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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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:"

There is a difference in perception between a rule written in a 7th edition book that doesn't work (as it's fairly obviously supposed to work for 7th edition), and a rule written for a previous edition that no longer works due to an edition change.

We have no way of knowing whether that obsolete, previous-edition rule is supposed to be updated for the new edition or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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:"

There is a difference in perception between a rule written in a 7th edition book that doesn't work (as it's fairly obviously supposed to work for 7th edition), and a rule written for a previous edition that no longer works due to an edition change.

We have no way of knowing whether that obsolete, previous-edition rule is supposed to be updated for the new edition or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it.

We have no way of knowing whether that D Weapons are supposed to do something or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it...

I edited my last due to swipe and clarity.

I'll play against him in a tourny all day with a TO that's made a call. If your my buddy and want to try him out, but if you're done random dude at the game store, I'll ask you to bring another HQ, preferable from this edition. I'm not a fan of my 7th ed rules, or HQs, but I'm not going to use a unit that doesn't function properly in a friendly game with some random dude. If you push that "he's my favorite" or whine, I'm going to allow it and be on my phone doing work or typing on Dakka Dakka while you take your turns. No longer feeling invested in the game with the whiny baby.

Not saying you'd do that. Not anyone on here would. Just giving it to you strait. Bring all your scat bikes, all your wraith knights and D and 2++ rerolling. I'll be there.

To answer your question, in tournaments I follow the TO's ruling, in friendly games I just let my friends decide, in random games we generally talk it out.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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:"

There is a difference in perception between a rule written in a 7th edition book that doesn't work (as it's fairly obviously supposed to work for 7th edition), and a rule written for a previous edition that no longer works due to an edition change.

We have no way of knowing whether that obsolete, previous-edition rule is supposed to be updated for the new edition or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it.

Loth's rule is clear in terms of how it's supposed to work.

We are left to make assumptions as a community on both of these subjects. There's no indication that Loth's rules were made for 6th. In fact a stronger argument could be made that since his rules are still online they are still up to date.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We have no way of knowing whether that D Weapons are supposed to do something or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it...

Sure. We also have no way of knowing if any of the rules in the rulebook are actually supposed to function as written, or if the writer had some odd form of Tourettes that resulted in him just spewing out a bunch of mostly legible game rules that actually had no resemblance to the game he was trying to write.


What we do, in light of the lack of clarification on that, is weigh the probability of those rules being intended to work.


If a rule is written in a 7th edition publication, it's a fairly safe bet that it's supposed to work (in some fashion) in 7th edition, unless there's some compelling evidence that it is probably supposed to be ignored (like the intro to the psychic phase, for example).

Rules written for previous editions that no longer function are much more of a grey area, precisely because we've been told in the past to ignore such things.


You can lump it all in one basket, and assume that everything ever written for the game is still supposed to function in 7th edition in some fashion... but some players are going to be more comfortable just ignoring obsolete rules until such time as they are updated to the current edition.

 insaniak wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We have no way of knowing whether that D Weapons are supposed to do something or disregarded completely until (if) they get around to issuing some sort of clarification on it...

Sure. We also have no way of knowing if any of the rules in the rulebook are actually supposed to function as written, or if the writer had some odd form of Tourettes that resulted in him just spewing out a bunch of mostly legible game rules that actually had no resemblance to the game he was trying to write.


What we do, in light of the lack of clarification on that, is weigh the probability of those rules being intended to work.


If a rule is written in a 7th edition publication, it's a fairly safe bet that it's supposed to work (in some fashion) in 7th edition, unless there's some compelling evidence that it is probably supposed to be ignored (like the intro to the psychic phase, for example).

Rules written for previous editions that no longer function are much more of a grey area, precisely because we've been told in the past to ignore such things.


You can lump it all in one basket, and assume that everything ever written for the game is still supposed to function in 7th edition in some fashion... but some players are going to be more comfortable just ignoring obsolete rules until such time as they are updated to the current edition.

No part of Loth's rules indicate what edition it was meant for.

