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.

Nid-Veng wrote:
I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

The base counts as an access point for flyer transports.

 insaniak wrote:

Nid-Veng wrote:
I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

The base counts as an access point for flyer transports.

That's where, not how.

A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer. A Night Scythe either Zooms, is in Reserves (Ongoing or normal), or Crashed, it cannot Hover. Invasion Beams only provide access to Disembarking from the Night Scythe, not getting back on.

I am glad that they finally recognized that Praetorians have them as a Dedicated Transport, though. One less argument if that Errata makes it live.

 Charistoph wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Nid-Veng wrote:
I'm curious on the ruling for night scythes.

Question was: Can a unit embark on a nightscythe other than during deployment?
Answer: Yes

How is this possible given that night scythes do not have hover and invasion beams only talk about disembarking?

Thanks

The base counts as an access point for flyer transports.

That's where, not how.

A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer. A Night Scythe either Zooms, is in Reserves (Ongoing or normal), or Crashed, it cannot Hover. Invasion Beams only provide access to Disembarking from the Night Scythe, not getting back on.

I am glad that they finally recognized that Praetorians have them as a Dedicated Transport, though. One less argument if that Errata makes it live.

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Draco765 wrote:

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.

 Charistoph wrote:

Draco765 wrote:

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.

The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Draco765 wrote:

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.

The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.

Only by people who will accept the House Rule. That is how House Rules operate, after all.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Draco765 wrote:

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.

The matter should be handled by errata. But in the absence of a proper errata the FAQ answer stands in place of an errata.

Only by people who will accept the House Rule. That is how House Rules operate, after all.

GW FAQ are not house rules.

The GW FAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GW FAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.

An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.

col_impact wrote:
GW FAQ are not house rules.

The GW FAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GW FAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.

An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.

We've been over this. Care to point out where it states that "An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up."?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
GW FAQ are not house rules.

The GW FAQ is an official rules source and the FAQs are official updates and once finalized are an official part of the game and read as if they are actually written in the codex itself. So the GW FAQ is the opposite of a House Rule, in fact.

An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up.

We've been over this. Care to point out where it states that "An FAQ answer is a binding solution to the question brought up."?

The FAQ is a document that is an official inclusion to the codex.

col_impact wrote:
The FAQ is a document that is an official inclusion to the codex.

Tenet #1. Quote and reference to support this is any different than any previous version, please.

FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities. Errata are official rules, that replace printed rules.

SJ

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The FAQ is a document that is an official inclusion to the codex.

Tenet #1. Quote and reference to support this is any different than any previous version, please.

Randomly choosing the Dark Eldar FAQ as an example...

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX:
DARK ELDAR
Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities. Errata are official rules, that replace printed rules.

SJ

What this guy said....
People don't understand the difference of a faq and errata.
Both can change the RAW however an errata replaces or adds words in the rulebook whereas a faq clarifies ambiguities in the rules.

The second problem people have is accepting the fact thier reading of the rules is not what GW rules as intended and the failure for those players to admit they could possibly be wrong. Instead they just continue arguing how they read the rule correctly and GW is changing the rules and those faqs should be erratas..no im sorry you're just wrong and are too stubborn to admit it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities. Errata are official rules, that replace printed rules.

SJ

The faq portion of the GW FAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.


A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."


So the faq portion of the GW FAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.

 Charistoph wrote:

Draco765 wrote:

My guess is that this is bringing it back to the 5th/6th edition where Invasion Beams can also beam out units. So, you treat the base as the access point, just like you do when disembarking.

Then it needs an Errata, not an FAQ.

Other armies have many rulings that also should be handled by an errata. This one is no different than those.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
FAQs are in fact GW's houserules, RAI to clarify RAW ambiguities.

Clarifying an ambiguity doesn't make it a house rule. It makes it a clarification of an ambiguity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer.

Unless stated otherwise.


The FAQ states otherwise.

Ghaz wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The FAQ is a document that is an official inclusion to the codex.

Tenet #1. Quote and reference to support this is any different than any previous version, please.

Randomly choosing the Dark Eldar FAQ as an example...

