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.

RAI in 7th i'd play his ability at the start of the psy phase.
Does ETC have erratas about him somewhere?

So you are saying RAI in a social game have no meaning? That being a reasonable person and not deny a person a choice in unit selection is more important than what poor rules GW wrote?

I have a case of how RAI is possible and would not in anyway affect the game in anyway besides making a character functional. But you would deny that so that a person would have an advantage?

Also Daemons have received a FAQ, they are according to GW actually RAW and RAI, FW is a different case.

 Quickjager wrote:
...But you would deny that so that a person would have an advantage?

Allowing this gives a person an advantage. There is no fair outcome for this. One side gets an unfair advantage regardless of how you play it. I choose to play RAW because that is objective evidence that both players have available and can agree on. I don't have to make assumptions on what some writer i don't even know intended the rules to be because there is no way to know.

That is a faulty argument that FW is leaving it RAW is RAI. If it was RAI that the 2++ could not be used (ever), then there would be no point having it written. However the more compelling argument is that as it IS still written, it was intended to actually function in the game.

Also I already took into account you may be a SM player, that is why I did not specify the player in question who would have the advantage, (one's disadvantage is the other player's advantage in this game).

 Quickjager wrote:
That is a faulty argument that FW is leaving it RAW is RAI. If it was RAI that the 2++ could not be used (ever), then there would be no point having it written. However the more compelling argument is that as it IS still written, it was intended to actually function in the game.

It was RAI when they wrote it 2 years ago. They could have changed their intentions after having written the 6ed rules. Those changed intentions are why they haven't bothered updating it.

But since we cannot read their minds we must either accept what they wrote before to be RAI or throw this line of argument out as neither side has conclusive proof of that matter. If you want I will email them and post it here to end this. Better yet we both email them.

 Quickjager wrote:
But since we cannot read their minds we must either accept what they wrote before to be RAI or throw this line of argument out as neither side has conclusive proof of that matter.

Exactly. Which is why trying to play the game RAI is stupid. Its all baseless conjecture and any idea can be rationalized. I can't prove that what I thing RAI is more correct then yours and you can't prove that what you think is RAI is still correct.

That only leaves playing RAW. Which means Sevrin Loth can't make 2++ save and Daemons of Tzeentch aren't better at casting psychic powers.

I have more proof that my RAI is more correct than what you believe by the fact that prior to the rule change it WAS intended. Don't think you can wriggle out of that. Prove me wrong, ask FW, if you are correct that Loth was not meant to have a 2++ in 7th edition I will send you a Imperial Knight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course if you are wrong... want to make a wager on your side?

 Quickjager wrote:
I have more proof that my RAI is more correct than what you believe by the fact that prior to the rule change it WAS intended. Don't think you can wriggle out of that. Prove me wrong, ask FW, if you are correct that Loth was not meant to have a 2++ in 7th edition I will send you a Imperial Knight.

You have proof of what was RAI in 6ed. You have no proof of what is RAI in 7ed. You are just assuming it would still be the same. You no more proof then I do.

Also Tenets of You Make Da Call #2:
The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

So you are running away from the wager then? What a shame. Either way if you wish to continue being disingenuous about RAI feel free to tell people not to play armies they genuinely like.

A person such as yourself must be delightful to discuss Mastery Levels with, which I think we would also have diverging views on.

Also Daemons of T as Robisagg said already ARE better at casting psychic powers due to the fact they will perils less. You should choose a better parallel.

Why would I waste my time on a wager where neither parties have proof to support either side. Its like betting on a single coin flip. You'd be a fool to make that wager.

You know in the previous daemon codex, daemons didn't even have any psychic powers. if I were like you I would have foolishly assumed that they still wouldn't have any psychic powers when their 6ed codex came around that

Apologies for mistaking you as a fool.

EDIT; Also your example is again horrible, Loth is a subset of SM codex which has already been updated, we know drastic changes are not the issue here. Rather a specific is at issue, feel free to bring it up again if you think you have chance at being correct.