The weight of probability of Loth's rules is enough to make a player based RAI decision. It's beyond clear RAI.

 Aijec wrote:
Loth's rule is clear in terms of how it's supposed to work..

Sure.

The rules for Target Priority are also clear in terms of how they are supposed to work.

That doesn't mean that they are supposed to work in 7th edition 40K.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aijec wrote:
No part of Loth's rules indicate what edition it was meant for.

No part of any rule written by GW indicates what edition it was meant for.

That doesn't mean that every rule written by GW should work in 7th edition.

the writer had some odd form of Tourettes that resulted in him just spewing out a bunch of mostly legible game rules that actually had no resemblance to the game he was trying to write. 

Insaniak proves he is privy to the inside workings of the GW design team

The weight of probability of Loth's rules is enough to make a player based RAI decision. It's beyond clear RAI.

It's our job as players to make responsible decisions on making IA book rules and etc. to work throughout the editions when something doesn't translate perfectly.

This is probably the easiest decision there is when it comes to these scenarios.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aijec wrote:
No part of Loth's rules indicate what edition it was meant for.

No part of any rule written by GW indicates what edition it was meant for.

That doesn't mean that every rule written by GW should work in 7th edition.

Huh? Completely wrong. It's stated that 7th is the most recent update to the core rules. It shuts down all other editions.

This isn't true for Badab Wars, IA's etc.

FratHammer wrote:
I edited my last due to swipe and clarity.

I'll play against him in a tourny all day with a TO that's made a call. If your my buddy and want to try him out, but if you're done random dude at the game store, I'll ask you to bring another HQ, preferable from this edition. I'm not a fan of my 7th ed rules, or HQs, but I'm not going to use a unit that doesn't function properly in a friendly game with some random dude. If you push that "he's my favorite" or whine, I'm going to allow it and be on my phone doing work or typing on Dakka Dakka while you take your turns. No longer feeling invested in the game with the whiny baby.

Not saying you'd do that. Not anyone on here would. Just giving it to you strait. Bring all your scat bikes, all your wraith knights and D and 2++ rerolling. I'll be there.

To answer your question, in tournaments I follow the TO's ruling, in friendly games I just let my friends decide, in random games we generally talk it out.

So if I was playing against you and I had a Psyker IC in a unit and wanted to generate Warp Charge and cast powers with him you'd only let me do it if I whined and then would disengage with the game. That is what you are saying right? You must find it very difficult to have an enjoyable game.

I presume you also don't let Shrike join ANY unit during deployment unless your opponent "whines" and they disengage with the game too. This is genuinely the attitude you bring to a game of toy soldiers?

 Aijec wrote:

 Aijec wrote:
No part of Loth's rules indicate what edition it was meant for.

No part of any rule written by GW indicates what edition it was meant for.

That doesn't mean that every rule written by GW should work in 7th edition.

Huh? Completely wrong. It's stated that 7th is the most recent update to the core rules. It shuts down all other editions.

This isn't true for Badab Wars, IA's etc.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

Fling - your position fails Occams something chronic. Beyond balance of prob. a rule written in the current edition rulebook is meant to have some function in the current edition*.

However that balance gets shifted when you look into prior edition rules.

*some examples where this isnt truue would be ghazzy skull in the 4th ed Ork book, which did NOT function in 4th, but did in 5th, but the book was clearly a 5th edition codex...

So if I was playing against you and I had a Psyker IC in a unit and wanted to generate Warp Charge and cast powers with him you'd only let me do it if I whined and then would disengage with the game. That is what you are saying right? You must find it very difficult to have an enjoyable game.

I presume you also don't let Shrike join ANY unit during deployment unless your opponent "whines" and they disengage with the game too. This is genuinely the attitude you bring to a game of toy soldiers?

Again, as I responded earlier in this thread, I've never seen those arguments and will need to review them. Nor have I seen Shike's new rules. But an example of someone everyone wanted to be in a unit that couldn't be is Mephiston. (our however it's spelled) but this may be just another case of awful rules writing. Again haven't seen it, don't know which it is.

