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.

The only reason we can not give a Rule-as-Written answer is because the Authors have penned nothing informing us how to read the Italic sections of the current Rulebook. Yet those sections must mean something, as the Editor/Authors have taken the time to format them completely differently to the rest of the Rulebook. If we where to look at 'circumstantial evidence' or 'precedent,' I believe the shear number of Italic sections that can never be physically obeyed speaks volumes to the 'are we intended to treat Fluff as if it is Rules?' question. The Italic section can not contain Rules by default, as that would require us to complete actions that are impossible to complete in the insanely vast number of cases, we would need a specific Rule telling us when to treat the Italic section as if it was a Rule.

Can you quote a section of the book informing us how to tell if the Italic is just another piece of Narrative, or a Rule to be obeyed?

Then why did they use the italicized text for Pulse Weapons in Codex Tau Empire to decide they were plasma weapons? And did you notice that I agreed with Kel's 'Yes, No, Maybe' answer? We have no clear answer.

More importantly: Why did they change the answer if the Italic section is meant to contain Rules?

This is about the much larger implication of Italic section as Rules as a whole, far more reaching then this single Relic and Bolter Drill. Without specific instructions telling us how to determine if one piece of Italic section is a Rule, while another piece is just Narrative, we lack permission to ever make the distinction between Rule and Narrative. We would be required to treat every Italic section as if it was a Rule, something that is physically impossible to do, or to treat every Italic section as if it is nothing by Narrative. While it would be nice if they told us in writing what the Italic section means, the lack of explanation doesn't change the fact anyone wanting to state that a certain piece of Italic is a Rule, while also treating other sections as Narrative, must quote a Rule granting them permission to make such a distinction.

Do you have a Rule informing us how to determine when the Italic section is a Rule and when it is Narrative?

Since we are on about the plasma siphon anyways.

Did anybody else notice tjat per the new rules it only effects plasma pistols, plasma guns, and plasma cannons; in other words it only does anything to basically allies weapons.completely worthless waste of points(especially since it effects weapons fired from within range instaed of at within range).

I also noticed they failed to mention Plasma weapons as defined by a Codex, instead of the Rulebook.

It is bad rule writing, and could be used to lawyer away quite a lot of Plasma, but there is something to keep in mind. The main Rulebook does contain a definition of what is a Plasma Weapon, one that has nothing to do with the name on the profile or its location in any book. Therefore, it can be argued that anything meeting this definition is to be considered a 'Plasma Weapon' for the purpose of the Syphon. The real problem comes from the fact this definition requires the Weapon to be able to fire a stream of searing energy, and none of my plastic models ever could manage that trick. It also contains a clause about the weapon being able to hurt the user, something the Rules do have a way of representing, that still eliminates Tau's version of Plasma even though it is found on a list of Plasma Weapons.

So, how do the Authors inform us a Weapon is capable of shooting beams of searing energy that devastate armoured infantry?
My answer would be by listing the Weapon on a table with the heading of 'Plasma Weapons....'

 Ghaz wrote:
And how does that matter? Do we have proof that the fluff can't be the rules just because that particular FAQ is no longer current? If so, I repeat my request for a rules quote to back up that position.

Do you have rules saying everything is rules?

There is no section in the bolters rules saying that it is the same as a storm bolter, counts as a storm bolter, fuctions as a storm bolter, etc. It is its own weapon.

die toten hosen wrote:
Do you have rules saying everything is rules?

No more than you have to say that it's not rules, which is the entire point.

Lacking permission to pick and choose which italic section are Rules, and which are Narrative:

Are you able to obey every italic section as if it was a Rule, without the Game breaking?
Are you able to ignore every italic section as if it was Narrative, without the Game breaking?

What we have is inconsistencies and confusion.

We had from 3rd-5th editions an unwritten understanding that fluff and rules were different. Then 5th and 6th told us directly, in writing, that when fluff matters for rules it can be rules.

Then the inquisition book came out with new wording on 1 of the 2 fluff-is-sometimes-rules items and the faq for that item got changed. Then the new gk codex came out and the other item got changed as well; but we never got a retraction from the earlier fluff can be rules sometimes statement(last time i checked you can still download the old gk faq and it still gives you fluff is rules for the old daemonbane).

On top of THAT, we even have written rules that all the named characters also count as units of their fluff-type(in this book the named captains count as captains and the named chaplains count as chaplains.

Finally we get to other inconsistencies like the guantlets of ultramar, which used to be described in the fluff as 2 bolters that fired together as a storm bolter, then became 2 bolters that fired together with a special profile instead, and now just have a ranged profile.

Piggybacking off the guantlets we get into other codices that have melee and ranged profile weapons that are stated to have in-built ranged weapons to the melee weapon(and the ranged profile matches the described in-built weapon), so beyond not sure if you can shoot and assault with those weapons we are not even certain if they fire with the rest of those weapons in the unit.

Let's leave the pointless meme-generator images for 4chan, 'kay? --Janthkin

Ask your opponent. Don't argue with people you don't play with, it just generates a bunch of Keyboard Warrior syndrome.

That said, I'd let you play with rerolls. RAI it's a storm bolter, at the very least.

It has a totally different profile from a storm bolter and no clause saying it is a storn bolter rules wise.
Italics outside of the weapon profile do not count as rules.

Except possibly when they could effect rules. Maybe.

As we have told you many times the last official stance from gw that we directly received from the rules team is that fluff may sometimes count as rules when the rules call for something on the fluff to count as part of the rules.

