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.
For all practical purposes, that's not actually possible.
The rulebook (the written rule) is all that we actually have to go on when determining how to play the game. You can guess that what the book says in some particular situation isn't actually what they meant, but you're never going to do better than a guess based on your own idea of what makes sense...
What most people refer to as 'Rules as Intended' is actually more like 'Rules as I Think They Should Be Played'. RAI is a much more nebulous concept, and not actually particularly relevant since GW quite often make rulings based on what the rules wound up saying instead, even when this goes against their original intention, or will change a rule from what they originally intended in favour of something that works better.
RA(probably)I is a useful guide where a rule is unclear. But there would have been, for example, absolutely no way for players to have guessed that the intention of the rule that says that you can move freely through the walls of a ruin was for models to not be able to move through the walls of a ruin... if that was the intention, and not simply a ruling that has been made off the cuff for this FAQ.
The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/05 22:49:23
Formosa wrote: I like the people saying "it directly contradicts RAW" like Raw was a rule haha, let it go people.
Er... What is the rulebook, if it's not a book of rules...?
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things, RAW, for far too long, is used to abuse the ruleset, exploit loopholes and generally "legally" cheat, people treated it as if it was the ONLY way to resolve a rules issue, even when the RAI is crystal clear, they will claim nonsense like "you aint the dev bro, you cant know" just to defend there use of an exploit or loophole.
in short, RAW has a bad name due to TFG's
A lot of these answers fit with the RAI and the RAWTFG's (note, by using RAW, you are not TFG, but I'm specifically talking about the Exploiters) are STILL trying to pick holes or complain because there exploit or loophole has been closed.
gungo wrote: The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
Difficult terrain has always been played as essentially just a 'marker' for a type of terrain. A base with three trees on it doesn't literally represent a group of three trees... it represents a part of forest or wood, with undergrowth and any number of actual plants on it. As such, the individual elements of the terrain are largely irrelevant to movement. Trees, rocks, walls, whatever that makes up the difficult terrain, have always been no impediment to movement beyond the difficult terrain roll. Previous editions have explained this in the case of ruins as models forcing their way through dilapidated walls as necessary.
The current detail doesn't really go into detail on movement through difficult terrain, so it is admittedly a little strong to call this particular ruling a clear contradiction of RAW. It is certainly a change from how it's commonly been played, though.
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things,
They're really not.
All of the rules in the rulebook are Rules as Written. A space marine having a 3+ save is RAW. A rapid fire weapon firing 2 shots at half range is RAW. A BS4 model hitting on a 3+ is RAW.
The term gets a 'bad name' because people try to associate it with rule-bending arguments... but where a rule is unclear, the 'abusive' interpretation is no more or less 'RAW' than any other valid interpretation of the rules as they appear in the book.
on reading the BRB and the FAQ ruling, I don't think the current thought on the distance 'travelled' while pivoting counts for the "no model may move more than X inches" part of the FAQ.
Here's why, from BRB ("VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE"):
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot
even pivot on the spot).
Since pivoting does not actually count as movement, the model would 'start' moving from where it was *after* pivoting. Thus, only the movement done after the pivot would count for maximum distance travelled.
Thoughts?
Nope. FAQ is, thankfully, more clever than that.
If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.
It does not matter if it counts as "movement" or not, as the measurement is calculated using it's position at the start of the movement phase, no matter how it got there. I think this ruling is absolutely bulletproof. "It" is the part of the model, not the model. All parts must remain within the distance as it was from the beginning of the phase.
Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
The FB guys started to respond to some questions.
Well, sort of. Right now they are telling people to type their question in the relevant image's page, so that it would be easier for the rules guys can find and answer them.
I asked if MCs and vehicles benefit from being partially in cover, of if they need to be 25% obscured like the big guys.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Those who are saying you can still use more than one grenade in cc, or that you can target but not hit on Skyfire blasts or who still think you can deploy in a BBs transport;
I'm willing to bet that if you suggested the above interpretation to GW, they'd flat out say no.
I mean really, who would intend to say yeah you can target but not hit.
In fact, it would probably be more helpful to suggest a more accurate phrasing than insist that the phrase be interpreted in a way that makes no sense. Small nuance but big difference.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
godardc wrote: So, you can target a zooming FMC with a blast weapon if you have skyfire, but blasts can't hit a zooming FMC ?
What did I miss ?
Q: Do Blast weapons hit Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures?
A: No.
Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.
They obviously mean for Skyfire Blasts to be able to hit flyers, they just didn't think of it when answering that, the same way they didn't when writing it in the rule book. I'm sure they'll clarify,
This would help the Heldrake / Baleflamer to, plus ignores Cover.
Do remember that as of may 7th Heldrake likely will not have skyfire anymore.
