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.

I emailed them and they are going to get back to with me an official ruling.

 Aijec wrote:
I emailed them and they are going to get back to with me an official ruling.

They will be getting back to you with a ruling, maybe (they aren't very diligent about that). It will not be official.

It would have to be in their errata sections on the website, or in a book, to be official.

They used the word "official within the e-mail. Doesn't get more official than that.

Your email isn't verifiable to anyone other than yourself, however. You cannot authenticate to anyone here that this is from fw and hasn't been altered.

Can't you use NosNet to verify this email?

They haven't given me a ruling yet, but they specifically said that they are forwarding my query to the design team, and that only they can make updates or FAQs and that all the people I am talking to now can do is SUGGEST house rules or interpretations.

Indeed, Frequently Asked Questions are how they do 'Official Rulings.'

Yes, but you're missing the point

You get an email back. Awesome. It purports to be from the design team. Better.

Now, you need to persuade others of it. Trouble is emails can be forged. Headers can be tampered so the email appears to come from another email address. Etc.

I'm sure the people around Aijec are reasonable and lack a boss pole up a hole

Here is the interaction I had with Forge World so far.

I removed my name for privacy reasons

1st email from me:

Hello Forge World I have some requests for clarification of rules or updates for the following items that are on your website.

The first is the special character Sevrin Loth. His rule states that" at the beginning of his player turn, by expending a warp charge..." However warp charges are not generated until the beginning of the psychic phase which would mean it is impossible to use his invulnerable save ability.

Second, the Fire Hawks Chapter Tactics special rule Speed and Fury states "All Assault squads and Vanguard Veteran squads chosen as part of this detachment count as scoring units". However in 7th edition all units except zooming flyers and swooping monstrous creatures are scoring so this rule is outdated.

Next is Mantis Warriors which states " in addition, any Mantis Warrior Librarians may generate Psychic powers from the Divination discipline.." All space marine librarians may generate powers on Divination so the rule does nothing for them.

Finally, The Raptors references the Strike from the Shadows special rules in Codex Space Marines Raven Guard chapter tactics. This rule no longer exists/ does what it did in the 6th edition codex and needs updated.


Thank you for your time,

1st response:

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:01 AM BST, Forgeworld <forgeworld@gwplc.com> wrote:
Hi -----,

Thanks for your email.

In accordance with Imperial decree 6789123476924 I have forwarded your rules question on to the writing scriviners who will take them into account for upcoming corrective documents (FAQ's).

As a customer service team we are able to offer suggested house rules, thoughts and our own interpretation of rules but are unable to issue official rulings, this can only be done by the company design teams that publish the official rules in either PDF updates or printed and digital publications which will become available in time.

In the mean time I would recommend that you discuss your question with your gaming group and see what great answers you can come up with! Don't forget there is always The Golden Rule that will help you out in most situations.



If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.


Regards,
Forge World



If you have a query about your order, please call
0115 900 4995 within the UK

banner 1





--
Gary Shaw
forgeworld@gwplc.com

2nd email from me

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM BST, ---------- <----------> wrote:
Thank you for your response.
What are your suggested house rules or thoughts on the aforementioned issues then?

For a few of them the special rules they have are just redundant and do not actually benefit them ( Fire Hawks and Mantis Warriors) but for the Ravenguard successor chapter it is unknown if it should continue to use the old rules or use the ravenguards new chapter tactics.

And of course Sevrin Loth's ability seems a bit odd to have if it is illegal to use.

2nd response

Hi ------.

We suggest that in the meantime for the Raven Guard Successor Chapters youl should use the Raven Guard Chapter tactics. For Sevrin Loth you would need to generate the Warp Charge that you want to use to power his armour in the Psychic phase as normal and the effects will last until the beginning of his next Psychic phase.


How would you rate my reply?
Great Okay Not Good


If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.


Regards,
Forge World



If you have a query about your order, please call
0115 900 4995 within the UK

banner 1





--
Tris Buckroyd
forgeworld@gwplc.com

Thanks for the update!

I'm sure whoever replied is unfamilar with the fact that Raptors are not Raven Guard and have never used their AM part of the chapter tactics and instead have the option of rending bolters.

It is a nice House Rule too, highly recommend!

Currently the rules page that would contain Sevrin is down on Forgeworld. We may be seeing a rules update!

I also find it odd the attitude is that the rules are broken so they do nothing in this thread. I wonder if the people arguing against using Loth's armour play the Psychic phase and D weapons RaW (as in they do nothing) too?

On a forum devoted to debating the Rules, with Rule as Written being the default state of that debate...
Are you really that surprised?

Yes because rarely do these same posters just say D weapons don't work on D weapon questions. Then tell everyone that they are using houserules if they want their D Weapons to work and that they shouldn't try to force opponents to play by those houserules. Like they have in tjis thread (ditto for the Psychic phase though there is an acceptance it is broken they still look for a solution or assume the most commonly adopted solution).

Why don't d-weapons work?

You roll on the table for each model hit. No models are ever hit (units are) so you never roll on the table. This break causes all sorts of wound allocation issues.

That's not what the Destroyer rules say

"To resolve a Destroyer weapon’s attack, roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration."

Seems pretty functional to me.

