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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
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

I didn't agree on your decision being fully correct.

Anyone following this thread is going to see an obvious problem on your part, not mine.

Simple question -- did you actually read the Necron FAQ that is the version before the current one?

col_impact wrote:

I didn't agree on your decision being fully correct.

Oh? So you do have an actual rules argument to present? I'd be glad to see it.

Really?

I have restated a simple question that is extremely pertinent to the discussion at hand and proves as false claims that you have made and all you are doing is dodging the question?

Wow.



Wow.

Summing it up:

a) You agree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:

Awesome, we agree!

b) You disagree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:

Okay, what are your (rules-based) reasons for assuming this?

Pick one of those.

...or go on with mindlessly rambling, verbally flailing your arms around.

I'm going to have dinner and eagerly await seeing your decision

 Sigvatr wrote:
Summing it up:

a) You agree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:

Awesome, we agree!

b) You disagree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:

Okay, what are your (rules-based) reasons for assuming this?

Pick one of those.

...or go on with mindlessly rambling, verbally flailing your arms around.

I'm going to have dinner and eagerly await seeing your decision

Still dodging a simple question. I guess it's clear you have not read the penultimate FAQ and had no business stating what was new in the 7th edition FAQ

 Sigvatr wrote:


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

This is incorrect and irresponsible bit of misinformation on your part. It's doubly irresponsible because you keep dodging a straight question about it in this very thread.

The rules issue is this. There have been NO actual rule changes that bear upon the NS since the penultimate 6th edition Necron FAQ and the current Necron 7th edition. So, why the change you are proposing?

At any rate, off to bed. Later.

col_impact wrote:


The rules issue is this. There have been NO actual rule changes that bear upon the NS since the penultimate 6th edition Necron FAQ and the current Necron 7th edition. So, why the change you are proposing?

Ah, finally, I see where you were getting to and what your misunderstanding is based on:

FAQ 1.4 allowed the NS to be re-embarked as allowance was explicitely given in it. Now, check the current FAQ. This allowance has been removed. Without the explicit allowance, you cannot re-embark on the NS because it is a zooming flyer without hover.

Referencing an older FAQ is a void argument. For rules purposes, any previous FAQ version is no longer existent. You do not use the 6th BRB either, do you?

Simple misunderstaning, took you only 2 pages to get it across.

col_impact wrote:

 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?

The 6th Ed. FAQ's are outdated. Currently, TO's will only follow 7E FAQ's. The only time you should bring RAI into the equation is if the RAW is unclear. In this case, the RAW is very clear. The BRB explicitly denies passengers from embarking/disembarking from a zooming flyer. The rules in the Necron codex is crap because it talks about embarking/disembarking from access point WITHOUT actually giving you explict permission to do so. Thus, the need for the FAQ to clarify it. However, the current 7E FAQ only allows you explicit permission to disembark from a night scythe. It doesn't give you permission to re-embark onto it. Yes, the previous 6E FAQ gave you permission (though not initially, I believe it was the 2nd iteration of the FAQ that gave you this permission). However, they took that portion of the FAQ out in 7E. THUS, you no longer have permission to re-embark onto the night scythe, only to disembark from it. As for the RAI, who knows what it is really. Maybe GW felt that being able to disembark and then re-embark was too strong and then changed their minds on how it worked in 7E? GW has been known to flip-flop on its own rules intepretations before.

BTW, the changes to the Invasion Beams is in the Errata section, not in the Q&A section. Thus, it is an actual rules change, not a clarification.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?)

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.

You do not use old FAQ's, just like you do not use the rules for 6th Edition if the rules for 7th isn't clear. You also do not use old FAQ's as a basis for RAI. Those rules/FAQ's are no longer valid in any discussions about the current rules. What you can use as a basis for RAI are the current rules. Otherwise, if you want to use an older FAQ as a basis for your rules intepretations, why not use 5th Ed. FAQ's? How about 4th Ed. FAQ's? The past is the past. You need to refer to current rules as RAI/precedents for current rules debates/intepretaions.

Trying to use the 6th edition FAQ is a bit like telling Nid players they can't use quad guns because it use to say it in the 6th edition FAQ and no longer addresses the issue in the 7th edition ones?!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
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.

You have to look at this rules issue from a clean slate. You cannot use the 6E FAQ as a basis for this rules intepretation, only the current rules from the BRB.

