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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

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..

You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?

This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...

Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.

 insaniak wrote:

You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?

Nah, they have a bunch of novelists writing the rules. They need some statisticians.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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..

You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?

This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...

Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.

insa, did you use to have a slann mage priest from lizardmen in you avatar pic giving the middle finger?

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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..

You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?

This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...

Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.

Yes and no - they are employed to make a enjoyable game that sells itself and models - emphasis on the sell stuff. The car analogy only works if you are talking about how understandable is the car manual.

You don't get into a car and say - ah right if I turn the wheel I go right - "now does that mean that I can go left as well as the manual on page 34, subsection 45, paragraph 7, word s 9-24 does not say I can't or upwards as it does not say I can't. So therefore I must be able to go upwards...................

Now should the rules be better written - hell yeah - but I am just saying I don't think that the instruction to the workers creating the rules system is make it a full legal document and watertight. Its more like -

"Here are some new model, and a page of background - make a game that we can sell these models for. You have two weeks to make it playable by your average person....... GO"

Even if someone notices a sloppy bit of grammar and flags it up - with "you realise that a person could do X or Y" they will probably be told - why would they? Its just a game with some toy models, Why would they want to do that to their friends?

I really think that's how they work.................

They need to fire a lawyer to proof the ruleset tbh.

 Konrax wrote:
They need to fire a lawyer to proof the ruleset tbh.

Agreed! Fire one everytime starting with the ones they had in the Chapterhouse debacle.

Silentz wrote:
Can I ask a really nooby question about this one...

Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Does this only count if they are a different faction, or if they are in different detachments?

Let's say I take something like this...

Inquisitorial Detachment

Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment

including units like
5 sternguard in a drop pod
9 man squad in a rhino

Space Marines Formation Detachment (Librarius Conclave)

DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment

Spoiler:

“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”

This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex

Spoiler:

“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.

mhelm01 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment

Spoiler:

“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”

This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex

Spoiler:

“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.

What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.

ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

mhelm01 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment

Spoiler:

“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”

This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex

Spoiler:

“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.

What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.

yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.

It does though. If models are from different detachments, but are from the same factions they are not Battle Brothers. They are the same faction. AM and SM are Battle Brothers; not the same faction. Ultramarines and Ultramarines are the same faction and therefore not Battle Brothers. They can deploy in each others transports. I have added the quote DarknessEternal was replying to in my original post.

mhelm01 wrote:
It does though. If models are from different detachments, but are from the same factions they are not Battle Brothers. They are the same faction. AM and SM are Battle Brothers; not the same faction. Ultramarines and Ultramarines are the same faction and therefore not Battle Brothers. They can deploy in each others transports. I have added the quote DarknessEternal was replying to in my original post.

Look at the Allies Matrix. The same faction are indeed Battle Brothers.

 redleger wrote:
ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

mhelm01 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment

Spoiler:

“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”

This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex

Spoiler:

“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.

What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.

yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.

Scout redeployment has the models move up to their movement value, which is why it always counted as moving.

Deployment does not have that happen.

I can see that, but it didn't say move, it said redeploy, which is why we never played it as movement.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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..

You realise that the guys who write the rules are actually employed to write rules, right?

This argument is sort of like suggesting that it's understandable if the back doors on your new car don't work, because the guys who designed it probably only sit in the front...

Regardless of their personal preferences, considering what happens if someone tries to use the back doors is simply part of the job.

Yes and no - they are employed to make a enjoyable game that sells itself and models - emphasis on the sell stuff. The car analogy only works if you are talking about how understandable is the car manual.

You don't get into a car and say - ah right if I turn the wheel I go right - "now does that mean that I can go left as well as the manual on page 34, subsection 45, paragraph 7, word s 9-24 does not say I can't or upwards as it does not say I can't. So therefore I must be able to go upwards...................

Now should the rules be better written - hell yeah - but I am just saying I don't think that the instruction to the workers creating the rules system is make it a full legal document and watertight. Its more like -

"Here are some new model, and a page of background - make a game that we can sell these models for. You have two weeks to make it playable by your average person....... GO"

Even if someone notices a sloppy bit of grammar and flags it up - with "you realise that a person could do X or Y" they will probably be told - why would they? Its just a game with some toy models, Why would they want to do that to their friends?

