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.

So Adepticon is now allowing the T. C'tan in all the events it looks like with a 33% of total points only for all the events except exterminatus, So, this means it isn't usable for the Highlander, or classic event because it always costs more than 500points but in the champs you can run it with Cosmic Fire x2 and Sesmic Shockwave for 600pts. Do you think it's worth it?

The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.

TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12 FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.

(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)

 skoffs wrote:
The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.

TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12 FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.

(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)

I don't follow you. There is not much change to the Death Ray in the 7th Edition FAQ. We are pretty much working off the straight codex wording except for an Errata'd bit about the 1 mm line. Death Ray tallies up models in units. Focused Death Ray tallies up models. Keep in mind that the writers of the original Sentry Pylon didn't foresee a Sentry Pylon that could shoot in the same turn that it deep striked in. As powerful as it is, they probably envisioned that people could plan ahead to deal with it.

How many points is invested in the Pylon Star? How many kills does it need to win back its points? As potent as the Pylon Star is, is it better than the Invisi Centurion Star?

 skoffs wrote:
The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.

TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12 FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.

(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)

Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.

Fragile wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.

TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12 FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.

(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)

Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.

Huh? I think it's real clear they understood what they were writing when they wrote it. The wording is not ambiguous at all. They just didn't foresee it being able to deep strike and shoot in the same turn. Feel free to test it out without the relentless ability. It's easy to counter deploy and position units to minimize FDR hits when you have a whole turn to shuffle around.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.

TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12 FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.

(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)

Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.

Huh? I think it's real clear they understood what they were writing when they wrote it. The wording is not ambiguous at all. They just didn't foresee it being able to deep strike and shoot in the same turn. Feel free to test it out without the relentless ability. It's easy to counter deploy and position units to minimize FDR hits when you have a whole turn to shuffle around.

That has almost no impact on how powerful it is. It can sit still in the middle of the board and control half of it. They understood they thought they were writing a DR that hit twice. Otherwise you would have to add huge sections of rules because you just created a weapon that has no precedent and breaks alot of fundamentals in the game. Even the worst game designers/ rule writer do not do that.

Given the choice of creating a super powered weapon that does things nothing else did and breaks rules or simply left 3 words out of the DR rule when they wrote it. Logically its clear to see intent.

Your RAI argument - the designers are radically incompetent and they have no understanding of how what they design functions in the rules

My RAI argument - the designers are competent but they did not foresee that artillery in the future would be able to be granted relentless since that is new to 7th.

So for me, if you want to play RAI play sentry pylons as unable to be granted relentless. They have existed a long time in the game as exactly that and have not proven a problem in spite of how strong their gun is. The big bad gun is still a slow moving volcano that you can defeat by positioning and alpha strike and rain of fire.

If we follow your rationale, that FW is radically incompetent, then we should ban all FW from the game. If they truly are as radically incompetent as you claim then we cannot rely on anything that comes from them. We don't know if for example the underpowered FW units should be buffed. The whole lot of FW stuff would be a mess that you couldn't trust.

Relentless may be the key to deathstar, but it is NOT what we are arguing is broken.
The interpretation some people have on how the FDR works is in question here.
If you have a "the same way the codex FAQ says the Deathray works" RAI interpretation FDR equipped SentryStar pumping out 2x S10 AP1 hits per model the line passes over in each individual unit, that is one hell of a powerful alpha strike!
If you have the same unit playing by "the codex FAQ has no bearing on a FW model" RAW interpretation, and you're doing 2x S10 AP1 hits x all models passed over to EVERY unit under that line, that's not powerful, it's broken. It's the kind of broken that makes people not want to play against FW stuff (because yes, they have shown they are fairly incompetent at writing rules, both in terms of balance as well as game testing to make sure things work properly with the rest if the rules. Their lack of continued support in the form of no FAQs when needed is further evidence of their incompetence). If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many people opposed to using them.

 skoffs wrote:
Relentless may be the key to deathstar, but it is NOT what we are arguing is broken.
The interpretation some people have on how the FDR works is in question here.
If you have a "the same way the codex FAQ says the Deathray works" RAI interpretation FDR equipped SentryStar pumping out 2x S10 AP1 hits per model the line passes over in each individual unit, that is one hell of a powerful alpha strike!
If you have the same unit playing by "the codex FAQ has no bearing on a FW model" RAW interpretation, and you're doing 2x S10 AP1 hits x all models passed over to EVERY unit under that line, that's not powerful, it's broken. It's the kind of broken that makes people not want to play against FW stuff (because yes, they have shown they are fairly incompetent at writing rules. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many people opposed to using them).