CA - It's obvious the intent otherwise they wouldn't have written the rule plus this is how it's always been played. But yeah you can be a jerk about it.

Just wanted to add to this flamewar a bit of precedent.

As per Nova FAQ which was published Aug.1 of this year:

"Activating Magister Sevrin Loth’s Armor of Selket does not require a psychic test and it cannot be nullified."

If you go up against him I'd be prepared to play vs him with a 2+ invuln.

 Aijec wrote:
Just wanted to add to this flamewar a bit of precedent.

As per Nova FAQ which was published Aug.1 of this year:

"Activating Magister Sevrin Loth’s Armor of Selket does not require a psychic test and it cannot be nullified."

If you go up against him I'd be prepared to play vs him with a 2+ invuln.

1. Stupid tournament rulings are stupid.
2. Changes nothing. You still don't have a warp charge to spend when it needs to be activated by RAW.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Aijec wrote:
Just wanted to add to this flamewar a bit of precedent.

As per Nova FAQ which was published Aug.1 of this year:

"Activating Magister Sevrin Loth’s Armor of Selket does not require a psychic test and it cannot be nullified."

If you go up against him I'd be prepared to play vs him with a 2+ invuln.

1. Stupid tournament rulings are stupid.
2. Changes nothing. You still don't have a warp charge to spend when it needs to be activated by RAW.

NOVA's one of the premiere tournaments Warhammer has....

RAW means nothing when a character breaks from edition to edition. The RAI is clear enough here that I'm comfortable playing this as a 2+ invul.

To OP: I believe if you want to use old rules or outdated characters, yet the new edition of the game, you suffer all changes that make you worse or better.

To QJ: Does your rules changes only apply to FW? Because I'd love to get my biker boss from 4th ed back because he didn't get an update... Just saying. But if you're blaming FW and only FW models get your special house rules I will be taking my 400pt big mek and stompa at face value against you, Sir.

So long as you play it as part of the Dread Mob feel free to, you need all the help you can get with that godforsaken list.

The fact of the matter is you refuse to acknowledge RAI solely because you can't touch Loth, because of another rule he has nothing to do with. A case of ill-intentioned players trying to force their views upon people with illogical arguments.

Your Biker Boss did in fact receive a update, it is in the 7th ed book.

 Quickjager wrote:
So long as you play it as part of the Dread Mob feel free to, you need all the help you can get with that godforsaken list.

The fact of the matter is you refuse to acknowledge RAI solely because you can't touch Loth, because of another rule he has nothing to do with. A case of ill-intentioned players trying to force their views upon people with illogical arguments.

Your Biker Boss did in fact receive a update, it is in the 7th ed book.

^ This clearly.

Everyone agrees RAW.

(W)ritten as INTENDED, has to mean Loth has the ability to get a 2++. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in the rule. It is INTENDED that he gets a 2++.

At that point since it was originally ruled that he activates the 2++ in his movement and there are no WC until a phase after due to RAW (NOT RAI) it then passes to HIWPI.

Some people would play it as no accepted at all.
Some people would say it is activated in the psychic phase and either can or can't be denied.
Whilst others would play it that it is activated in the movement phase but means 1 less WC in the psychic phase and either can or can't be denied (although saying that it can be denied at this point takes you further down the rabbit hole).

RAW you can't use it. RAI (intent) is obvious as the rule wouldn't even exist otherwise. HIWPI is actually what people are arguing about and disguising it as RAI.

FratHammer wrote:
To OP: I believe if you want to use old rules or outdated characters, yet the new edition of the game, you suffer all changes that make you worse or better.

To QJ: Does your rules changes only apply to FW? Because I'd love to get my biker boss from 4th ed back because he didn't get an update... Just saying. But if you're blaming FW and only FW models get your special house rules I will be taking my 400pt big mek and stompa at face value against you, Sir.