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX:
DARK ELDAR
Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.1

Continuing on, skipping a paragraph for pertinence:

Each update is split into three sections: Aemendments, Errata and 'Frequently Asked Questions'. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or 'FAQ') section answers commonly asked question about the rules. Although you can mark corrections directly in your codex, this is by no means necessar - just keep a copy of the update with your codex.

Nothing about the FAQs being "an official inclusion to the codex" or changes their original stance on them being nothing more than House Rules on HTWPI.

col_impact wrote:The faq portion of the GW FAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.

A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."

So the faq portion of the GW FAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.

It is House Rules. It is how GW plays it in their House. FAQs, like any House Rule, only have any power to those who abide by them. Nothing in them states that they replace the written word in the books.

insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer.

Unless stated otherwise.

Hence, "normally". And can you quote where in Invasion Beams it allows for Embarking?

FAQs are houserules because they do not officially change how the rules are written, only suggesting how they would play it. If the actual authors of the rules wrote the FAQs, then we could say with certainty that FAQs are official Rules as Intended. However, we know that the people answering these rules questions are the marketing department, and quite a few of their answers contradict or out right change the rules as written. A glaring example is the recent Nightscythe ruling that allows units to embark, without addressing how, given that the rules as written expressly do not allow units to embark a zooming flyer.

That is why FAQs are never more than GW's houserules, while the Errata is an official rewrite of the rules.

SJ

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:The faq portion of the GW FAQ are official answers to questions that come up in a game. They are not house rules.

A house rule is defined as "a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place."

So the faq portion of the GW FAQ is in fact the opposite of a house rule since they are official answers meant to be officially in place anywhere the game is played.

It is House Rules. It is how GW plays it in their House. FAQs, like any House Rule, only have any power to those who abide by them. Nothing in them states that they replace the written word in the books.

Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.

What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.

Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GW FAQ a collection of House Rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
FAQs are houserules because they do not officially change how the rules are written, only suggesting how they would play it. If the actual authors of the rules wrote the FAQs, then we could say with certainty that FAQs are official Rules as Intended. However, we know that the people answering these rules questions are the marketing department, and quite a few of their answers contradict or out right change the rules as written. A glaring example is the recent Nightscythe ruling that allows units to embark, without addressing how, given that the rules as written expressly do not allow units to embark a zooming flyer.

That is why FAQs are never more than GW's houserules, while the Errata is an official rewrite of the rules.

SJ

They are officially part of the game.

And you need to stick to English as well . . .

House Rule - "a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players."

 Charistoph wrote:

insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

A unit cannot normally Embark on a Zooming Flyer.

Unless stated otherwise.

Hence, "normally". And can you quote where in Invasion Beams it allows for Embarking?

No. But I can point to the FAQ where they state that models can embark.


So regardless of what the rule seems to say, what it means is that models can embark, because the FAQ says so.

I guess the codex, the rulebook and everything else is just "house rules" now too, since they all come from the same source and that's how they would be playing this game.

This made some sense for the ITC rules since they weren't made by the company but the same argument can't be used for the company that produced the game. This has now officially devolved into "I don't like it therefore it's not canon" territory.

col_impact wrote:
Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.

What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.

Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GW FAQ a collection of House Rules.

I am not off my rocker, but apparently, you need to get off my lawn (in other words, I've been reading the FAQs for far longer than you have). Learn to read English and remember what people have stated, it is the only language I have used (Spanish is my next best communicative language, but it is horrible).

And last time I DID state where GW called the FAQ portion of the GW FAQ a collection of House Rules. It was in the explanation of their errata page before 6th Edition hit. I am trying to look up an archive page to link for you right now. The old URL apparently is: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019, but it doesn't seem to be archived properly and a current access will just take you to GW's homepage.

For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I guess the codex, the rulebook and everything else is just "house rules" now too, since they all come from the same source and that's how they would be playing this game.

This made some sense for the ITC rules since they weren't made by the company but the same argument can't be used for the company that produced the game. This has now officially devolved into "I don't like it therefore it's not canon" territory.

Source is not the problem, especially when the source has stated that they are House Rules themselves. They no longer have that posted on their website, but they really haven't stated that the FAQs are official rules changes like the Errata and Amendments, either.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Dude, you are off your rocker. By definition the faq portion of the GW cannot be House Rules. They are the official answers to rules questions and is an official update to the codex. They are the opposite of House Rules.

