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.

 Grimtuff wrote:
So we have reached an impasse as to what "official clarification" is interpreted as.

So, we've gotta roll off, right?

It'll only apply to this thread though. Later, in another thread, we can happily dicuss the finer points of rule clarification.

 Grimtuff wrote:
So we have reached an impasse as to what "official clarification" is interpreted as.

So, we've gotta roll off, right?

I believe we do

text removed.

Reds8n

Rolling off is an awful solution that can effectively mean "Roll a D6, on a 4+, you win."

I recall some years back there was a big kerfuffle with the Ork Deff Rolla (an upgrade for wagons that inflicted D6 S10 hits when tank shocking), and about whether it applied to Ramming attacks, since Ramming was a type of Tank Shock. (Spoiler: it was much later ruled to work in the official GW FAQ)

Imagine for example, that you're an Ork player who has designed your army under the assumption that this does work (cunningly employing it as your main source of Anti-vehicle power), and everyone in your area plays that way. In fact, it never came up as a point of discussion, because everyone you know interpreted the rule the same way. So you have no idea that it's so controversial. Then you go to a different LGS (and don't bring it up before a game, because you don't know any better), and your opponent raises a stink because he thinks you're cheating. You disagree, but neither one of you will budge. Now, if you were to roll off and lose that roll, you might as well pack up the game since you suddenly have no more anti-tank ability. At the very least, any outcome is gonna feel like you had one hand tied behind your back. Bad solution, bad game.

However, you now know to discuss this issue with your opponents in the future, which is great, right? Not really, because now whenever you encounter someone who disagrees with your interpretation of how the game functions, you are forced to build a different list or decline the game - both of which mean less opportunity to have a good time. (Presumably, you brought the first list because you enjoy it more / its more fluffy than any of your secondary lists). Any ruleset which limits the people I can have a game with (i.e. because it's so poorly written that they think they're playing UNO while I'm playing MTG) is seriously flawed and really shouldn't be defended with "Eh just talk it out."

text removed.

Reds8n

There's a LOT of issues with the rules. Considering what we pay, I expect a lot more from GW. However, sometimes I feel like rules issues mostly come up when people want to nerf something they view as OP, so they start examining the etymology of the rules looking for any possible justification to nerf it. The Ork example was a good one. GMC shooting is another good example. I made my friend look up the definition of "each" when he tried to say I couldn't shoot all 4 weapons on my WK. Psychic powers are another argument I've had. Where does the book say you can only cast as many powers as your mastery level? As far as I can see, you can attempt to cast each power you know 1 time per psychic phase as long as you have dice left.

This does not in any way excuse GW from failing to issue an official FAQ on that issue when they've gotten so many emails about it. You would think it would be more efficient to issue the ruling 1 time with a PDF on your website than to have a room full of interns replying to the same 8 rule questions via email all day long...

just use the ITC or another third party FAQ

 Toofast wrote:
Psychic powers are another argument I've had. Where does the book say you can only cast as many powers as your mastery level? As far as I can see, you can attempt to cast each power you know 1 time per psychic phase as long as you have dice left.

I agree with the rest of your post, but on this particular example you might just be running into players that are mixing their editions. In previous editions (up to at least 5th, I think) before the new Psychic phase, this is how psychic powers were limited. You basically just took Ld tests to cast powers, and you could only cast 1 per "mastery level" (and that specific terminology didn't get introduced until very recently either). IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).

 Xca|iber wrote:
IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).

There was actually never a restriction on casting more powers than your mastery level in 6th edition. It's just that, in practice you were limited to your psyker level because of the way warp charges worked. That's something that kind of caught people off-guard when 7th edition came out - the wording on the rules didn't change, but suddenly psykers had access to a pool of warp charges, and so could feasibly cast more powers than their psyker level (e.g., a level 1 librarian casting Psychich Shriek and Force). So they assumed that the intent was that they were limited to casting just one of the librarian's two power, when really there never was an inherent limit to how many they cast (you would just eventually run out of unique powers to cast).

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).