I checked the Necron FAQ and I don't see any FAQ item that relates to what you are saying. Can you double check by reading the 7th ed. Necron FAQ and clarify?

And it's fine if you want to advocate a blanket ban on FW. That is at least a position that is backed by your premise.

But I strongly suggest you playtest against Sentry Pylons the pre-7th edition way. It's only in theory hammer land where you are making the big nasty gun out to be a big deal. It is only going to catch really bad players off guard.

No, because as we all know, in a classic show of GW's own legendary incompetence, once 7th hit they decided the omit the majority of the previous FAQ which made the train wreck of a codex workable.
Luckily the majority of players were already familiar with the proper rulings on these oh so recently unclarified examples of bad rule writing. Evidence of this can be seen in tournament organization which takes from both the current and previous FAQs to fill in the gaps where things need better clarification.
The only time there is a problem is usually when someone is trying to abuse RAW. Luckily TOs have judges to rule on instances like that. In non tournament organized games, well, I guess all we can hope for is that players not try to be that guy who tries to rule lawyer in some broken ass interpretation so he can power game his way to victory.

And no one in this thread is advocating a blanket ban on FW. You keep bringing it up, though. What we (RAI advocates) want is balanced non-broken FW models and rules to be played.

 skoffs wrote:
No, because as we all know, in a classic show of GW's own legendary incompetence, once 7th hit they decided the omit the majority of the previous FAQ which made the train wreck of a codex workable.
Luckily the majority of players were already familiar with the proper rulings on these oh so recently unclarified examples of bad rule writing. Evidence of this can be seen in tournament organization which takes from both the current and previous FAQs to fill in the gaps where things need better clarification.
The only time there is a problem is usually when someone is trying to abuse RAW. Luckily TOs have judges to rule on instances like that. In non tournament organized games, well, I guess all we can hope for is that players not try to be that guy who tries to rule lawyer in some broken ass interpretation so he can power game his way to victory.

And no one in this thread is advocating a blanket ban on FW. You keep bringing it up, though. What we (RAI advocates) want is balanced non-broken FW models and rules to be played.

Relentless is what makes it broken. Without relentless, it's a big nasty gun that is easily dealt with by positioning and threat priority. If you have playtesting or even a hypothetical play situation to suggest otherwise, please provide.

No one is arguing that the Sentry Pylons shouldn't be able to get relentless. That part of the rules is solid, so there's no need to run hypotheticals over it unless you purposely want to run the deathstar without a Phaeron (which might not be a bad idea to see how it works if you want to run it cheap).
The argument we're dealing with is about how to use the Focused Deathray.

Jy2 just ran it with the conservative RAI interpretation and it performed wonderfully.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/621664.page

If he had run it with the broken RAW interpretation, the thing would have been so unbalanced that the table would have been in danger of flipping.

 skoffs wrote:
No one is arguing that the Sentry Pylons shouldn't be able to get relentless. That part of the rules is solid, so there's no need to run hypotheticals over it unless you purposely want to run the deathstar without a Phaeron (which might not be a bad idea to see how it works if you want to run it cheap).
The argument we're dealing with is about how to use the Focused Deathray.

Jy2 just ran it with the conservative RAI interpretation and it performed wonderfully.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/621664.page

If he had run it with the broken RAW interpretation, the thing would have been so unbalanced that the table would have been in danger of flipping.

The only viable alternate RAI interpretation is that you run Sentry Pylon without relentless.

What you claim to be a "conservative RAI" interpretation argues to go directly against RAW on the premise that FW is radically incompetent.


2 things.

If Sentry Pylons play out fine if you play them as intended by FW (without relentless) is FW incompetent?

If FW is as radically incompetent as you claim, does it not logically follow that FW not be allowed in standard 40k?

There are many examples of FW's incompetence (both in rules interaction testing and creating balanced units). As a result, yes, there are many people who feel FW should not be allowed in standard 40k. This is hardly news to anyone.
Both issues could probably be easily addressed and even rectified were FW to release FAQs to fix things. Sadly, this may never be the case.