In the case of wraiths, if you follow the current RAW, then yes, they will get the +1A for carrying particle casters. At least, until they get FAQ'd once again. Do I think that is the RAI? No. But according to current RAW, yes, they do get the +1A.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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

You don't need a FAQ for that. Yes, Ever-living rolls do benefit from ResOrbs. That is because the Everliving rules uses the rules for RP to determine how the model gets back up. So whatever affects the rules for RP will also apply to Everliving as long as it doesn't conflict with the Everliving rules.

BTW, the rules prohibition for embarking onto a zooming flyer is on p.84 of the BRB (under Zoom, 3rd paragraph).

 jy2 wrote:

Yes, Ever-living rolls do benefit from ResOrbs. That is because the Everliving rules uses the rules for RP to determine how the model gets back up. So whatever affects the rules for RP will also apply to Everliving as long as it doesn't conflict with the Everliving rules.

Just to add on this excellent post: furthermore, the Regeneration Orb rules specifically mention the bearer that must be a model which has Ever-Living.

 jy2 wrote:

BTW, the changes to the Invasion Beams is in the Errata section, not in the Q&A section. Thus, it is an actual rules change, not a clarification.

This is not correct. This errata change was also in the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ.


To reiterate this is the only change between 6th edition 1.4 Necron FAQ and 7th edition Necron FAQ (as pertains to the NS). It dropped this item in the Q and A section.



Q and A items themselves carry no rules weight and do not themselves make rules. They only clarify RAI. So no pertinent rules have changed for the NS between Necron 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and 7th edition Necron FAQ, correct? Are we on the same page here?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:


FAQ 1.4 allowed the NS to be re-embarked as allowance was explicitely given in it. Now, check the current FAQ. This allowance has been removed.

Where do you see this allowance being given in the Necron 1.4 FAQ? In the Q and A item noted above that in itself does not make any rules and only clarifies RAI? That's the only change.



Ok, so again, the first step here is that you guys double-check the FAQs in question and make a clear note of the plain fact that . . . .



that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.

FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.

Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.

 jy2 wrote:
FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.

Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.

Well the real underlying issue is the shortening of a 27 item long Q and A list to a 3 item long Q and A list and seems very on topic for this thread. It impacts potentially more than just the NS (e.g. the Veil of Darkness).

What's the issue with Veil of Darkness?

BTW, GW incorporated a lot of the FAQ issues into the 7th Ed. rulebook. Though from the looks of it, they didn't do a very good job.

 jy2 wrote:
What's the issue with Veil of Darkness?

BTW, GW incorporated a lot of the FAQ issues into the 7th Ed. rulebook. Though from the looks of it, they didn't do a very good job.

This Q and A item was dropped



So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?

col_impact wrote:


A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.[/spoiler]

that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.

Precisely. This allowed you to re-embark on the NS. Explicit allowance was given.

This entry, and therefore the allowance, was amended in the most recent FAQ. As a consequence, the NS has to follow all regular rules for flyer transports. Therefore, you are no longer allowed to re-embark on the NS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?

Depends on your TO. The item itself says that it is used instead of moving normally, not defining normally any further. The most common understanding is that "normally" means "the normal way the unit would move" and in the case of units in reserve, this would mean moving on the board.

On the other hand, in 7th, there is a clear "At the start of the turn" phase that the "Arriving from reserves" rule references to. The Veil only refers to the Movement Phase, so could not be used in the Pre-Movement phase.

Two interpretations are possible, depends on your TO / group you play with.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.[/spoiler]

that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.

Precisely. This allowed you to re-embark on the NS. Explicit allowance was given.

This entry, and therefore the allowance, was amended in the most recent FAQ. As a consequence, the NS has to follow all regular rules for flyer transports. Therefore, you are no longer allowed to re-embark on the NS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?

Depends on your TO. The item itself says that it is used instead of moving normally, not defining normally any further. The most common understanding is that "normally" means "the normal way the unit would move" and in the case of units in reserve, this would mean moving on the board.

On the other hand, in 7th, there is a clear "At the start of the turn" phase that the "Arriving from reserves" rule references to. The Veil only refers to the Movement Phase, so could not be used in the Pre-Movement phase.

Two interpretations are possible, depends on your TO / group you play with.

This is good. At least we are the same page here . . . finally.

Finally we see collectively that the only change for the NS is the dropping of a Q and A item.

However, opinions I think are going to differ at this juncture point. In my opinion, Q and A items do not themselves carry rule forming weight and only clarify rules elsewhere (ie they offer a way for GW to directly communicate RAI).

