wrote. I have also pointed out at least one
FAQ I personally considered to be a bad call as it goes against the actual rules as written. However, that specific
FAQ is just like all other
FAQ in that it only clarifies what the intent behind the rule was.
As to your example and my disagreement, you have stated that in at least 2 instances
GW printed a
FAQ that stated a specific named unit is indeed a named version of a generic unit, and as such uses the rules printed in its unit entry just like the generic units it is a named version of. I pointed out that in no way did the rules change, as the rules were not re-worded, amended, or replaced by different text. The
FAQ simply pointed out to a portion of the player base that yes indeed, the rest of the player base was playing it correctly.
Back to the "Dreadnought might not be a Dreadnought" discussion, if we apply the exact same logic
GW implies for the rulings in your example to Dreadnoughts, then the portion of the player base that allows all variants of dreadnoughts to be treated as "Dreadnoughts" where the rules simply reference "1 Dreadnought" is correct until such time as
GW posts an errata, amendment, or
FAQ that clarifies their intent to be different. And while I do acknowledge that
GW may side with the portion of the player base that states "only the unit named Dreadnought is a Dreadnought", they have not at this time done so. If we as the player base choose to limit our chain of logic to "only the unit named XXX is an XXX for all rules covering XXX", then the rules collapse as entire codices become unplayable.
On another note, I can see way
GW rules the way they did on Magna-Grapples and ‘Nids not being able to shoot emplaced weapons. For one, the rules as written state that flyers cannot be physically interacted with while zooming by anything other than another flyer. A ground unit with a grapple does attempt to interact with a zooming flyer if the zooming flyer is hit by the grapple. As the ground unit is not a flyer, the portion of the rules defining how the firer interacts with the target is ignored.
GW has supported this in the current
FAQ. It does not matter what
GW supported in previous Errata or
FAQ, as only the most current Errata and
FAQ are legal.
On the ‘Nid clarification, ‘Nids by their very own background information (fluff = context), are unable/unwilling to operate technology. Emplaced weapons are technology.
GW’s ruling makes sense ever if the rules as written state otherwise. Have the rules been changed? No, because the rules in question were not re-written, modified, or replaced. Has the way ‘Nid players are allowed to follow specific rules changed? Yes, because a declaration of intent has been provided from an official source.
The
FAQ I personally disagreed with when it first came out was the
GW ruling on Nemesis Force Falchions, where
GW states that it was not their intention to allow
NFF to provide +2 attacks for being 2
CCW with a special rule that adds an addition attack. However, recent discussions on this forum regarding the stacking of benefits stack as multiple casting of Hammerhand on the same unit brought to light why
GW ruled the way they did on
NFF. Per the rules as written, like benefits do not stack unless given specific permission to do so. This means that no matter how many +1 to Strength benefits a unit receives, only the benefits with specific permission to stack may stack (such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan). It appears that
GW had chosen to apply this rule to their answer regarding
NFF, stating that despite being 2
CCW and a special rule noted +1 attack, the
NFF can never grant more than +1 attack. I know, just like everyone else, that this ruling flies in the face of decades of
40k rules and
GW rulings. Yet, it is internally consistent with the current rule set. This also means we may need to reevaluate other unit with multiple stacking bonuses to see which one truly stack and which ones don’t.
And finally, on the point about
YMDC tenets on debating rules, the
YMDC tenets do not tell us to only argue why the rules don’t work. The tenets tell us to debate [i[how[/i] the rules as written work, and to support our arguments with citations. The constant circular arguments that the Dakka Debating Society seems to prefer where they neither support their views nor strive to make sense of the rules as written beyond pointing out where everything falls apart does a huge disservice to the community.
My apologies for the wall of text. Pretty sure those that disagree will pick it apart or ignore it, while never actually addressing any of it within the tenets of this forum.
SJ
3000+
6000+
2000+
2500+
2500+