Regardless, we've seen evidence that the conservative RAI interpretation of the FDR's usage in the SentryStar is more than adequate, and there is no need to use the broken ramped up hit multiplier interpretation. We can only hope tournaments ruling it that way will see said play style spread to everyday non-tournament usage as well.

 skoffs wrote:
There are many examples of FW's incompetence (both in rules interaction testing and creating balanced units). As a result, yes, there are many people who feel FW should not be allowed in standard 40k. This is hardly news to anyone.
Both issues could probably be easily addressed and even rectified were FW to release FAQs to fix things. Sadly, this may never be the case.

Regardless, we've seen evidence that the conservative RAI interpretation of the FDR's usage in the SentryStar is more than adequate, and there is no need to use the broken ramped up hit multiplier interpretation. We can only hope tournaments ruling it that way will see said play style spread to everyday non-tournament usage as well.

What you are calling a conservative RAI interpretation isn't a conservative RAI interpretation, it's a power-level edit. Nothing wrong with a power level edit, just we should be clear what you are advocating here.

Also I would love to have your thoughts on this question . . .

If Sentry Pylons play out fine if you play them as intended by FW (without relentless) is FW incompetent (insofar as how they wrote the rules for Focused Death Ray)?

Sentry pylons getting relentless is RAI because its 7ed rules. When you play with the rulebook, the RAI for the rulebook is you follow all of its rules. So if the rulebook allows artillery to get relentless then its RAI for them to get relentless.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Sentry pylons getting relentless is RAI because its 7ed rules.

I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach, but it is easy to argue that since FW wrote the Sentry Pylons before 7th edition that they could not foresee that the Sentry Pylons would play out differently in 7th edition than was intended by them when they wrote the rules for the Sentry Pylon back when the general rules were 5th edition.

This is an extremely easy argument to make and it is a RAI argument. I am not advocating it, but such an argument could be made. I think people should play RAW until it proves to be broken and then they can freely choose to address the issue in how they choose fit - ban, power nerf, remove relentless, etc.

Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

Making Pylons relentless increased sales of Pylons. GW is not going to rule against it now.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

Can you point me to the 7th edition FW FAQs?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

Can you point me to the 7th edition FW FAQs?

There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

Can you point me to the 7th edition FW FAQs?

There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended

Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.

So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.

My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

Can you point me to the 7th edition FW FAQs?

There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended

Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.

So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.

My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.

Both are equally plausible which is why I think the RAI for this and all RAI arguments are stupid for this exact reason. We don't actually know what is or isn't actually RAI because GW/FW never says so. The idea that they didn't FAQ because they didn't need to is just as valid as the idea that they didn't FAQ it because they haven't yet. Both sides are just as valid as each other but completely contradictory of each other as well. Ultimately this means neither side is right.

But its like this for all RAI arguments. There is always an equal yet opposite side to have RAI argument that is completely contradictory of each other thus invalidating the whole argument. It makes the whole debacle pointless.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Its a stupid RAI argument and is wrong.

Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.

Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.

FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended

Can you point me to the 7th edition FW FAQs?

There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended

Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.

So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.

My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.

Both are equally plausible which is why I think the RAI for this and all RAI arguments are stupid for this exact reason. We don't actually know what is or isn't actually RAI because GW/FW never says so. The idea that they didn't FAQ because they didn't need to is just as valid as the idea that they didn't FAQ it because they haven't yet. Both sides are just as valid as each other but completely contradictory of each other as well. Ultimately this means neither side is right.

But its like this for all RAI arguments. There is always an equal yet opposite side to have RAI argument that is completely contradictory of each other thus invalidating the whole argument. It makes the whole debacle pointless.

I think you may have jumped into this discussion with all guns blazing. I am not pushing for a conservative RAI approach.

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the Sentry Pylons prove stupid OMG broken we have to do something about it.

What do you do then? What I am saying is that at that point in time an RAI fix would be to restore 6th edition behavior that prevented artillery from being applied to artillery since Sentry Pylons were designed with that rule environment in mind.

My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.

 CrownAxe wrote:
My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.

So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.

So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?

Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.

Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.

So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?

Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.

Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?

You can advocate any kind of fix you want. I am just saying there are different types of fixes that can be employed. Banning Sentry Pylons is a different kind of fix than preventing relentless on Sentry Pylons and we justify them using different rationales.