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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

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Outdated FAQs are not applicable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.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

It says it is a storm bolter, an ancient and venerated one.

Seems cut and dried to me.

 mattyrm wrote:
It says it is a storm bolter, an ancient and venerated one.

Seems cut and dried to me.

Where in the profile statline does it say it is a storm bolter?

Kel,
When you looked at more modern Errata related to questions where 'Fluff can trigger Rules,' what did you find?

If we are going to talk about precedent, which isn't something everyone accepts to begin with, we can't ignore the precedent set by those very deliberate changes.

JinxDragon wrote:
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?

And again, you're still working under the assumption that the FAQ actually changed the rules by allowing the italicized text to be used to determine if pulse weapons were affected by the plasma siphon. There is evidence that they have consider the italicized text for rules purposes, now the onus is on you to prove that the rules do not allow you to consider the italicized text for rules purposes. Failing any definitive proof one way or the other, all we have is GW's track record on the matter which says it is possible.

JinxDragon wrote:
Kel,
When you looked at more modern Errata related to questions where 'Fluff can trigger Rules,' what did you find?

If we are going to talk about precedent, which isn't something everyone accepts to begin with, we can't ignore the precedent set by those very deliberate changes.

The most recent where it was addressed dropped 1 and kept the other. This is the gk faq(for the old book but still available last time i checked): they changed the plasma siphon to reflect the inquisition codex wording, but the"what counts as daemons" question is still there and still counts Mandrakes, posessed, and obliterators(although they may have gotten the daemon rule this edition; i don't really think too much about them), along with a pretty big list of other units.

Actually, i just verified, gk old codex faq is still available for download direct from gw.

Do you know why that works? Because a statment was added to make it work. No such luck with dorns arrow.

Permissive rule set

Precedent doesnt matter unless you have explicit rules supporting a specific situation.

Plasma syphon being changed is not dorns arrow

Ghaz,
What does the deliberate changing of these pieces of Errata, to remove these references, say to you?

Where the traditional and iconic weapons of the IF and succesors is the bolter, and it is included in the fluff for the weapon, why WOULDN'T Dorn's Arrow (named after the primarch, in addition) be considered a bolter weapon? GW is notorious for inconsistent editing and contradictions. Isn't it possible that GW's mistake in this is that they left one word out of the statline by mistake? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

WaughGoff wrote:
Where the traditional and iconic weapons of the IF and succesors is the bolter, and it is included in the fluff for the weapon, why WOULDN'T Dorn's Arrow (named after the primarch, in addition) be considered a bolter weapon?

Because the actual rules don't say it's a storm bolter, the fluff does. There's a lot of rules in the game that don't jive with the fluff, and Pedro's weapon not working with Bolter Drill is one of them.

GW is notorious for inconsistent editing and contradictions. Isn't it possible that GW's mistake in this is that they left one word out of the statline by mistake? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Not only possible, but I think likely. I think the RAW are quite clear, but the rule writing committee probably just didn't think through the implications of the rules. Assuming incompetence on GW's part is always a safe bet.

Wow, you rules lawyer types are real witches. Not much fun to play against, eh? Being right for the sake of being right... Good work, ladz.

Us "Rules Lawyer types" are usually rather laid back come game time. We're almost always this bad just in a forum devoted to discussing rules (or lack thereof).

Seeing how crappy Dorn is it really worth all the fuss ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Seeing how crappy Dorn is it really worth all the fuss ?

Pedro? He is actually quite good with all of his special rules. Dorn's Arrow itself is blah though.

Pedro got Artificer Armor this edition, so he's a heckuva lot more useful than he was before.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Wow, you rules lawyer types are real witches. Not much fun to play against, eh? Being right for the sake of being right... Good work, ladz.

I run tournaments in my area (Magic previously, 40k and X-Wing more recently), so being a witch about rules is kind of important if we're going to have any semblance of a competitive game experience. If you're just playing with your friends, then whatever. Pedro isn't a particular competitive model in the first place, so there's not much harm in letting him use Bolter Drill.

If you look at the model it's obviously a stormbolter.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you look at the model it's obviously a stormbolter.

irrelevant.

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

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.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

The bold underline is adressed in the brb as a fluff bit. It says that some cover saves means the firer has actually missed or not taken a shot as his wondow of opportunity was to short. This a use in the main brb of fluff directly effecting the rules.

I agree that the raw is fairly clear here, but I'd happily allow it, it looks like a storm bolter, smells like one, so I'd have no issue

 HANZERtank wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

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.

