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.

Naw wrote:

Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.

While obvious stuff may or may not need to be included in an FAQ, it often is.

I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.

It doesn't show that at all, though. It shows the intent now. The intent when the book was actually written is anybody's guess... it quite often won't match how GW rules it in an FAQ later on.

 insaniak wrote:

Naw wrote:

Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.

While obvious stuff may or may not need to be included in an FAQ, it often is.

And often leads to really bad answers. Battle Brothers in Transports during Deployment, for example.

 insaniak wrote:

I'm very happy to see logic win in so many cases, showing what the intent has been all along.

It doesn't show that at all, though. It shows the intent now. The intent when the book was actually written is anybody's guess... it quite often won't match how GW rules it in an FAQ later on.

And that "intent" may even change between the Draft and "Live" depending on feedback and people answering those questions going back and looking at what they actually wrote, too. It has happened before, but is not common.

And I have seen some people's "logic" which would assert something that is not written.

 Charistoph wrote:

And often leads to really bad answers. Battle Brothers in Transports during Deployment, for example.

That's just GW being GW though.

 Charistoph wrote:

Roknar wrote:
It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.

But it is set up like the FAQ Drafts, just without the "draft" title attached.

That is kind of irrelevant. It does not say anywhere in it that it is a draft. If anything, the draft was in the Space Wolves FAQ, this is the final product.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Roknar wrote:
It's not part of the faqs. It's an individual post on their facebook page.

But it is set up like the FAQ Drafts, just without the "draft" title attached.

That is kind of irrelevant. It does not say anywhere in it that it is a draft. If anything, the draft was in the Space Wolves FAQ, this is the final product.

Let's not start that again. A mod already asked it to be stopped once.

Naw wrote:
Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.

I never said the best save situation was obvious RAW, I just said they went against the RAW. (Which was not obvious to many apparently).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.

I never said the best save situation was obvious RAW, I just said they went against the RAW. (Which was not obvious to many apparently).

It's not so much that it wasn't obvious as that the apparent RAW in that situation was a little silly in certain situations. For as long as the rules have restricted us to using a single save, most players from my experience have gone with just letting the owning player choose.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
Back on topic. If something was so obvious it wouldn't need to be in a FAQ.

I never said the best save situation was obvious RAW, I just said they went against the RAW. (Which was not obvious to many apparently).

It's not so much that it wasn't obvious as that the apparent RAW in that situation was a little silly in certain situations. For as long as the rules have restricted us to using a single save, most players from my experience have gone with just letting the owning player choose.

True, it was silly, but RAW is silly sometimes.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Codex Dark Angels FAQ HERE

This week, Dark Angels.

And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

Well, I guess they don't recognize Flyers starting in Reserves as "deploying normally".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

And there was much rejoicing!

I like that they fixed Deathwing Land Raiders. They don't come in Turn 1, but they at least come in.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

Well, I guess they don't recognize Flyers starting in Reserves as "deploying normally".

Or they recognise that the complete "tense" of the rule is during deployment, when flyers cannot deploy at all. And that they wrote the "either" to apply to all units either starting on the board or all units starting in reserve, and that having only part of your formation deployed breaks the explicit ride

And, you know. The rules name

Exactly as I said.

Is the C:SM and C: DA rule on apothacary upgrades inconsistent?

Ffyllotek wrote:
Is the C:SM and C: DA rule on apothacary upgrades inconsistent?

No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And indeed answers that "strike as one" definitely means "as one" and not "as two".

Well, I guess they don't recognize Flyers starting in Reserves as "deploying normally".

Or they recognise that the complete "tense" of the rule is during deployment, when flyers cannot deploy at all. And that they wrote the "either" to apply to all units either starting on the board or all units starting in reserve, and that having only part of your formation deployed breaks the explicit ride

As I said, Flyers starting in Reserves is not "deploying normally".

The phrase "deploying normally" could be considered in a specific instance or a overall sense. Since it is never defined as an overall sense, why should we not consider it in the specific instances in which it applies?

Or in other words, it is perfectly normal for a Flyer to deploy from Reserves, but it is not normal for everything. The answer to the FAQ is taking it from the universal standard of "normal deploying".

As for it being required, Infiltrate states it as a requirement, but is still considered optional by this same group of FAQ Drafts, why does this one require it then?

Only by ignoring the overall context of the rule. A context enhanced by the rules name. A context that firmly fixes this decision as during deployment. You cannot, in good faith, disagree here.