I really think that's how they work.................

I agree with you.

Also, as a guy who plays and enjoys tabletop games, I have never really understood the need to judge tabletop games by how airtight the wording of their rules are. It's just a game....

Incidentally, lots of legal documents written by lawyers, including the vast majority of laws including a good chunk of the US constitution, have ambiguity, and sometimes purposely so, so as to allow the executors of the laws the benefit of executing them based on their interpretation. Billions of dollars are spent every year to try to argue the interpretation of those words. But... again... 40k is just a game, and the prize for winning is not millions of dollars or the right to express oneself in a certain way

 Talys wrote:

Incidentally, lots of legal documents written by lawyers, including the vast majority of laws including a good chunk of the US constitution, have ambiguity, and sometimes purposely so, so as to allow the executors of the laws the benefit of executing them based on their interpretation. Billions of dollars are spent every year to try to argue the interpretation of those words. But... again... 40k is just a game, and the prize for winning is not millions of dollars or the right to express oneself in a certain way

For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).

Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.

That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.

And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.

blaktoof wrote:

 redleger wrote:
ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

mhelm01 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:If they are models from different detachments, they follow the ally rules in every way.

Factions are just always Battle Brothers with themselves.

In summation: no, you cannot put any of those librarians in any of those transports.

This statement is not true. If it were, one would be allowed to take an allied detachment of the same faction as their primary detachment.
From BRB Allied Detachment

Spoiler:

“All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).”

This is how it is explained for Marines in the codex

Spoiler:

“Allied Detachments
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

As long as they are drawn from the same Chapter they are the same faction. Not battle brothers.

What you posted doesn't contradict what Darkness posted.

yes, this all day long. You can take as many detachments as you want from the same codex, allied detachments can not be taken from the same codex as per the rules. This prevents the ally FOC from being abused. They are the same faction.

Scout redeployment has the models move up to their movement value, which is why it always counted as moving.

Deployment does not have that happen.

Actually no it doesnt. It says if X unit type redeploy this distance, otherwise redeploy this distance. It has zero to do with the units actual movement speed.

Big change I noticed is that now you dont HAVE to infiltrate if you have the infiltrate rule. Means that people like strike are not screwed lol.

 redleger wrote:

ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?

hmm so lets look at the two FAQs that I think are relevant.

Q: Does a unit that is embarked in a Scout vehicle count as having made a Scout move?
A: Yes.

Ok so this guy first. Scout is a redeploy and is not movement as per the brb as it stands prior to the FAQ. So this I don't even know how could be abused.. maybe scout vehicle.. guys inside scout the vehicle again? that seems ridiculous.. but in either case this just clarifies that if the vehicle makes the scout redeploy, that the men inside also count as having done that.

Q: If you Infiltrate a unit of Pathfinders from a Ranged Support Cadre and then move them via their Scout special rule, does the unit count as having moved from their starting loc
A: yes

Interesting, so this pertains to the text summarized by "if the pathfinders move from there starting position for any reason or fire markerlights they lose shrouding". So this FAQ is clarifying that scout counts as having the model move from it's original position, but not necessarily 'move' as it counts in the movement phase. meaning scout removes shrouding.

So to summarize, in either case this is clarifying not an errata changing the text "redeploy" to "move (counts as having moved in the movement phase) ".

Atleast that is my take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:

Big change I noticed is that now you dont HAVE to infiltrate if you have the infiltrate rule. Means that people like strike are not screwed lol.

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Shrike is good to go!

*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Shrike is good to go!

*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!

Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:

Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.

A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Shrike is good to go!

*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!

Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:

Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.

A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.

Isn't that the other way around? They're talking about an Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule.

I thiught the problem with Shrike is that he has the Infiltrate special rule but can only join jump infantry. SM don't have jump infantry with Infiltrate.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Shrike is good to go!

*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!

Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:

Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.

A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.

