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.

gungo wrote:


Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Yes, I asked about Shrike.

(Shouldn't have to, the wording is clear. Before deployment, he can only join Jump Units is how his rule is worded.

The FAQ ruling on infiltrate only applies during deployment.

All IC's are shown to be joined to a unit during deployment.

Therefore, Shrike can join a Jump Unit, and confer Infiltrate because he attaches before Deployment begins. But its written vague enough for people to question it, despite the history of the character and rule. )

That argument doesn't work, though, because there is no mechanism for joining ICs to units prior to deployment (other than putting them into reserves).

So Shrike's rule, as written, does nothing more than add an extra restriction to something that he doesnt have permission to do in the first place.

Or the rule actually grants that permission.

It doesn't, though. The rule as written is a restriction - when he joins a unit prior to deployment, that unit can only be Jump Infantry.

There is no permission in that. Just a restriction, with the assumption that a particular action (joining units prior to deployment) would normally be allowed.

The really stupid thing about this issue is that it's been there since Shrike was first introduced in 4th edition. The eventually fixed it by changing the IC rules in an FAQ towards the end of 5th edition... and then dropped that change out of the switch to 6th edition.

surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Why should we believe that what the rules say is not what they intended? Especially in light of a FAQ that reinforces that as their intention?

Okay, sorry for my possible ignorance,(and off topicness), but what is the rule for if not to allow him to infiltrate with his wing?

It's supposed to work that way, probably, but GW wrote every other rule in the game to make sure it doesn't work.

RAI only comes up when the rule isn't clear. Rules are very straightforward here, and they contradict his at every step. FAQ might fix it.

Requizen wrote:


RAI only comes up when the rule isn't clear. .

Hmm. Why is this? Surely every rule is written to convey an intention?

 Mousemuffins wrote:



Hmm. Why is this? Surely every rule is written to convey an intention?

...you must be new to GW.

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Sure. Just as the intention was obvious in the 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex, when GW decided to require you to join an IC to a unit when you were writing your list in order to give them a transport.

It would be nice for the rules to actually say what they mean though, rather than just hint at it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Sure. Just as the intention was obvious in the 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex, when GW decided to require you to join an IC to a unit when you were writing your list in order to give them a transport.

It would be nice for the rules to actually say what they mean though, rather than just hint at it.

Reminds me of the old Initiative Boosting Weapon vs Banshee Masks/Tyranid Lash Whips (reduce enemy I to 1 in assault) debate... The intent was so very clear when GW produced two opposite answers in two different FAQs, despite the Banshee Mask and Lash Whip rules reading almost identically. (As an aside, of course the Tyranids got the shafted ruling )

On topic: I'm looking forward to seeing answers when they come out. Hopefully we get something thoughtful this time instead of more confusion...

I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

I, wondering if they are going to release this with the he anniversary weekend, and then can say they love us so much that they are doing everything we ever asked during this celebratory time. A few lucky customers will even get a pony!

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

General Hobbs wrote:

gungo wrote:


Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Yes, I asked about Shrike.

(Shouldn't have to, the wording is clear. Before deployment, he can only join Jump Units is how his rule is worded.

The FAQ ruling on infiltrate only applies during deployment.

All IC's are shown to be joined to a unit during deployment.

Therefore, Shrike can join a Jump Unit, and confer Infiltrate because he attaches before Deployment begins. But its written vague enough for people to question it, despite the history of the character and rule. )

insaniak wrote:That argument doesn't work, though, because there is no mechanism for joining ICs to units prior to deployment (other than putting them into reserves).

So Shrike's rule, as written, does nothing more than add an extra restriction to something that he doesnt have permission to do in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Or the rule actually grants that permission.

insaniak wrote:It doesn't, though. The rule as written is a restriction - when he joins a unit prior to deployment, that unit can only be Jump Infantry.

There is no permission in that. Just a restriction, with the assumption that a particular action (joining units prior to deployment) would normally be allowed.