Yes and the table says "the model..." in every entry. What model? That is the issue the disconnect between unit level rules (rolling to hit and to wound) and model level rules (allocating those wounds and making saves). This is a common problem with the rules (Preferred Enemy is a repeat offender).

 FlingitNow wrote:
I also find it odd the attitude is that the rules are broken so they do nothing in this thread.

It's not that odd when we've had examples in the past of GW telling us to ignore rules that are rendered non-functional by an edition change.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I also find it odd the attitude is that the rules are broken so they do nothing in this thread.

It's not that odd when we've had examples in the past of GW telling us to ignore rules that are rendered non-functional by an edition change.

That is generally when a function has gone away. Not due to a timing change causing a rule to "break" as is the case here. Everything works but the time shift of when WC is generated. If generating warp charge had completely gone I'd agree the rule is broken and there's no obvious fix (like items that allowed auto pass priority checks became useless when priority checks went away).

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is generally when a function has gone away..

Which is exactly what happened here.

The rules that this ability relied on changed, and so this ability no longer functions.

They shifted time they didn't go away. Warp Charge is still generated just now in the new Psychic Phase opposed to the start of the turn. So why don't you take this "the rules don't work so the rule is useless" approach to the psychic phase and to D weapons for example?

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is generally when a function has gone away..

Which is exactly what happened here.

The rules that this ability relied on changed, and so this ability no longer functions.

So the character just breaks? Don't be ridiculous.

I guess part of the reason I don't understand this viewpoint is the intention.
Why the stubbornness? We know iron clad 100% what the ability is supposed to do. Lore supports it, previous rules support it, RAI supports it and even the actual representatives of the game support it. The only thing you are clinging to is a technical issue that was created due to the natural shift from edition to edition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Be prepared to fight Sevrin Loth with a 2++ from his armor of selket.

 Aijec wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is generally when a function has gone away..

Which is exactly what happened here.

The rules that this ability relied on changed, and so this ability no longer functions.

So the character just breaks? Don't be ridiculous.

I guess part of the reason I don't understand this viewpoint is the intention.
Why the stubbornness? We know iron clad 100% what the ability is supposed to do. Lore supports it, previous rules support it, RAI supports it and even the actual representatives of the game support it. The only thing you are clinging to is a technical issue that was created due to the natural shift from edition to edition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Be prepared to fight Sevrin Loth with a 2++ from his armor of selket.

Yeah often it is like arguing with religious Zealots. RaW is all mighty and can not be contradicted except when it doesn't suit them then RaW can be ignored. Like with D Weapons and the Psychic phase they are all for playing RaI but here they completely reverse their stance (or drawing LoS from eyes in 5th). Here the fix is actually more obvious than for the Psychic Phase and D Weapons and neater. A bit like the Grav weapons by passing cover and invuns for vehicles in 6th...

If they were consistent they would atleast have my respect if not my agreement.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why don't you take this "the rules don't work so the rule is useless" approach to the psychic phase and to D weapons for example?

I have the exact same approach to the rule currently under discussion here as I do to those other rules - They currently don't work, and so need some form of agreement from the players.

You've apparently misunderstood my comment. I never said I wouldn't allow Loth to function in a game. I merely pointed out why it wasn't particularly odd for people to think that a special rule rendered non-functional by an edition change should be ignored.

What I do find odd is this attitude from some posters on here and I've never seen it with regards to other broken rules like D Weapons etc:

"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."

"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."

"RAW: it can't be used. 

That's really the only consensus you're going to get."

"Because obviously Loth's other special rules, like guaranteed invisibility are not worth enough. The fact is that this moment Sevrin Loth is an outdated character who clearly has special rules that are not compatible with the current edition. You just simply should not play him in 7th edition. To me this seems a bit similar to a Guard player trying to field Macharius or me trying to Field Naaman etc. They are not in the current book, they are not compatible with the rules anymore, don't field them. Loth is obviously much more compatible than the examples I mentioned that haven't been updated since 4th edition (?). Nevertheless, if your opponent lets you use that HOUSE RULE and activate Loth's armour and therefore begin the next phase at -1 warp charges you have to understand that random opponents have zero obligations to play by your house rules if they don't agree with them. 

There are no rule errors here, Loth's rules are just outdated."

I would love to handicap armies that rely on psychers and D weapons. I'll look into those arguments and decide for myself their validity. I don't have D, and rarely touch a weird boy. If I do it's always inappropriately.

But a brief look at your argument here is that because I believe a rule written for a different edition of the game by a separate (if now owned by the same) company is outdated and needs an update before I'm cool with you fielding it, rather than using house rules, I should also have a problem with a rule in the new edition that was meant to work as written, but due to poor rules writing is broken?

FratHammer wrote:
I would love to handicap armies that rely on psychers and D weapons. I'll look into those arguments and decide for myself their validity. I don't have D, and rarely touch a weird boy. If I do it's always inappropriately.

But a brief look at your argument here is that because I believe a rule written for a different edition of the game by a separate (if now owned by the same) company it's outdated and needs an update before I'm cool with you fielding it with house rules (outside a tournament where a TO has made his ruling) I should also have a problem with a rule in the new edition that was meant to work as written, but due to poor rules writing is broken?

Forgeworld is not a different Company. Heck it is even based in the Nottingham offices with the regular design team.

If you see a broken rule with a fairly obvious fix, is your attitude that the rule is broken RaW so does nothing or us it, lets fix that wording?