So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?

col_impact wrote:


So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?

Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex, FAQ or any other GW publication such as Forgeworld books. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.

Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?

Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex or FAQ. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.

Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.

This is fine and that is certainly a valid opinion. However, this is where people are going to differ. People can have an alternate opinion that the Q and A section does not carry any rule forming weight in itself and only clarify rules elsewhere. So the dropping of Q and A items is not the dropping of rules, only the dropping of clarifications. So a veil of darkness would function as before.

At any rate, welcome to the true thorniness of the problem. The Q and A section dropped 24 items.

There's a qualitative difference.

If you disagree with a ruling, that is fine. The ruling has more value than your opinion, though, because it is based on the official rules.

A rules-based ruling is worth more than a mere opinion because it's fair to all players. There can be, in some cases, two different rules-based rulings and that's fine, in that case, both have to agree on a solution or ask the ref / TO.

The 1.4 FAQ does not exist anymore. Period. You cannot reference it. It's gone. Forever.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's a qualitative difference.

If you disagree with a ruling, that is fine. The ruling has more value than your opinion, though, because it is based on the official rules.

A rules-based ruling is worth more than a mere opinion because it's fair to all players.

The 1.4 FAQ does not exist anymore. Period. You cannot reference it. It's gone. Forever.

Well, its very awkward for you to maintain that a Q and A section has rule-formulating power. That may be a practical position you have been forced to fall back into, but that's a very awkward logical position. You do see the problem here, right? Q and A entries are being propped up wrongly as rules.

No, I don't see the problem. It's a GW publication and GW tells us what is possible or not. If any player in any case can point to anything GW states in a current rules publication, this player is right.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.

Huh? Did we not just exactly see this in the case of the NS? The granting of that ability to have units re-embark was entirely propped up on the Q and A entry. That's the only difference between the Necron 1.4 FAQ and the Necron 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think we all need to look closely at the list of 24 that were dropped out. There are items on there that we grew accustomed to playing that we may have no rule basis for.

For example, this Q and A entry was dropped.



Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also now looks like the Death Ray can hit Flyers in Zooming mode now since that Q and A item was dropped. Checking BRB on that one to be sure . . . Nope, Hard to Hit keeps that one in check.

I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition. Otherwise, this problem should be popping up all over the place, in every codex, and the FAQ's should be carrying over as a consistent document.

Would it not be prudent to view the 6th ed document as clarifying specifically "6th ed" questions, and the new FAQ to address unqiuely"7th ed" rulings?

Why does one completely over-write the other when most of the rulings in the new one do not have anything to do with the new rulings?

Oops, misplaced a page, the number of Q and A entries actually shrunk from 50 to 3. Um, yeah, this is a real big thorny mess to sort out.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.

Huh? Did we not just exactly see this in the case of the NS? The granting of that ability to have units re-embark was entirely propped up on the Q and A entry. That's the only difference between the Necron 1.4 FAQ and the Necron 7th.

What FAQ? I cannot find anything you mentioned in the Necron FAQ. You can get it here:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

Spoiler:

Q: If I have 2 Royal Courts, can one model from each be attached to the same unit?
A: Yes.

Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?

Point to the rules where it disallows buildings lists that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition.

It does if rules are changed. In the NS case, this is exactly what happened - an explicit allowance has been taken away.

 Sigvatr wrote:

What FAQ? I cannot find anything you mentioned in the Necron FAQ. You can get it here:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

LOL. Did you still not actually read the Necron 1.4 FAQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like Abyssal Staffs get a buff at being able to Instant Death using Toughness now instead of Leadership.

col_impact wrote:
LOL. Did you still not actually read the Necron 1.4 FAQ?

I think you are mistaken for some other game.
Warhammer 40k has no 1.4 FAQ for Necrons: http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

Can you point out where the official FAQ, BRB or Codex talk about the rules you are mentioning?

col_impact wrote:



LOL. Did you still not actually read the Necron 1.4 FAQ?

What Necron 1.4 FAQ? There is only one FAQ and that can be found here:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:



LOL. Did you still not actually read the Necron 1.4 FAQ?

What Necron 1.4 FAQ? There is only one FAQ and that can be found here:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html

Oh I get it. You guys are playing the "Let's pretend the Necron 6th edition FAQ never existed."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So do Abyssal Staff's Instant Death toughness 4 dudes now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think they probably don't, but do Spyders and Wraiths now get +1 A if they upgrade to fabricator claws/pistols respectively?