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.

Hey guys,

In work again, not got my BRB with me,

If I field BA sanguinary priests, can they confer their FnP to Other SM chapters listed as battle brothers?

If I had my codex and BRB in work, I could check, but I don't, so thought I'd ask you guys

Over and out

i believe it says Bloodangels.

Not in the codex, check your FAQ

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

 grendel083 wrote:

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

That point aside, the FAQ is freely available to everyone and it is what holds your answer, as previously stated by Longshot.

 grendel083 wrote:

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

His question and any response is not copyright infringement.

Angelic wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

His question and any response is not copyright infringement.

Please read the copyright laws.
The answer may have been found in a freely available FAQ, but was the question about an FAQ?
Also this is forum for discussing rules. Expanding knowledge. Helping others.
And then you click on a link, and it isn't even a legitimate question, but a "I can't wait an hour to look myself" question.

Grendel, You need to calm down now. Your response was nothing but hostile and un-needed. PERIOD. The easy answer could have been... "Beard, It is in the FAQ that is located on the GW website. If you need amplifying information on finding it please PM me." ..... That is how you would handle it verses being hostile.

I apologise if I sounded hostile.
I enjoy this site, and would hate to see GW's legal team shut it down, especially for a question that should never have been posted in the first place.

If you think a post violates a rule, press the little yellow triangle and report it, let the moderators make the decision as to the legality.

No problem Gren, I usually like your posts and i very rarely post anything myself, but you never know if your comments might drive someone away from this site that you love and maybe even the game in general. Like i said no problem

Dear God, questions that are asked out of ignorance or the absence of a handy rulebook are the only thing that keeps YMDC from devolving into mindless RAW arguments about the definition of "IS".

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Dear God, questions that are asked out of ignorance or the absence of a handy rulebook are the only thing that keeps YMDC from devolving into mindless RAW arguments about the definition of "IS".

But... But.. But... That's what the forum is for...

And is that a capatilised "IS" you're refering to, an "is" or an "Is"?

 grendel083 wrote:

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

Then we should totally shut down YMDC. Debating and answering rules questions is pretty impossible without quoting some part of the rules.
And since his question is the the FAQ, it's not even copy written.
The FAQ says all models from codex blood angels.

Anyone else notice that they just posted a bunch of Polish FAQ's on the US site?

-Matt

Th Polish FAQs have been on the us site for quite a few months now. I know they were there around March.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Beard wrote:
In work again, not got my BRB with me,

Wait until you get home then.
This site cannot be used as a replacement for rulebooks.
Being at work is no excuse.
Think how sad we would all be if the site got closed down by GW's legal team, all because you couldn't wait a few hours to check your own book.

Then we should totally shut down YMDC. Debating and answering rules questions is pretty impossible without quoting some part of the rules.
And since his question is the the FAQ, it's not even copy written.
The FAQ says all models from codex blood angels.

Anyone else notice that they just posted a bunch of Polish FAQ's on the US site?

-Matt

As is pointed out in other threads, YMDC is for use when you have the book and something is unclear, or where there's a HIWP it question. It's not to ask what the rules are for something that one does not have the book for. While this poster says the book is at home, as a rule of thumb that does not excuse not looking at the book for the answer first, as it's easy to say that. I could say that I forgot my new SM codex at my friend's house, for example, but in reality I just don't own it.

Thanks for the replies...both constructive and ........ shall we say...less constructive.

I was in work when posting originally, debating with a colleague, and yes, I own both the BRB, BA codex in paperback and the Ipad versions, so I'd say I'm more than adequately equipped. In future, maybe I should wait till i get home, or maybe not debate things in work, and think "ooh, I shall ask others who may know the answer!"

I do also have the FAQ, on my ipad, which, noted, is at home while I work.

I appreciate "copyrights arguments" etc, but if you don't discuss the rules to some extent, or quote the books in some way shape or form, how are we supposed to make best use of a YMDC page???

Beard wrote:
I appreciate "copyrights arguments" etc, but if you don't discuss the rules to some extent, or quote the books in some way shape or form, how are we supposed to make best use of a YMDC page???

Quoting the rules is fine if the rule is unclear and you need specific help.
The FAQ is absolutely clear, so quoting rules is inappropriate.

This is one of those annoying situations, where we have to error on the side of caution simply to avoid stupidity. As others have pointed out, simply posting a single rule or providing an answer to such an innocent question does not violate copy write laws. The fair use clause exists for these situations, ensuring the common person is protected enough so they can openly discuss 'copy-written material.' The problem is, as I touched on before, stupidity.

Just because the law is technically on our side, it doesn't mean some idiot won't try and shut down the site anyway.

The process for shutting down a website under copy-write violation does not involve getting court orders or any other checks and balances. It simply involves writing one 'cease and desist' email and sending it to the internet provider of the website in question. The moment that email is received the website is taken down until the owner can prove he was not in violation of the law. That process of proving your innocence takes time, during which the website is often off-line, and costs enough money that it is a serious worry in this day and age. So it is understandable why this forum has a rule asking you not to out-right post rules or provide 'simple answers to simple questions' that the rules already easily explain.

The process to take a web-site down is so simple that it is often left to bots, making it even more possible for a single line of text to be flagged and this site to be taken down for something that is not a violation of any law.