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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

So, to make sure I understand, your entire argument can be boiled down to "I have no evidence for THIS situation, but this is how it has worked for OTHER situations, so I THINK this is how it should work this time also"?

I'm marking my posts as RaW because I posted rules from the BRB showing that the eBook is an official source. Can you point me to the post where you cited rules to support your position?

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
When there are typos in the printed version that are picked up and editted into the Ebook these in the past have coincided with a release day Eratta to correct those typos. No such Eratta exists for Exterminatus. If you are going to continue to discuss your RaI or HYWPI then clearly mark your posts as such. RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule, nothing more than that, regardless of edition you are using.

So, to make sure I understand, your entire argument can be boiled down to "I have no evidence for THIS situation, but this is how it has worked for OTHER situations, so I THINK this is how it should work this time also"?

I'm marking my posts as RaW because I posted rules from the BRB showing that the eBook is an official source. Can you point me to the post where you cited rules to support your position?

Those same posts illustrate that Exterminatus is an official source. Are you now contesting it is not?

RaW the Edge of Eternity has the precision strike rule and that is it. That is what Exterminatus actually says in all Editions. If you want to have a HYWPI or RaI discussion on the weapon please mark your posts as such.

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

As written the 2+ is meaningless RaW your post seems to concede this. Unless you'd like to explain what that 2+ does RaW? Otherwise what is even the point of this post?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

I don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

Can you maybe highlight the part that specifically states the (2+) is meaningless? I'm just seeing a rule that is written such that we don't fully understand the intent or effect. I'm not seeing something that says "You can ignore the (2+). It is meaningless. Go purchase a physical book as that is the only official rules source".

As written the 2+ is meaningless RaW your post seems to concede this. Unless you'd like to explain what that 2+ does RaW? Otherwise what is even the point of this post?

Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick!

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+.

You have stated over and over that the physical copy should be considered accurate because it's the only official rules source. I DISAGREE with you on this. You HAVE NOT cited ANYTHING to support your position. Please cite literally ANYTHING to support your position. NOBODY agrees with you and you either CANT or WON'T support your position with cited rules. It makes for a VERY WEAK argument.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?

I never stated that.

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+. 

So RaW we agree that Edge of Eternity simply gives Precision Strikes. This is correct yes? So are we now onto discussing RaI or HYWPI as you concede that my argument all along that RaW only gives Precision Strikes is correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

For the sake of argument, let's agree that what you posted is accurate. Are you planning on posting ANY rules based evidence for your position that eBooks should not be considered an official source of rules?

I never stated that.

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries?

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes?

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI?

I AGREE with you that as written, Executioner (2+) doesn't do anything. This isn't up for debate. This is resolved. RaW, Executioner (2+) simply grants the Precision Strikes USR. Precision Strikes grants a benefit on a 6. RaI is murky. I think that RaI is for Executioner to grant Precision Strikes (2+) and for the benefit to be gained on a 2+. 

So RaW we agree that Edge of Eternity simply gives Precision Strikes. This is correct yes? So are we now onto discussing RaI or HYWPI as you concede that my argument all along that RaW only gives Precision Strikes is correct?

I don't think you've been reading my posts. We've agreed on what the 2+ does for most of this thread. The issue is that the 2+ is a valid rule until such time as an FAQ/Errata is posted.

Kangodo wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

No, I mocking one of Fling's argument that digital rules aren't official because they can be edited and calling out his hypocrisy of then posting a digital scan of the rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Please don't go down to that level.
Just because something doesn't technically work RAW doesn't mean it is meaningless.
The BRB is filled with stuff that technically doesn't work and everyone acts as if it works.

No, I mocking one of Fling's argument that digital rules aren't official because they can be edited.

Yeah. It was tongue in cheek. FlingitNow (paraphrased) said that he doesn't trust eBooks because the content can be easily modified and then used a page from an eBook in an attempt to prove a point. It was an internally inconsistent move that weakens his position from a debate standpoint.

Crown... I, for one, chuckled.

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries? 

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes? 

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI? 

I can confirm GW publications are official rules sources.

I can confirm that in Exterminatus there is no mention of a 2+ rule. I can confirm that I have been told the ebook copy of the rules contains a non-functional 2+. An image was provided by another poster that showed this typo. I do not know if the typo is across all ebooks or all editions of the ebook. I know it is not present in the official hard back or soft back rules.

I can confirm I do not work for the GW design team in any capacity. I can confirm the 2+ typo is not in the official hard back or soft back rules and has not been added by Eratta or FAQ.

 FlingitNow wrote:

My apologies. So, can you confirm that you DO think the eBook is an official source for rules on Unit Entries? 

Can you confirm that the Executioner (2+) rule is a valid and official rule for owners of the eBook and that you think it simply has no effect other than granting Precision Strikes? 

Can you confirm that you don't work as an Editor for Games Workshop and that your stance that the (2+) is a typo is simply your own HIWPI? 

I can confirm GW publications are official rules sources.

I can confirm that in Exterminatus there is no mention of a 2+ rule. I can confirm that I have been told the ebook copy of the rules contains a non-functional 2+. An image was provided by another poster that showed this typo. I do not know if the typo is across all ebooks or all editions of the ebook. I know it is not present in the official hard back or soft back rules.

I can confirm I do not work for the GW design team in any capacity. I can confirm the 2+ typo is not in the official hard back or soft back rules and has not been added by Eratta or FAQ.