I'll check it out, but as I mentioned, there is a difference between a poorly written rule for the current edition, and an old rule written correctly for a previous edition. As I've mentioned, if we're allowing things from previous editions, especially from those of you claiming there is no way to tell what edition rules were written to be compatible for, I'd love to bring back some of my characters they stopped updating. I'm sure others would love some of theirs back too.

Hard to tell who you are directing that at. Quotes are helpful!

Shrikes current rules do not let him join any unit currently> yes, that is pretty stupid, but entirely "functional" (functionality makes no claims to intelligence)

Mephiston is now an IC, from memory. previously he wasnt.

Oh and Nos, orks were the last book right before 5th launched. It's not like they were made for the current rules. They were made for the edition launching.

Are you implying that GW has the forethought to make their books knowing rules will change in the future? Because it's pretty obvious that they don't unless the new rules are about to launch like in the example you gave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I failed at using the quote I quoted him... I'll try to edit it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was responding to Flingitnow

I am entirely aware of Orks. it was why I said it was *not* tue that the rules were meant for the edition the book launched in, due to his Skull having zero effect in 4th edition.

I am saying the exact opposite: that you can only say current edition rules should, on balance of prob, havce some function. As you move further away from the current edition, your claim to siuch gets weaker.

If you want to add in the persons name to a "hand crafted" quote, then use:

[quote=PersonsName]

I thought you were suggesting that since orks in 4th were built to work in 5th, that all codices were built to work that way.

Glad you're not.

Again, as I responded earlier in this thread, I've never seen those arguments and will need to review them. Nor have I seen Shike's new rules. But an example of someone everyone wanted to be in a unit that couldn't be is Mephiston. (our however it's spelled) but this may be just another case of awful rules writing. Again haven't seen it, don't know which it is. 

Mephiston wasn't an IC and had a MC statline so it is most likely that he was never intended to join units. In the new book he has IC but with a much toned down statline.

Shrike is an IC and hos rule hasn't change from last Edition. It appears like it wants to give him permission to confer infiltrate on to a Jump unit. However it is written poorly abd has the same issue it has always had.

Also the idea that you don't let people use rules from the immediately previous edition is frankly bizarre. So you refuse to play against Tau, AM, Nids, Daemons and CSMs right? Their rules are just as outdated as Loth's.

It is not like there aren't current rules for Loth it is just those rules haven't be FAQd for 7th and are still functioning based on 6th.

Also the fact you are completely unaware of the very common and well known RaW issues I've mentioned implies you don't look at rules in detail. Which calls into question the motivation for your strict adherence to RaW here particularly as you seem blissfully unaware of a similar rules issue from the same Faction that is in the main book rather than an obscure FW ruleset.

Atleast with Nos and Insaniak they are aware of the rules in detail. Granted like with most religions they choose which parts to stick to and vehemently defend and which parts to ignore as suits them. And granted their belief that an inanimate object is capable of thought and is an all powerful overlord that must be obeyed is very odd to me. But that is their decision. At least I know they are not arguing for some in game advantage (except in reference to KDK for Nos seems his weakness).

Case in point why RAI is important.

Captain Korvydae is stated to make Assault Marines troops. That is his function, that is the only reason to take him, however since 7th dropped we APPARENTLY, according to everyone in this thread, have not a inkling of how he would function.

Which is idiotic, we know he would simply make Assault Marines super scoring.

Chapter Master Lias Issodon, Chapter Tactics Raven Guard changed and therefore he no longer gets scout and gets Shrouded. By the opposition of Loth's 2++ we cannot give Lias his Legendary Marksmen Chapter tactics by extension because half of the CT are outdated.

When they clearly can be seen as a RAI.

Grey Knight Land Raider from Forgeworld has Psychic Pilot and Fortitude still, but we know the Codex lacks such a thing. RAI is obvious.