There was actually never a restriction on casting more powers than your mastery level in 6th edition. It's just that, in practice you were limited to your psyker level because of the way warp charges worked. That's something that kind of caught people off-guard when 7th edition came out - the wording on the rules didn't change, but suddenly psykers had access to a pool of warp charges, and so could feasibly cast more powers than their psyker level (e.g., a level 1 librarian casting Psychich Shriek and Force). So they assumed that the intent was that they were limited to casting just one of the librarian's two power, when really there never was an inherent limit to how many they cast (you would just eventually run out of unique powers to cast).

Ah, you're right. 6th was the introduction of Warp Charges, which dramatically changed how psychic powers worked.

Before that, it was all Ld Tests and 1 power per psyker (unless you had special rules) until the Grey Knights 5th edition codex, which introduced Mastery Levels (and 1 power per level at the time).

If a company like Konami can write clear, balanced rules for literally thousands of cards, why can't GW do it for 1500-ish bits of plastic? Best part about Konami is that YuGiOh has only had card types added to, the changes to the core rules are minimal-if-not-nonexistent (i.e Banishing was not in 1st Edition YGO) and 40k predates YuGiOh as a concept by 9 years.

EDIT: And YuGiOh is still balanced!

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
If a company like Konami can write clear, balanced rules for literally thousands of cards, why can't GW do it for 1500-ish bits of plastic? Best part about Konami is that YuGiOh has only had card types added to, the changes to the core rules are minimal-if-not-nonexistent (i.e Banishing was not in 1st Edition YGO) and 40k predates YuGiOh as a concept by 9 years.

EDIT: And YuGiOh is still balanced!

Umm, most everything I've heard about YuGiOh (and from what I remember when playing it) is that many of the cards have poorly worded rules and many cards that effectively do the same or similar things don't even have consistent wording...

And don't they have a pretty big banlist?

Yugioh isn't balanced. But if you're smart, you play online and don't buy three pieces of card for £100 each, only to see then drop in price when Konami decides to ban them so that to stay competitive you have to buy the newest op stuff.

Special summoning from hand -> special summoning from main deck -> special summon from extra deck -> replenish extra deck while still special summoning.

I stopped buying cards ages ago. I still play, but never to tournaments. The community is as toxic as 40ks. They'll allow you to do one thing, then call a judge over and say you cheated, giving you a game loss.

I'll just leave this here:

http://natfka.blogspot.se/2015/12/what-40k-erratas-and-datasheet-updates.html

Allegedly there are updates in several digital editions. Like usual, not getting my hopes up. Though the Codex: Space Marines has changes to the Force Requisition. I wonder what that is supposed to entail.

EDIT: Errata for Astra Militarium. Perhaps something fixing it so you can run the Emperor's Shield without having to field 1500 models.

Yay! GW has updated the digital editions of (almost) every single codex! They will be also be putting erratas/FAQs for every codex!

so do anybody can tell what they actualy changed?

Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.

pm713 wrote:
Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.

Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.

notredameguy10 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.

Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.

Considering that they haven't shown any evidence of a genuine or significant change and the only other thing I've seen is a blog saying they haven't seen any change I am still unconvinced.

notredameguy10 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.

Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.

Yeah, I've seen them. If you read them, you'll notice a lack of a certain something - i.e. news of even a single rule change.

All these codices have apparently been updated... and yet neither BoLS or natfka could find even a single changed rule to mention. Almost as if, say, the update hadn't actually changed anything.

Also, apparently the faqs will be updated any minute now.

Any minute...

Should be...

Right about...

Any second...

...

The faqs will be updated any hour now...

Any hour...

^^ What they said.

There's a thread in N&R about these supposed "updates" but so far nobody has actually found anything that's changed. Not to mention that there isn't actually a new FAQ (which would be where you would list any changes).

 vipoid wrote:

Spoiler:

notredameguy10 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.

Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.

Yeah, I've seen them. If you read them, you'll notice a lack of a certain something - i.e. news of even a single rule change.

All these codices have apparently been updated... and yet neither BoLS or natfka could find even a single changed rule to mention. Almost as if, say, the update hadn't actually changed anything.

Also, apparently the faqs will be updated any minute now.

Any minute...

Should be...

Right about...

Any second...

...

The faqs will be updated any hour now...

Any hour...

Yeah, BOLS and naftka lie all the time. Gets them a ton of clicks. There are not FAQs coming out, GW is a model company (as they have clearly stated), they just want you to buy their models. And maybe the books every two years when they just shake things up without net improvement. Please and thank you drones.