Can you type, and I quote, "I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is an official rule in this official rules source."? We aren't talking about what it does, but I would very much like you to acknowledge that as of today, it is a valid rule in a valid, official rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also confused that you can confirm the 2+ isn't in Exterminatus when you posted a screenshot showing that it is.

I'm also confused that you can confirm the 2+ isn't in Exterminatus when you posted a screenshot showing that it is.

As I already pointed out that was someone else's screen shot.

Please find attached confirmation that the 2+ rule is not present in Exterminatus.

Can you type, and I quote, "I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is an official rule in this official rules source."? We aren't talking about what it does, but I would very much like you to acknowledge that as of today, it is a valid rule in a valid, official rulebook.

I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Also, please provide the page number or section in the eBook that states the (2+) is meaningless. I can't find it.

http://i.imgur.com/SnfkYWj.png

This is digital, how do I know you didn't edit this?

Exalted! hahahahhaa

But really guys, Fling is just trolling. He has nothing useful to say, GW likely meant to give executioner always precision strikes. The more you feed the troll, the more his ego flares.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool and what do your rules actually allow you to do? What does the (2+) mean on the Executioner rule? Or is it unexplained and thus does nothing. Also I'm not believing some file on your computer or tablet that could easily be doctored unless you have an official printed document from GW.

If you want I can tailor the "official" paper copy to say something that it didn't before. A few years of papercraft and card making teaches you a lot about fixing printing mistakes without being noticed.

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

All editions agree that Executioner exists and gives PS. One edition has the additional and non functional 2+ this is contradicted by all the other editions so without further information we can not conclude whether the 2+ is an official rule or not. If going by most recent then that is the physical copy as the digital is available for download before the shops are open to get a physical copy. However both have the same release date so in reality they are both simultaneous in their recentness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the truth? Executioner does not have the 2+ in it in the official rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

So, by the exact same logic I can confirm that the printed book is an official rules source and that the Executioner rule is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are returning to you giving priority to the printed book with absolutely no reason besides you said so. The eBook is the more recent publication. Why not go with the most recent publication in the absence of an FAQ?

All editions agree that Executioner exists and gives PS. One edition has the additional and non functional 2+ this is contradicted by all the other editions so without further information we can not conclude whether the 2+ is an official rule or not. If going by most recent then that is the physical copy as the digital is available for download before the shops are open to get a physical copy. However both have the same release date so in reality they are both simultaneous in their recentness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I confirm the eBook is an official rules source and that the Executioner (2+) is not an official rule in this official rules source as there are contradicting official rules sources.

You got that wrong.
1) eBook is an official source.
2) it has Executioner (2+) as a rule
Conclusion: Executioner (2+) is an official rule.

Why are you deliberately ignoring the truth? Executioner does not have the 2+ in it in the official rules.

We are ignoring the "truth" because it's YOUR truth that you made up and haven't been able to provide any rules based evidence for.

You have admitted that the Exterminatus eBook is an official release. You have admitted that the 2+ wording is in the eBook, i.e., in an official release. You then jump off the rails and say that the rule isn't an official rule despite being present in an official release.

Why are YOU ignoring that the 2+ wording is currently in an official release? What specific part are you having a problem with? I'll make an attempt to explain it as though I were talking to a five year old. That way, there shouldn't be any confusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would recommend this thread just be closed down by a mod.

There are quotes demonstrating RaW that the eBook is an official source. The opposition consists of one person who refuses to participate in a debate in a constructive way and won't post any rules based evidence despite numerous requests. RaI is unclear (as it always is). Decide among your play group how to play this.

I've posted a photo of the RaW that Executioner does not have a 2+ on it. Granted is apparently does on the ebook version. So we can't say it is an official rule as a curremt version of the rules says it is not part of the rules. Also as it stands RaW all it does is at best make Executioner not work for ebook users at all (as there is only explanation of the rule Executioner not Executioner 2+).

The issue is resolved based on which source of rules the necron player has in his possession at his games.

If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

col_impact wrote:
The issue is resolved based on which source of rules the necron player has in his possession at his games.

That might be problematic as people often don't have a source in possession for these non-Codex rules

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

The difference is that most people aren't going to complain over something that is so obvious as this.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he has an ebook then the 2+ does nothing. If he has the official rule hard or soft back books then the 2+ doesn't exist. I don't really see the difference?

The difference is that the 2+ IS in the eBook. It MAY be that GW intended it to do something, but wrote the rule poorly. We can't know the intent, but saying that the 2+ isn't in the official rules is juvenile and wrong.

You repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge that the 2+ is in an official source. That's the issue. The issue is that you are picking and choosing which GW publications you'd like to consider as official. You are allowed to do this, but it's a house rule and HYWPI. As such, your beliefs and opinions have no place in a RaW debate.

Kriswall what does the 2+ do RaW? What was factually incorrect in my post? Does the 2+ do something RaW? Or are the Hard back & Soft back editions not official rules?

The difference is that most people aren't going to complain over something that is so obvious as this.

I agree no one is going to complain about ignoring what is so obviously a typo. Thank you for finally conceding your argument.

So, really it does nothing. No matter which way you spin it, it does nothing until GW speaks up and fixed it in favore of which ever way.

The only thing going on in this thread is a troll pulling everyone along by saying an official source of rules is not official because it's digital. And people either foolish enough to argue with him even though the 2+ debate has been figured out, or people who are just feeding the troll for the sake of feeding the troll.


In any event, this should probably be locked as it's just a silly pissing contest at this point.