I totally agree, unfortunately this case is a little different as the rule just doesn't work RAW. It's not a matter of indirect nerfs or buffs. It just broke the functionality of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Everyone agrees RAW.

(W)ritten as INTENDED, has to mean Loth has the ability to get a 2++. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in the rule. It is INTENDED that he gets a 2++.

At that point since it was originally intended that he activates the 2++ in his movement and there are no WC until a phase after due to RAW (NOT RAI) it then passes to HIWPI.

Some people would play it as no accepted at all.
Some people would say it is activated in the psychic phase and either can or can't be denied.
Whilst others would play it that it is activated in the movement phase but means 1 less WC in the psychic phase and either can or can't be denied (although saying that it can be denied at this point takes you further down the rabbit hole).

RAW you can't use it. RAI (intent) is obvious as the rule wouldn't even exist otherwise. HIWPI is actually what people are arguing about and disguising it as RAI.

This sums up what I've found on the internet from various tournament FAQ's and other forums.

Tournaments are letting the rule work RAI so just be prepared to fight Sevrin's with a 2++

I hope we've been at least a little helpful Aijec, have fun with your game.

I agree completely with Poly Ranger.

No our actual biker boss did not. FW has one from IA:8 and a fluff portion of our 7th ed codex mentions him, but he has no data slate for 7th.

And I don't know his rules other than what was written here, but I wouldn't care if he had terrible or great rules, I just want people to play by the rules. Poorly written and outdated as they are. If you choose to play the 7th ed course rules use 7th ed data slates. If, and only if, your codex has not been updated I will grant you help and work with you, but if you want to bring outdated rules to an updated game, you take the hits. We don't know what rules he'll keep when/if he receives an update. So play him RAW.

Because RAI, he was never intended for 7th edition. So I'm fine with playing you 6th ed where he works, but if we're moving forward, we're moving forward.

FratHammer wrote:

Because RAI, he was never intended for 7th edition. So I'm fine with playing you 6th ed where he works, but if we're moving forward, we're moving forward.

Completely incorrect, that's like saying the CSM codex was never intended to be played with7th edition. It's not like FW has just forgotten about these models.

You can still purchase Loth and it's an awesome model.

They were not. 6th ed codices were intended for play in 6th edition. Why would you think they were made for 7th especially when made years before 7th edition?

Of course they try to make rules that don't completely make their codices obsolete when they make a new edition, but they don't make codices to last through editions, or were never get updated codices.

FratHammer wrote:
They were not. 6th ed codices were intended for play in 6th edition. Why would you think they were made for 7th especially when made years before 7th edition?

Of course they try to make rules that don't completely make their codices obsolete when they make a new edition, but they don't make codices to last through editions, or were never get updated codices.

There's a difference between being made for 7th and being intended to play with 7th edition rules.

Do you not think they plan to have some codices lagging behind when new editions come out?

I believe GW has no idea what they are doing. FW even less so. They stopped doing FAQs and Errata. You know to update their own books to be compatible with new editions. They intend to just not care if they are compatible.

Not caring is not intending. So, yes. I do believe they don't.

 Quickjager wrote:
I have more proof that my RAI is more correct than what you believe by the fact that prior to the rule change it WAS intended. Don't think you can wriggle out of that. Prove me wrong, ask FW, if you are correct that Loth was not meant to have a 2++ in 7th edition I will send you a Imperial Knight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course if you are wrong... want to make a wager on your side?

I'm about to e-mail them about it myself actually. I'll probably ask them to update the Fire Hawks and the Ravenguard Successor Chapter while I'm at it to.

If you want I can PM you the response or post it in the thread even though the staff that designed the rules and models apparently has no say in how they are interpreted.

Post what they say here as others are curious, but do keep in mind that it is not actually the design staff responding but some general staff or "call centre agent."
They often mention this outright in their replies, informing us that they have no power to make 'official Rulings' but are only suggesting House Rules.