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.

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
TO trump everything

We are the power!

Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.

The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.

Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?

A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.

But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.

RAW-wise, they could never re-embark back onto the night scythe. The 6E FAQ was an exception rather than a clarification. It gave permission for necron warriors to "break the rules" and hop back onto their zooming flyer transports when no other army could. In the absence of this FAQ, they are once again denied permission by RAW. However, I do agree that you should check with a TO to see how he would rule it in his tournament.

Except the Q and A section is not a place where permission or exceptions are granted. It is the place where it clarifies how prior rules given elsewhere are supposed to be interpreted. Even if those Q and A entries were not there they would presumably still be answered the same way if nothing else changed that was backing their answer. When GW read their own rules, they read the Night Scythe as allowing for passengers to re-embark.

If the Q and A section carries rule forming weight (which someone could say and maybe that's what you are saying Jy2) then where does that leave the VeilTek and the Wraith who now have had their underlying abilities change? 5 points for +1 A on the Wraith seems juicy, not to mention the extra shot while charging in.

There's a bigger issue to articulate here with regards to how the Q and A section relates to the rest of the FAQ and what happens when some Q and A disappear. A lot the Q and A answers disappeared in the Necron FAQ and more stuff might be impacted IF we say that those carried rule forming weight.

Conservatively, I could just say that nothing changed between 6th and 7th that impacted the Night Scythe (or the VeilTek or the Wraith) and so the Q and A entry if included would be answered exactly the same. I would be 100% logically correct if the Q and A entry that was dropped between 6th and 7th carried no rule weight and only clarified rules. I am also confident that that is GW RAI. However, there is a bit of Talmudic level/archeological level interpretation to get there because the rules that GW print come nowhere close to legalistic precision that tournament level competition demands.

So basically if what I think you are saying is true, that the Q and A section actually carries rule-forming weight and is not just clarification, then we have to sort through the ramifications of the 27 or thereabouts Q and A entries that were dropped and see if they were forming rules (as it would seem in the case of Wraith and Veiltek and possibly others). All of the gremlins that were stamped out in the 27 Q and A entries of previous FAQs are now re-unleashed into the wild.

My approach, which comes from common sense, is that the Q and A carries no rule forming weight and only clarifies how we should interpret rules that GW thinks we are receiving. They reveal RAI. This means that . . .

1) all the Q and A from the penultimate 1.4 FAQ are still valid unless some relevant underpinning rule(s) actually changed. This is how I think most people would address this situation. Players don't want VeilTeks to lose their ability to veil of darkness from reserves. No underpinning rules changed for them from 6th to 7th so it doesn't make sense.
2) the Q and A for the Night Scythe in the 1.4 FAQ is clarifying some rule that GW thinks it delivered somewhere but doesn't seem to be there (unless we are to imply it from the presence of access points). We have a clear message of intent in the 1.4 FAQ but no clear rules to rest it on.

Awkward situation. Again, seems to rest on TO decision.

col_impact wrote:


Except the Q and A section is not a place where permission or exceptions are granted. It is the place where it clarifies how prior rules given elsewhere are supposed to be interpreted. Even if those Q and A entries were not there they would presumably still be answered the same way if nothing else changed that was backing their answer. When GW read their own rules, they read the Night Scythe as allowing for passengers to re-embark.

If the Q and A section carries rule forming weight (which someone could say and maybe that's what you are saying Jy2) then where does that leave the VeilTek and the Wraith who now have had their underlying abilities change? 5 points for +1 A on the Wraith seems juicy, not to mention the extra shot while charging in.

There's a bigger issue to articulate here with regards to how the Q and A section relates to the rest of the FAQ and what happens when some Q and A disappear. A lot the Q and A answers disappeared in the Necron FAQ and more stuff might be impacted IF we say that those carried rule forming weight.

Conservatively, I could just say that nothing changed between 6th and 7th that impacted the Night Scythe (or the VeilTek or the Wraith) and so the Q and A entry if included would be answered exactly the same. I would be 100% logically correct if the Q and A entry that was dropped between 6th and 7th carried no rule weight and only clarified rules. I am also confident that that is GW RAI. However, there is a bit of Talmudic level/archeological level interpretation to get there because the rules that GW print come nowhere close to legalistic precision that tournament level competition demands.

I would certainly be interested to know how TO's are going to rule on things like this. Do they fall back on the answers from the 6e FAQ in lieu of new ones? Do they assume that non-inclusion of a particular FAQ means that the ruling has gone the other way? (Do we have any examples from the BAO/LVO?)