The really stupid thing about this issue is that it's been there since Shrike was first introduced in 4th edition. The eventually fixed it by changing the IC rules in an FAQ towards the end of 5th edition... and then dropped that change out of the switch to 6th edition.

Mousemuffins wrote:surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

It's the Internet. What do you expect!

And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

Davor wrote:

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

The whole point of asking for badly-written rules to be clarified is to remove the potential for argument over the meaning of the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

That's a spectacularly one-sided version of that discussion.

'Equal to their mastery level is not the current RAW. And 'how it's been in ever previous edition' is not a reliable metric for rules interpretation, since stuff changes in every edition.

Davor wrote:
Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

Except that it's only like 1% of special rules that require discussion. The rest of the game is relatively straightforward if you have a cursory understanding of the BRB and your own Codex.

 kodos wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

I hope so- getting rid of most of the randomization of things like Warlord Traits, Objectives, and Psychic Powers would go a long way to getting me to play more often.

I wouldn't count on that. Random is GWs current method of avoiding having to balance anything. Even if 8th edition doesn't turn out to be AoS In Space, I would be surprised if it's any less random than the current rules.

 insaniak wrote:
I wouldn't count on that. Random is GWs current method of avoiding having to balance anything. Even if 8th edition doesn't turn out to be AoS In Space, I would be surprised if it's any less random than the current rules.

Ah, but a man can dream! Hopefully the Age of Rountree will see some tightening down on random tables. We appear to have gotten some other good things already(cheapish starter sets, return to social media, return of specialist games).

 Crazyterran wrote:
I, wondering if they are going to release this with the he anniversary weekend, and then can say they love us so much that they are doing everything we ever asked during this celebratory time. A few lucky customers will even get a pony!

A pony sounds delicious heheh

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

I hope so- getting rid of most of the randomization of things like Warlord Traits, Objectives, and Psychic Powers would go a long way to getting me to play more often.

Expect it to get more random with the next edition (and morecsimplke mechanics that get much more complex rules)

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

The whole point of asking for badly-written rules to be clarified is to remove the potential for argument over the meaning of the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

That's a spectacularly one-sided version of that discussion.

'Equal to their mastery level is not the current RAW. And 'how it's been in ever previous edition' is not a reliable metric for rules interpretation, since stuff changes in every edition.

Do you own a rulebook? Read it again, it's right there in bold lettering. Unless you're trying to be difficult, are choosing to be blind or you're That Guy, it's irrefutable.

The bold you are referring to states

"The number of psychic powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now show me where that relationship is defined.

Is it 1 power per ML? 7? Is it 0.5?

Your assumption that it equates to 1:1 is not supported anywhere in the rulebook. It is a fair assumption, but that's all it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The bold you are referring to states

"The number of psychic powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now show me where that relationship is defined.

It actually is defined in the Resolving the Psychic Phase section. The higher your mastery level, the more warp charge you generate and the more powers you can cast per turn. That section contains no prohibition on psykers casting more than 1 power per mastery level.

This is in danger of turning into a YMDC thread (again) but I've just checked that section, albeit quickly, and I can't find that clause?

 oni wrote:

Do you own a rulebook? Read it again, it's right there in bold lettering. Unless you're trying to be difficult, are choosing to be blind or you're That Guy, it's irrefutable.

It's really not.

As Azrael13 pointed out, the introduction to the psychic section mentions a relationship between Mastery Level and casting, but doesn't actually define it. That intro is a direct copy and past from last edition, when that relationship was a 1 for 1 deal... but the rest of the psychic phase rules have changed, and that direct correlation no longer exists. Instead, we have a psychic section that explicitly allows you to keep casting powers until you run out of warp charges.

So either it's supposed to be limited by your mastery level but they accidentally left that bit out of the rules, or it's supposed to be limited solely by the number of warp charges you generate and they didn't realise that the copy-paste intro would cause issues... but which of those possibilities is the right way to play it is in doubt. Hence the need for an FAQ.

Given the current games' strong leanings towards second edition, my personal assumption is that it's only supposed to be limited by warp charges, as that's how it worked in 2nd edition.



It's hardly the only problem with the current psychic rules...