Except Shrike is the one with Infiltrate, not the VV. It doesn't limit ICs WITH Infiltrate in any way.

I don't believe their intention was to change the previous FAQ forbidding a unit without the Infiltrate special rule from being joined by an Independent Character with the rule. I see it more as a clarification that they can't join even if the Infiltrate special rule is not being used.

 Ghaz wrote:

Incorrect. From the first question in the 'Independent Characters' FAQ:

Q: Infiltrate rules state that an Independent Character without Infiltrate cannot join a squad of Infiltrators. Does this mean a squad that is actively Infiltrating or just any unit that has the Infiltrate rule? This matters for things like Outflank (granted freely by the Infiltrate rule) and Infiltrate units that have Deep Strike.

A: An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment, whether they are Infiltrating, Deep Striking, Outflanking or deploying normally. They are free to join units as they wish after deployment.

As others have stated; This is specifying a one way relationship... HOWEVER you were CORRECT to bring it up... it does make the FAQ that I posted kind of an eye brow raiser. Hopefully in the final draft they clean up these somewhat conflicting FAQs.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).

Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.

That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.

And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.

It's not about there being something on the line... For me, it's just irritating having to stop in the middle of the game to figure out how something is supposed to work, That's valuable game time a-wasting.


That doesn't necessarily require rules to be written like a legal document, but if they're written the way GW writes rules, then they at least need to be supported and clarified. Hence why the lack of FAQ support from GW for so long has been so annoying for so many players.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 redleger wrote:

ok, need help on this. If scout redeployment counts as movement, which it didn't before, then isn't all deployment movement? wouldn't this affect non relentless models with heavy weapons on first turn?

hmm so lets look at the two FAQs that I think are relevant.

Q: Does a unit that is embarked in a Scout vehicle count as having made a Scout move?
A: Yes.

Ok so this guy first. Scout is a redeploy and is not movement as per the brb as it stands prior to the FAQ. So this I don't even know how could be abused.. maybe scout vehicle.. guys inside scout the vehicle again? that seems ridiculous.. but in either case this just clarifies that if the vehicle makes the scout redeploy, that the men inside also count as having done that.

Q: If you Infiltrate a unit of Pathfinders from a Ranged Support Cadre and then move them via their Scout special rule, does the unit count as having moved from their starting loc
A: yes

Interesting, so this pertains to the text summarized by "if the pathfinders move from there starting position for any reason or fire markerlights they lose shrouding". So this FAQ is clarifying that scout counts as having the model move from it's original position, but not necessarily 'move' as it counts in the movement phase. meaning scout removes shrouding.

So to summarize, in either case this is clarifying not an errata changing the text "redeploy" to "move (counts as having moved in the movement phase) ".

Atleast that is my take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:

Big change I noticed is that now you dont HAVE to infiltrate if you have the infiltrate rule. Means that people like strike are not screwed lol.

Q: Are models with the Infiltrate special rule allowed to not use the rule to deploy and then charge normally in the first turn?
A: Yes.

Shrike is good to go!

*EDIT* I thought you said HAVE to infiltrate.... still relevant! YAY Shrike is not useless!

Excellent, you make sense, and now that I re-read it I 100% agree. Not a movement, just counts as not being in its original location, thus losing shrouded bonus. Glad you pointed that out.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

I would say no based on the FAQ.

Fragile wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

I would say no based on the FAQ.

They haven't stated 100% yet but this question has been asked and they are still going to do book specific stuff separately over the next few months.

ERJAK wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

I would say no based on the FAQ.

They haven't stated 100% yet but this question has been asked and they are still going to do book specific stuff separately over the next few months.

Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.

A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/

 morganfreeman wrote:
A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/

Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."

Neronoxx wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/

Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."

I wish they would admit their mistakes. If the BRB is wrong, according to their original intent, just say so, and release an errata. This whole bs of writing an FAQ that is the exact opposite of what the BRB says, and then pretending they were right all along, just sucks.

Well, it won't be long now, hopefully. I wonder how far they will comb through the grenade rants before they just give up and do it our way. Or will they just give up and say "screw you, grenade users! Buy 10 and use 1!" We'll know soon.