While they are writing clearer rules these days(shocking, I know); that doesn't change the only stance we have on it.

Yes, the exact rules as written just have it as a ranged weapon with the profile. But the fluff description stating it is a storm bolter may make it a storm bolter depending on whether or not gw still feels that rules-related fluff counts.

Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

*sigh* Name, not description.
Just like you are not allowed to shoot storm bolters and bolters the same shooting sequence because of different *name*.
Same way Bolter Drill lists weapon names that benefits, not weapon descriptions.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

Cite your source.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Bolter Drill explicitly states what weapons can benefit - they are named one by one.

When you take Shooting Phase - Shooting Sequence, you have to "Select a Weapon" with the same name.

Dorn's Arrow is not storm bolter by RAW. It's name is <start name>Dorn's Arrow<end name> with specific statline.
Dorn's Arrow is not allowed to shoot at the same sequence as other storm bolters in the unit during shooting sequence, because it is weapon with different name.

So I'm sorry, but for me it is clear - the name is important.
Dorn's Arrow is weapon not listed by name in Bolter Drill special rule, so it can't benefit from it.

*sigh* The issue is that the relic DOES say it is a Storm Bolter. It says it in the italicized text, but it does say it is a Storm Bolter. The problem here is that whether or not italicized text has any rules impact has been inconsistent.

Except right now it is not.
Feels dont make rules, rules make rules. Fluff snippets are not rules.

Cite your source.

The rules.
You arent getting the echo you want from the topic and you have no supporting evidence besides an outdated and irrelivent FAQ to fall back on.
Fluff snippets have never been rules. Using fluff as rules im pretty sure is also not allowed as part of the rules of YMDC.
Wishing doesnt make something true.
All the profile for dorns arrow needs is a statement "a storm bolter with the following profile..." to work with bolter drill. It doesnt have this however, it has a section of fluff mentioning storm bolters.
Dont ask others to cite a source if you yourself cannot cite a valid one.

Then you can actually quote where the rules say that the italicized text is not rules? I didn't think so...

Then all italic sections are Rules, and thus followed to the letter?

And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Are you stating we can apply obsolete Frequently Asked Questions to the current Edition?

And are you stating that you have proof that the italicized text are not rules?

Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

 danyboy wrote:
Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

Infernus is simply an example where the fluff and rules match up. This happens often but is not a be-all-end-all to it.

The fluff describes a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells, the rules are mostly a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells.

If you had a psychic power that could grant a shooting attack with 2 weapons, then without taking the fluff italics into account he can fire the boltgun and the flamer.

In fact the only thing that stops us from just plain firing both profiles is a rule in the brb.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 danyboy wrote:
Guys, take a look at Infernus, Chaplain Cassius Chapter Relics:

"Infernus: Infernus is an ornate combi-flamer crafted and sanctified by Cassius himself. Infernus is loaded with specialised hellfire shells whose warheads are filled with a powerful mutagenic acid. Since the First Tyrannic War, every one of these rounds has been painstakingly inscribed by Cassius with the name of a battle-brother slain by the Tyranids."
And it's profile:
Bolter (with helfire shells) <stats>
Flamer <stats>

So if weapon should be considered bolter it should have the name or the name in it's profile. Infernus is combi-bolter, with listed bolter name and profile .
Dorn's Arrow is Dorn's Arrow with it's profile, nothing more, nothing less.

Infernus is simply an example where the fluff and rules match up. This happens often but is not a be-all-end-all to it.

The fluff describes a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells, the rules are mostly a master-crafted combi-flamer loaded with hellfire shells.

If you had a psychic power that could grant a shooting attack with 2 weapons, then without taking the fluff italics into account he can fire the boltgun and the flamer.

In fact the only thing that stops us from just plain firing both profiles is a rule in the brb.

So fluff is only rules if you want it to be is what you are saying.
Infernus is closer to a combi bolter then dorns arrow is to a storm bolter.
Dorns arrow is not a storm bolter rules wise

Ghaz,
I have already provided an answer to that question - We are not informed in the current Rulebook what the Italic sections actually mean.
So asking that question once more as an answer to my own question was a non-answer.... please answer the following:

Do we have permission to apply old pieces of Errata to the current edition?

In addendum:
Have you even notice how examples of Errata where fluff was Rules have been changed, in order to remove that very distinction?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And GW has used the italic section as rules before, so once again I refer you back to Kommissars Kel's post.

Besides, even without using the italicized text, the game is impossible to play without making house rules.

Inncorrect. The game is easily playable without house rules if you know how to play the game.
Outdated FAQs are not applicable

Regardless, show me in the profile where is says dorns arrow is a storm bolter.

Exactly. It doesn't say "Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter with the following profile:". It just gives the stats. If we followed italicized text, Black Templars wouldn't refuse challenges or always make them, correct?

Considering that the only black templar that has that fluff bit also has a rule that says the same thing... Yes, yes he must.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Ghaz,
Your question does not answer mine, as it is completely unrelated -
Do we apply all obsolete Errata to the current edition?

No.

But we do apply precedents set when they have not been countered.

Case in point: sequential upgrades. The DE succubus model has illegal wargear without sequential upgrades. We know sequential upgrades are allowed via old ork faq that not only specifically allowed it but explained it step by step. That faq is now gone and obsolete; but the precedent was set and we still use and teach the method detailed(unless it is a model itself being upgraded)