RaW is idiotic when the rules do not function, to continue to argue RaW and then say "but you must reach a consensus with your opponent" is unprincipled. To further deny a obvious RAI merely because you want an advantage is unethical, especially when your only argument is "well it wasn't made for THIS edition", you know.... the edition that is lauded as nearly identical BRB-wise to the last.

Frathammer, your attitude as a player is disgusting, if you are going to be disrespectful of your opponent by wasting their time simply pack it in and leave. Find someone else to play instead of acting like a child.

RaW is important simply because it allows two people who do not know or possibly like each other to sit and have a game, because they already know the rules and don't have to talk about it.

RaI is important because the game is about having FUN.

What other grounds are there for denying such an obvious RAI besides "If he gets his 6th ed. rules, I want my 5th ed. rules"? Guess what? You HAVE updated rules so you HAVE to use them, wheras this is NOT updated.

If RAI weren't accepted TO's would have no credibility to make FAQs.

Obviously that's not the case...

Fling - seriously, enough with your idea that were saying the book is anything more than it is: the authors expressly intended conveyance of how they intend the game rules to be. Yourclaiming this is not the case, and that the RULEbook with a section called THE RULES is not actually where THE RULES lie, is so utterly false its amazing

No, KDK FMC I have no issue with. Read the latest arguments, note that I am clear that given you are required to Declare flight mode, and with *any* DSR you merely "count as" with out any Declaration made, then by RAW *any* FMC can change modes by runnning. Of course this is unlikely to be correct, but it is utterly within the Rules as the author intended them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - seriously, enough with your idea that were saying the book is anything more than it is: the authors expressly intended conveyance of how they intend the game rules to be. Yourclaiming this is not the case, and that the RULEbook with a section called THE RULES is not actually where THE RULES lie, is so utterly false its amazing

No, KDK FMC I have no issue with. Read the latest arguments, note that I am clear that given you are required to Declare flight mode, and with *any* DSR you merely "count as" with out any Declaration made, then by RAW *any* FMC can change modes by runnning. Of course this is unlikely to be correct, but it is utterly within the Rules as the author intended them.

Ah the old "the design team is perfect and never makes wording mistakes" argument... Easily disproven by the number of FAQs that rule against RaW without errata. So lets not get into your inanimate objects create rules ideas.

On KDK you might want to check the thread it is absolutely false that you can ever change flight mode by running or indeed charging.

It isnt an idea, it has never been my idea, just your shoving words in others mouths again.

The rulebook is the express written conveyance of the rules, as intended by the authors. Or do you think they randomly write things with no intent to do so?

By "check the thread" you may want to cite. Would be helpful. You can indeed change flight mode by Running, this was proven. Your ideas otherwise do not have any weight.

This isn't the thread for the KDK discussion. As I said it was proven false in that thread. Want to discuss your HYWPI for DSing FMCs do it in that thread.

I also don't think this is the thread for me to yet again explain the purpose of language, the fact that the authors don't perfectly translate what they mean and the fact an inanimate object can't create ideas itself.

No, it isn't the thread for you to again posit the rule book isn't where the rules for the game can be found.

Failure to back up your stance again? Shock. Back on ignore, as you're back to old fling.

 insaniak wrote:

 Aijec wrote:

 Aijec wrote:
No part of Loth's rules indicate what edition it was meant for.

No part of any rule written by GW indicates what edition it was meant for.

That doesn't mean that every rule written by GW should work in 7th edition.

Huh? Completely wrong. It's stated that 7th is the most recent update to the core rules. It shuts down all other editions.

This isn't true for Badab Wars, IA's etc.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

It's a direct response to what you said.

Every rule written in the 7th edition BRB is indicated that it's for 7th and it replaces all other BRB's.

Badab wars does not do that nor does IA volumes. I can't make that any more clear.

So, since we seem to have moved on to misrepresenting arguments that haven't even been a part of the discussion to begin with, I think we're done here.

To summarise - Loth's rules are currently broken due to the edition change altering the way Warp Charge is generated. If you want to use him, discuss a house rule with your opponent.