What you do with your buddies under your house and that deviates from GW officially endorsed rules, those are House Rules.

Stick to English, please. Or cite where GW is calling the faq portion of the GW FAQ a collection of House Rules.

I am not off my rocker, but apparently, you need to get off my lawn (in other words, I've been reading the FAQs for far longer than you have). Learn to read English and remember what people have stated, it is the only language I have used (Spanish is my next best communicative language, but it is horrible).

And last time I DID state where GW called the FAQ portion of the GW FAQ a collection of House Rules. It was in the explanation of their errata page before 6th Edition hit. I am trying to look up an archive page to link for you right now. The old URL apparently is: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019, but it doesn't seem to be archived properly and a current access will just take you to GW's homepage.

For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?

The GW FAQ is the official last word on the matter.

You are free to make up your own house rules but if you stray from the GW FAQ then you are not playing the game the way it is officially to be played.

This should be patently clear.

 Charistoph wrote:


For present day, please show how an FAQ is allowed to change a rule when an Errata and Amendment is stated to be doing that?.

It doesn't. An FAQ is a clarification of what the written rules mean.


So if the FAQ seems to contradict the RAW, we're left with two obvious conclusions: Either the FAQ is wrong, or the original written rule doesn't say what it is meant to say.

The former leaves us having to figure out which FAQ answers to accept and which to disregard, which is going to come down pretty much to whether or not we agree with them personally.

The latter lets us just take the FAQ as is and get on with the game.


Well, aside from where the FAQ contradicts itself, in which case what we're actually supposed to do is anyone's guess...

The current FAQ documents available on GW's website make no mention of them being house rules, merely that they're answers to "Frequently Asked Questions" about the rules.

Older, 4th Edition FAQs that I have archived equally says that they're meant to be used alongside existing publications. The only time they don't apply is if you're challenged for using a FAQ ruling, but didn't bring the actual FAQ to prove it (since you have no proof of the ruling).

Finally nothing on their facebook page (although it is massive so I might have missed something) indicates that these are just "House Rules". They even said that these questions are passed on to the Game Designers. Whether or not you believe they really do get passed on, this is quite literally the writers of the rules making these rulings. It's the equivalent of telling an author he doesn't understand his own book.

However I can see the whole thing as an elaborate hoax concocted by a bunch of bored teenagers, but that's an argument for another time.

The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.

SJ

Not 4 attacks, +2, pedantic but it brings murderfang up to a possible 12 on the charge.

harkequin wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The current FAQs are drafts, not official releases. The only official rules so far is the Errata stating all Astartes Dreadnoughts have 4 attacks base.

SJ

Not 4 attacks, +2, pedantic but it brings murderfang up to a possible 12 on the charge.

Yep, pedantic.

SJ

col_impact wrote:
The GW FAQ is the official last word on the matter.

You are free to make up your own house rules but if you stray from the GW FAQ then you are not playing the game the way it is officially to be played.

This should be patently clear.

As usual, you present nothing to support your claim when asked to present it.

Tenet #1, Quote it..

insaniak wrote:It doesn't. An FAQ is a clarification of what the written rules mean.


So if the FAQ seems to contradict the RAW, we're left with two obvious conclusions: Either the FAQ is wrong, or the original written rule doesn't say what it is meant to say.

The former leaves us having to figure out which FAQ answers to accept and which to disregard, which is going to come down pretty much to whether or not we agree with them personally.

The latter lets us just take the FAQ as is and get on with the game.


Well, aside from where the FAQ contradicts itself, in which case what we're actually supposed to do is anyone's guess...

So, when the rules say that a Battle Brother can Embark on a Transport, the hidden language in the invisible ink states "except for deployment"?

When it boldly goes in the face of written rules at times, I cannot see it as a clarification, but as a change. Changes are made by Amendments and Errata, not FAQs, by GW's word in their current live documents.

Well, I can't find a quote in the rulebook that says to use the rules, so I guess you and I can't play 40k then. Unless you agree to the house rules of The Warhammer 40k Rulebook. Just to warn you, I use the rules given by GW as house rules. Since GW also released an faq for these house rules, I also use those. But don't bother playing, because they also don't say they're the official rules.