All units either (deploy normally, start in reserves).
You have no permission to split "all units" up into separate groups, as is clearly given in the rule. This is non optional that the same decision is taken for all units.
So at deployment everything must either deploy, or start in reserves.

A flyer cannot deploy, so must be in reserves. Ergo so must all other units

QED

And reinforced by the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only by ignoring the overall context of the rule. A context enhanced by the rules name. A context that firmly fixes this decision as during deployment. You cannot, in good faith, disagree here.

All units either (deploy normally, start in reserves).
You have no permission to split "all units" up into separate groups, as is clearly given in the rule. This is non optional that the same decision is taken for all units.
So at deployment everything must either deploy, or start in reserves.

A flyer cannot deploy, so must be in reserves. Ergo so must all other units

QED

And reinforced by the FAQ.

And Infiltrate requires all units with the Special Rule to Infiltrate or be put in Reserves. But the FAQ says otherwise. Nothing states that this rule is any more required than others, but it also says that they all start in Reserve or deploy normally. Name means nothing really except to identify it.

QED.

You demonstrated nothing that countered the argument, so at best you managed "QE"

This rule gave no option, and the FAQ did not contradict.the written rule but merely reinforced it. The rules name merely gives a hint as to intent. Strike as one, not Strike in as many pieces as Charistoph would prefer

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You demonstrated nothing that countered the argument, so at best you managed "QE"

This rule gave no option, and the FAQ did not contradict.the written rule but merely reinforced it. The rules name merely gives a hint as to intent. Strike as one, not Strike in as many pieces as Charistoph would prefer

Preference has nothing to do with it. It is using the language provided. There is no universal standard that defines "deployed as normal" to being "deployed during deployment". So each can be taken as whatever their "normal" is. All this FAQ is actually doing is setting that universal standard.

The rule entire sets the context. You keep chopping bits out of the rule in the hope it supports your position.

It didn't in the prior thread. It doesn't now

Strike as one meant exactly that, they've just confirmed the plain reading.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule entire sets the context. You keep chopping bits out of the rule in the hope it supports your position.

It didn't in the prior thread. It doesn't now

Strike as one meant exactly that, they've just confirmed the plain reading.

No, I am not taking it out of context. There is no context to properly explain this previously. And using the name as the reason is more "chopping bits out of the rule in the hope it supports your position". Otherwise you would present where the rulebook actually defines "deploys normally" as "deployed during deployment".

Guys, we'd like this thread to remain open. Can you take your bickering elsewhere?

Agreed. The previous thread conclusively showed you could only take one choice, and the FAQ simply confirmed the most simple reading of the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Agreed. The previous thread conclusively showed you could only take one choice, and the FAQ simply confirmed the most simple reading of the rule.

No, the previous thread did not. It just demonstrated people's preferences in terms of reading the language.

The problem, as stated, is that there is nothing truly defined as a universal "deploys normally" or "deploys as normal".

The prior thread just demonstrated that the rule does nothing, under your reading. You rendered an entire rule redundant.

That is always unlikely to be the correct reading.

Strike as One had a meaning, and has a meaning as confirmed by the RAW FAQ answer.

Every unit must be on the board OR
Every unit must be in reserve

Thats it. Done. Your argument was shown incorrect at the time, and is proven as such now. Drop it

In agreement with Nos. Ask yourself what would be the point of a rule that didn't do anything? Now it's clarified that it actually does the way it was written, while making sense at the same time.

This should not be an issue anymore and Charistoph should just drop it.

Naw wrote:
In agreement with Nos. Ask yourself what would be the point of a rule that didn't do anything? Now it's clarified that it actually does the way it was written, while making sense at the same time.

This should not be an issue anymore and Charistoph should just drop it.

While I also agree with Nos, I feel it's fair to point out that there are plenty of examples of rules that don't do anything in the game. GW is bad at writing rules, as can be evidenced from this FAQ clusterfeth where many of the "answers" directly contradict the written rules and should actually be erratas. My takeaway from the FAQs released so far is that the written rules can't be trusted and don't actually correlate to the author's intent in any sort of meaningful way. We need a full edition rewrite written by different people and with no copypasta. Hell, contract out to FFG to rewrite the rules in their "Getting Started/Rules Reference" book format. The game would become instantly more playable.

Not to be too obvious, but a debate over how you think the FAQ is wrong should be done in the FB responses, not here. GW doesn't really care what you post here, but what you post there can effect the final draft, as seem with active changes they've already implemented. Just saying.

SJ

Kris - they have never followed a real FAQ / Errata distinction, so why you xpect differently this time around I dont know.