Dont all flyers have sky fire?
Not anymore. Only Fighter class Flyers do. Attack and Bomber Flyers do not have Skyfire anymore. Heldrakes are Attack Flyers.
1.Mmmm so far '1's being re rolled can't save plasma users...even more reason for me to take meltas then...
2. Thought beating a walker counted as beating a unit in CC and would let a unit consolidate.
3. Ha so being in a reallllly tall building can stop jump pack troops from charging as they have to move 'up' to get you.
4. More reasons to use meltas...blow up the enemy transport, charge the unit getting out of it.
5. If your a flyer or flying monstrous creature hide behind tall buildings.
6. "Q: If both players have models in base contact with a gun emplacement, which player controls it?
A: They both do." WHHHHHHAAAAT?! "My quad gun!" "No my quad gun!"
7. I'm liking how 'if x does y' and 'y prevents x' they just cancel each other out.
8. Stronghold Assault is now officially obsolete
9. "Q: Do allies who are not Battle Bothers contest objectives?
A: Yes." Soooo does this mean my allies can LOOSE me a battle or just contest against an opponent?
10. "Q: Can I use Apocalypse Formations in non-Apocalypse games?
A: No. " HA! Thank you!
11. "Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No. " Welp so much for my plan of putting Repentia in an allied LR Redeemer. Maybe they can deploy behind it and get in on the first turn. Guess this does stop some Drop Pod hijinks though...still T-T.
My beloved 40K armies:
Children of Stirba Order of Saint Pan Thera
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
/sigh
The Rules p. 73 wrote:
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling around. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always down from the cenre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicle cannot move over friendly models.
That is the full quote from the rule book, emphasized exactly as it appears. Now, let me highlight the pertinent portion:
The Rule p. 73 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
This combined with the FAQ paints a pretty clear picture and is in no way contradictory. If all you do is pivot on the spot, you don't count as having moved. If you pivot and then move, no point on the model may move further than the vehicle's movement speed from its original spot.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Eldarain wrote: Doesn't playing vehicle movement that way just further widen the gap between vehicles and MCs? Just turning around decimates your remaining movement.
Pretty much. Every vehicle will be affected by that ruling- it's basically saying pivoting does count as movement.
/sigh
The Rules p. 73 wrote:
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling around. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always down from the cenre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicle cannot move over friendly models.
That is the full quote from the rule book, emphasized exactly as it appears. Now, let me highlight the pertinent portion:
The Rule p. 73 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivot in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
This combined with the FAQ paints a pretty clear picture and is in no way contradictory. If all you do is pivot on the spot, you don't count as having moved. If you pivot and then move, no point on the model may move further than the vehicle's movement speed from its original spot.
Spoiler:
That's not what anyone's worried about(pivoting on the spot and not moving). It's pivoting and then moving now costs you movement.
For example- a Dark Eldar Raider is 6" long. It pivots 180°, and then moves forward 6". Before the FAQ the model had only moved 6". Using the new FAQ, after turning 180° the Dark Lance on the prow has moved 6" due to the pivot, then a further 6", for a total of 12" from its original position.
EDIT: Looking again, you're saying that was how it was supposed to be played to begin with, and the FAQ just clarified it. I'm stuck in an older edition I guess. I was wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/06 04:08:37
Wow. I really hope they don't screw this up. It's doing my head in trying to go through this. All the stupid questions. And the people arguing just because a ruling nerfs their army (of particular note is the limit on psychic powers cast effect on Librarius conclave). The bad rulings. The contradictory rulings. Two different rulings that are essentially answering the same question. This FAQ is going to be 20+ pages long.
For all practical purposes, that's not actually possible.
The rulebook (the written rule) is all that we actually have to go on when determining how to play the game. You can guess that what the book says in some particular situation isn't actually what they meant, but you're never going to do better than a guess based on your own idea of what makes sense...
What most people refer to as 'Rules as Intended' is actually more like 'Rules as I Think They Should Be Played'. RAI is a much more nebulous concept, and not actually particularly relevant since GW quite often make rulings based on what the rules wound up saying instead, even when this goes against their original intention, or will change a rule from what they originally intended in favour of something that works better.
RA(probably)I is a useful guide where a rule is unclear. But there would have been, for example, absolutely no way for players to have guessed that the intention of the rule that says that you can move freely through the walls of a ruin was for models to not be able to move through the walls of a ruin... if that was the intention, and not simply a ruling that has been made off the cuff for this FAQ.
Hey by any chance did you use to have a signature pic of a slann mage priest giving the middle finger?
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
I would have like to have been in the room as whomever was assigned to do this FAQ read some of these questions - the collective eye roles alone probably caused 'an orbital wobble'.