Really, we have no clear RAI for 7th edition, but we do know what the rules-as-FAQ'd were for 6th edition. I think that while it's reasonable to simply say "RAW" twelve times fast, the issue is that RAW are murky in many instances and the TO needs. To judge RAI or simply make a HIWPI call however they can. Though I'm not a TO, I think I might be of the train of thought that the 6e FAQ was RAI at one point, so to say that it's no longer RAI is jumping to conclusions. In fairness, one could make the same argument about using the old FAQ - I would just rather take some precedent over no precedent at all.

While on this topic, I wonder if GW would react if they were suddenly flooded with emails about a certain topic?
Surely if questions were asked frequently enough that would grounds for a FAQ update, no?
If only it were possible to start a email writing campaign...

[Inb4 "GW don't care about their customers"]

Wait, since when are we back on the Wraiths get a bonus attack for the pistol option?

Has the FAQ mysteriously given them a close combat weapon as part of their basic gear now?

'cause the rulebook still says you only get a free close combat weapon if you don't have one already.

luke1705 wrote:


I would certainly be interested to know how TO's are going to rule on things like this. Do they fall back on the answers from the 6e FAQ in lieu of new ones? Do they assume that non-inclusion of a particular FAQ means that the ruling has gone the other way? (Do we have any examples from the BAO/LVO?)

Just to get som input from a TO (nowhere near any major tournament, we're a crowd of 3-4 clubs with about 90 members): we disallow it, you cannot re-embark in a NS. It has been discussed in our rules council and the only argument brought up in favor of it was the old FAQ that has been amended. Right now, there simply isn't any rule that allows the NS to be re-embarked and referencing an old FAQ has been rejected as it's invalidated and the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points) along with the fact that the first 7th FAQ revisions have already been passed AND the documents have also been translated at this point, with no changes again.

Falling back to 6th would b unfair as this would cause precedence to falling back to an older FAQ in favor of one army whereas others have to use the most recent one.

 Sigvatr wrote:
the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)

This is not correct. Nothing has changed for the NS except strictly the Q and A entry clarifying that the NS can have units re-embark. Check the version 1.4 FAQ which was active in 6th edition. The 'Access Points' bit was already in that FAQ, which is key, since that is presumably the whole basis of your argument. It's kinda bad you didn't have this straight before you discussed the issue. Before you discuss an issue with some rules council you should fully research it, since it looks like you spread around a bit of misinformation there.

The real issue is what happens when Q and A items drop from earlier FAQs.


Basically, what your argument is now is that the absence of this Q and A item . . .



signifies that the NS no longer can have units re-embark.

This is extremely awkward argument for you to make here because this text is clarifying rules and not making rules. It suggests rules that support it elsewhere. Would't you agree?

Nothing else is changed for the NS. The same exact rules that support that Q and A item in 6th edition support it now.

Anyway, if you really are a TO, I suggest you correct the misinformation you sent around before and re-open the conversation about it. The 'Access Points' change was not new to the 7th edition FAQ. Of course you might all come up with the same conclusion. But at present your council of whatever came up with a conclusion based on bad, extremely pertinent information.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)

This is not correct. Nothing has changed for the NS except strictly the Q and A entry clarifying that the NS can have units re-embark. Check the version 1.4 FAQ which was active in 6th edition. The 'Access Points' bit was already in that FAQ, which is key, since that is presumably the whole basis of your argument. It's kinda bad you didn't have this straight before you discussed the issue. Before you discuss an issue with some rules council you should fully research it, since it looks like you spread around a bit of misinformation there.

The real issue is what happens when Q and A items drop from earlier FAQs.

Hm? The basis for this decision is that there is no rules backup for re-embarking; in the contrary, re-embarking is explicitely disallowed by the rules. Not quite sure how you got to that wrong conclusion.

You said this in your post above



This is not correct.


******

So basically what you presented to your council as a 7th edition change



This was already there in the 6th edition FAQ. This is a big slip-up on your part to wrongly present it as new in 7th.


The change from 6th Edition to 7th Edition with regards to the NS was strictly the dropping of the Q and A item, which is not supposed to hold any rule making weight on it's own. So it is obviously very problematic that the NS loses the ability to have units re-embark strictly on the dropping of a Q and A item, since it raises up questions of RAI vs RAW.

