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:
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1) an FAQ for an out of date codex that is still available.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)

There is still no permission for dorns arrow to benefit from bolter drill.
Out of date FAQ available or not, is still out of date. Whatever permissions granted are specific to the codex the FAQ was issued for and not applicable as a precident to other codicies unless stated as such.
Tiggy counts because IIRC he is specifically named for said detachment.
Your arguments do not support your case as they are all based on permission being explicitly given. None such permission is being given for dorns arrow.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning and concept of precedents.

Precedent is when there has been a past ruling on a matter. Until that ruling is overturned it remains in place as a reference for other similar situations.

A simple example of a precedent is the oft touted and incredibly important case of Roe v. Wade; that case wasn't about whether abortion should be legal, it was about the woman's right to make that decision even if her partner does not want her to do so. She won the case in the supreme court which is no the only court that could overturn that decision.

GW is our supreme court. They have made a decision and until they state otherwise that decision remains valid no matter what the current edition of the rules we are in.

We can look to the same FAQ for an example of them changing their decision: the FAQ calls the Force Halberd an "unusual force weapon" with str as user, ap3 and +2 initiative. In the new dex they have changed it to effectively a non-unwieldy twohanded force axe(well it is just plain a nemesis force halberd but that is effectively the statline).

And yes FAQs for 1 codex are often used as precedent for issues in another codex, even here on dakka. If the situations are very similar and there is not yet an FAQ on the new situation, we use the old ruling. I don't think you have been around long enough to remember who Gwar was(forum poster, not the band); but new FAQs with opposite rulings were happening all the time back in 4th and 5th, he actually got banned several times for flipping out about it. The situation with those were that we had an FAQ from 1 codex, a new codex came out with a similar issue to one in the previous FAQ, we used that precedent, GW released an FAQ for the new codex and overturned their previous ruling(sometimes, albeit rarely, they would even change the old FAQ), when we had conflicting current FAQs we decided there was no precedent available(all would be case-by-case generally resorting to "discuss it with your opponent").

No, permission to one codex from a out of date FAQ does not equal permission to another.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im aware of what precidents are, im saying that in a permissive rule set, they dont matter

They can matter and shouldn't be ignored.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
They can matter and shouldn't be ignored.

They can, when applied to their specific situation and codex. Not applied willynilly to everything.

Dorns arrow is not a storm bolter, barring a 7th ed space marine faq change, it wont be a storm bolter.

If walks and talks like a duck...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If walks and talks like a duck...

House rule it however you want. RAW it is not a storm bolter

That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to agree.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to agree.

Except it isn't an opinion. Nowhere in his rules is Dorn's Arrow stated to be a Storm bolter except under the fluff bit. If the writers wanted it to benefit, they would've made note of it.

I bought the model last nite to have a look... It's definitely a bolter.

I would argue....going along GW love of forge the narrative, have fun, most important rule, etc....that they would appreciate Dorn's Arrow using the Bolter Drill rule, and not arguing that its not a stormbolter and doesn't get the rule.

HIWPI - Yes

RAW - does most important rule count as RAW? it should!

That's an awesome attitude !

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I would argue....going along GW love of forge the narrative, have fun, most important rule, etc....that they would appreciate Dorn's Arrow using the Bolter Drill rule, and not arguing that its not a stormbolter and doesn't get the rule.

I would hazard a guess that if you asked a GW rules writer about this, they would look at you with a puzzled expression and say "of course it benefits from bolter drill". They clearly have a "chuck it in the feth it bucket" attitude when it comes to writing tight rule-sets.

Anyhow, I don't really have anything else to add to this thread - I don't think there's any reason that italics would affect the rules in the way people in this thread are describing (and so I think RAW is unambigously that Dorn's Arrow doesn't benefit from bolter drill). But I would concede that the italics do obviously matter from a HIWPI stance, since there's no reason to be slaves to the rules in a casual setting if you think you would have more fun with house rules.

It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

 kronk wrote:
It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

This .

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 kronk wrote:
It says Dorns Arrow is a storm bolter, and that's good enough for old Kronk.

This .

Where in it's profile is it named as a storm bolter?

It's not a storm bolter, house rule it however you want to, but in RAW it is not a storm bolter.

It's not the end of the world.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's not the end of the world.

exactly, it's not a storm bolter by RAW so why is it a big deal to some people? lysander has Imperial Fists tactics but can't benefit from it since he has no shooting, i don't see why its a big deal that pedro doesn't either.
models are not profiles, they are representative of the text in the book and a combination of rules profiles. Dorns arrow just happens to fluff wise be a storm bolter but rules wise not be due to how his weapon is layed out and presented via it's profile. without a solid and current space marine FAQ to resolve this perceived inconsistency it will stay as it is, Dorns Arrow, a str4 ap4 assault 4 weapon.

You're cracking me up.

If it came down to it I wouldn't let my opponent roll it as a storm bolter.

RAI it's not even clear because the intention is clearly that the rules is to synergize with a storm bolters profile, not a specialty weapon.

RAW will win this one out, it's not a big deal. Precedent isn't enough when we don't even know the RAI.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You're cracking me up.

You're the one claiming the HIWPI in this thread as the correct way. You're cracking ME up.

Italics and fluff don't have anything to do with the game's rules. That's a simple fact. Fluff is only flavor.