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
3rd Company (3000 points)
gungo wrote: The problem is you are likely taking the walls of the ruin out of context.
RAI seems to me the rules team was saying in that specific question you can't walk through solid walls such as the walls of a shrine of Aquila However you can go over them.
The actual movement rules doesn't say you are allowed to go through all terrain. It says you can move through OR over it.
In other words why would anyone chose to go over terrain when you are allowed to completely ignore it and walk through walls.
Difficult terrain has always been played as essentially just a 'marker' for a type of terrain. A base with three trees on it doesn't literally represent a group of three trees... it represents a part of forest or wood, with undergrowth and any number of actual plants on it. As such, the individual elements of the terrain are largely irrelevant to movement. Trees, rocks, walls, whatever that makes up the difficult terrain, have always been no impediment to movement beyond the difficult terrain roll. Previous editions have explained this in the case of ruins as models forcing their way through dilapidated walls as necessary.
The current detail doesn't really go into detail on movement through difficult terrain, so it is admittedly a little strong to call this particular ruling a clear contradiction of RAW. It is certainly a change from how it's commonly been played, though.
Playing by the rules and RAW are two separate things,
They're really not.
All of the rules in the rulebook are Rules as Written. A space marine having a 3+ save is RAW. A rapid fire weapon firing 2 shots at half range is RAW. A BS4 model hitting on a 3+ is RAW.
The term gets a 'bad name' because people try to associate it with rule-bending arguments... but where a rule is unclear, the 'abusive' interpretation is no more or less 'RAW' than any other valid interpretation of the rules as they appear in the book.
Case in point right here, whatever its original meaning, the Term RAW is seen as a synonym for rules abuse, if the rule is clearly being abused, its clearly not what was intended, or do you believe, as badly as the rules are written by the designers, that they wanted the rule abused, don't get me wrong, I have seen people try to abuse RAI, but nowhere near the extent as RAW, a lot of the new rulings seem to be RAI, even as some have commented, directly conflicting with RAW, this is a clear sign to me that the designers want people to try and garner intent, rather than doggedly following RAW.
chaosmarauder wrote: Thought of the day - you know they aren't lawyers writing these rules right? There is a reason that legal documents are written the way they are. They have to be horribly long and detailed aka 'lawyer speak' to actually be ironclad. There is a way to think yourself around every rule especially with how complicated 40k is. I think some of us need to not look too far into a rule sometimes and just see it for what it is. Because none of us want the BRB to be rewritten by a lawyer to make it 'ironclad'.
No, they're a group of writers writing professionally for a multi million pound company...
Other companies can write tighter rules. What makes GW so special?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
I am going to be overly pedantic and say that because the Relics of the Phalanx says "Units in Imperial Fists Detachments that can normally take items from the Chapter Relics list...", that I can take two relics on my Librarian. He is a unit, and he can take itemS. And it isn't like I am going to take something insane. I am giving him the Bones of Osrak (okay, this one is a bit potent for five melta bombs) and the Spartean (a frickin' bolt pistol for the price of a melta bomb). It isn't like I am giving him the BoO and Shield Eternal.
CoteazRox wrote: Ok, didn't know the new rules yet. How will the Eldar Hemlock be classed?
It is an attack flyer. I am going to open a thread if no one has about the new flyer rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Different note.. did anyone catch this?
Q: What method is used to resolve potentially conflicting special rules (e.g. a Dark Talon’s Statis Bomb’s Vast Stasis Anomaly vs Reanimation Protocols)?
A: The two rules cancel out and neither is used.
And the precedence this sets. Is it safe to assume that this applies to all special rules that would happen simul?
As a quick example a debate over culexus assassin and seer council (success on 3+ / success on 6+)
If it is indeed the case that they just cancel out and have no effect that means the seer council is effectively acting as normal. Similarly if a librarious does emperic channeling, it can bypass the culexus and cast normally.
Granted there is still the warp charge penalty to deal with regardless... but just saying this would knock out a few more YMDC debates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/06 11:44:53
Formosa wrote: , this is a clear sign to me that the designers want people to try and garner intent, rather than doggedly following RAW.
If that were actually the case, there would be little point publishing an FAQ...
All it actually shows is that there were some rules that people found unclear or that didn't say what they were supposed to say.
Which is likely why they didn't bother with faqs before as their contstant refrain weas talk it through - or what seems right, rollla dice.
Maybe they just dont play with people who analise every specific phrase and bit of grammar, sometimes looking specificially for an exploit. We have all seen the latter.
Now we have FAQ - finally - but there are still people twisting and turning to make the words say what they want....
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
(more)
(building)
(less)
~4100
~1660
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
Children of Stirba 
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Shadowkeepers (4000 points)