In other words, what you presented to the council as a slam-dunk argument was all based on bad information. The situation is much much thornier than that. You all may wind up having to come to the same conclusion, but I think it's your responsibility to spread the correct information now. Seriously, read the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ for the Necrons and note that only the Q and A item got changed. Good, see it now? Yup, much thornier.

Ehm...you misunderstand how rules work. Rules are always played as they are now, at their current iteration. You don't look back at invalidated rules and say they're now to be used just because you so strongly wish to.

Point out, exactly, why you should be allowed to re-embark on a NS using valid rules and we can go on from that. Ther might be something that was overlooked, can always be the case, but if there is, point at it.

I am not misunderstanding anything.

I take it now that you have checked and seen that the ONLY change is the dropping of the Q and A item. Is this correct?

And further, am I correct that you wrongly presented to some decision-making council some amount of misinformation that was extremely pertinent to their ability to decide fairly on an issue?

Did you specifically present this as new to the 7th edition FAQ?

Most of the Q&A have been capped for the most current FAQ for reasons unknown, including the additional tidbit about the NS.

Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Most of the Q&A have been capped for the most current FAQ for reasons unknown, including the additional tidbit about the NS.

Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?

Have you bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ?

 Sigvatr wrote:


Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?

For the record, I don't care what anyone decides, only that you do it based on due diligence.

So have you actually tracked the changes from the 6th edition to the 7th edition Necron FAQ?

 Sigvatr wrote:

Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?

As stated, I am not pushing for one decision or another, only that you do your self-proclaimed job as a TO with due diligence.


Look, by your own admission, you presented something as new to the 7th edition FAQ which wasn't, and it was hugely significant to their capacity to make a fair decision. It was simply bad information. Own up to it. I can totally understand how you got confused by it. But since you are part of some decision-making body and not some isolated player you have to own up to it and correct it.

So basically, you fully agree with the decision based on the current iteration of the rules. I can live with that.

And just to add: it wasn't me who brought it up. I brought the RAW part up.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So basically, you fully agree with the decision based on the current iteration of the rules. I can live with that.

And just to add: it wasn't me who brought it up. I brought the RAW part up.

Are you seriously a TO? I asked you a straight question about whether you had bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and you haven't provided a straight answer to it.

You agreed on it being disallowed to re-embark. Not seeing where you're going now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You agreed on it being disallowed to re-embark. Not seeing where you're going now.

Huh? to repeat

I asked you a straight question about whether you had bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and you haven't provided a straight answer to it.

I have no idea what you're getting at right now. Feel free to clear it up.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I have no idea what you're getting at right now. Feel free to clear it up.

HAVE YOU READ THE 6TH EDITION NECRON 1.4 FAQ?

I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?

I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.

Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?

FettPrime wrote:
I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?

I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.

There's a difference between the two cases because the RO issue is a clarification whereas the NS case is an exception to the rules that has been amended in the current FAQ.

Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?

You cannot embark on a Zooming flyer and the NS cannot hover, thus always has to zoom.

 Sigvatr wrote:

FettPrime wrote:
I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?

I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.

There's a difference between the two cases because the RO issue is a clarification whereas the NS case is an exception to the rules that has been amended in the current FAQ.

Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?

You cannot embark on a Zooming flyer and the NS cannot hover, thus always has to zoom.

So . . .

HAVE YOU READ THE 6TH EDITION NECRON 1.4 FAQ?

I still don't know where you're heading to.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I still don't know where you're heading to.

I want you to answer a question . . .

HAVE YOU READ THE 6TH EDITION NECRON 1.4 FAQ?

...and I want you to tell me where you're going with this

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and I want you to tell me where you're going with this

Huh? Yes or no will suffice. It's not a trick question. If you have problem answering a straight question like this I seriously question your capacity as a self-proclaimed TO.

You made a statement above that some information was new to the 7th edition Necron FAQ. It's perfectly fair that I ask if you actually read the penultimate 6th edition 1.4 Necron FAQ, because if you indeed had not read that, then you would have no ability to know if something was new to the 7th edition FAQ. And once again we are faced with behavior that is not exactly TO worthy.

Your question was already answered in the reply to FettPrime - and about 90 people might disagree with you on the "self-proclaimed" part

Again, you lack any proper reasoning for your posts - you are wildly lashing around, not knowing yourself where you're getting at, making you look like a fool. If that's what you want...fine with me.

You agreed on our decision being fully correct, so again, you solely quack to..quack. Not really constructive now, is it