St celestine would never be removed as a casualty or killed during a game based on fluff.
Orks could outside of a greentide, whaggg everyime they wanted to.
Grav guns would ignore cover since they crush you inside your armor
Grey knights would abosolutly wreck demons, and then players would have to kill any non GK units allied in their army if we follow fluff.

Unless its included in the profile of the wargear: name, range, str, ap, special rules. It isnt part of the weapon unless explicitly stated otherwise in the profile.
40k is permissive.

The bold underline is adressed in the brb as a fluff bit. It says that some cover saves means the firer has actually missed or not taken a shot as his wondow of opportunity was to short. This a use in the main brb of fluff directly effecting the rules.

Thats not fluff effecting rules, its narrative.
The miss is not changed, just the reason for it is.

RAW, no. It's not included in Bolter Drill, nor is it called a Bolter or Storm Bolter in its rules.

If it had said, 'Dorn's Arrow is a storm Bolter with the following profile:' that would have been one thing. But fluff does not equate to rules.

Otherwise marines would be relentless, Celestine unkillable, and the special character captains would be good in combat.

Back to infernus as a bad example; its 2 profiles are for the individual modes. The profile for dorn's arrow is just a shooting profile with no name.

The only thing we have for the arrow is the relic's name, then a fluff bit telling us it is a stormbolter, then a ranged profile.

And St Celestine is an incredibly bad example as we are talking about the italics in the rules; not character background/unit description in plain text(also via her act of faith and fluff she is unkillable, if she "dies" on the field she mysteriously shows up somewhere else)

And where does it ever say marines are relentless(alone, not as an adjective)?

Finally the sc captains are good in close combat, compared to a single or even a few basic marines.

Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings. Thus, it is not a storm Bolter.

The gauntlets of macragge only counted as one weapon last edition because they did not have any rules stating they were two weapons. Now they do. Three weapons, even, if you include the Bolter.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings.

And has been asked numerous times, where are we told that the fluff has no rules bearing?

Well it's obvious fluff does have some bearing on the rules - they don't write them in a vacuum.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Right, and the fluff bit has no rules bearings.

And has been asked numerous times, where are we told that the fluff has no rules bearing?

Actually Ghaz, you have it backwards. In a permissive ruleset, you need permission to use fluff as rules.

Where does GW state the status of the italicized text? We have one, out of date FAQ that used the italicized text for rules versus no general statements to the contrary. Hence the 'maybe' when a rule that applies to storm bolters applies to a fluff statement that an item "... is a storm bolter..." This one FAQ question, no matter its current status casts doubt on how GW sees fluff printed in the rulebook affecting the rules as they gave no reasoning for the answer in the FAQ or if it was just a clarification or an actual rules change.

Why can the previous answer be used as evidence if intent, but the fact the answer was changed is to be completed ignored?

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does GW state the status of the italicized text? We have one, out of date FAQ that used the italicized text for rules versus no general statements to the contrary. Hence the 'maybe' when a rule that applies to storm bolters applies to a fluff statement that an item "... is a storm bolter..." This one FAQ question, no matter its current status casts doubt on how GW sees fluff printed in the rulebook affecting the rules as they gave no reasoning for the answer in the FAQ or if it was just a clarification or an actual rules change.

Permissive rule set. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Back to infernus as a bad example; its 2 profiles are for the individual modes. The profile for dorn's arrow is just a shooting profile with no name.

The only thing we have for the arrow is the relic's name, then a fluff bit telling us it is a stormbolter, then a ranged profile.

And St Celestine is an incredibly bad example as we are talking about the italics in the rules; not character background/unit description in plain text(also via her act of faith and fluff she is unkillable, if she "dies" on the field she mysteriously shows up somewhere else)

And where does it ever say marines are relentless(alone, not as an adjective)?

Finally the sc captains are good in close combat, compared to a single or even a few basic marines.

So we can pick and choose what fluff is equates to rules and what fluff does not?

Permissive ruleset; we have been given permission in 2 cases:
1) an FAQ for an out of date codex that is still available.
2) extrapolation from rules that exist in this current codex(sc captains count as captains without any backing rules; sc chaplains are the same; tiggy counts as a librarian in the formation that calls for them).

As I have pointed out several times: if the fluff concerns actual rules(like stating a specific weapon is a particular rules weapon, or a special character is a particular rules unit); then that fluff counts as part of rules per the last official word of gw design team.

I never said all fluff counts; I was very specific in what fluff counts. That is not my opinion; that is the evidence we have been given. Fluff related to rules is rules. If the fluff has its own related rules those trump anything to do with the fluff(specific trumps general)