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.

 malamis wrote:
Not a necron player and this reads like some excellent theatre but I have one follow up question:

*How* exactly would you embark on a zooming night scythe? Where are the access points?

The final sentence in the Access Points section of Transports (page 80) states the base is treated as an access point. With the permission from the FAQ, you can use the base for embarking.

For those that are wondering, the Necron codex itself states that the Nightscythe has an access point directly under it's hull.

I'm guessing a lot of people glossed over this fact because we were too busy arguing whether or not you could embark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which makes sense with the FAQ, considering what's directly under the hull is the Invasion Beam.

 Nilok wrote:
I leave DakkaDakka for a year, now I have a headache when I come back.

I don't even understand how you can argue that an official ruling, even if only a draft or beta, is a house rule.

The FAQ if very clear, you can embark on a Night Scythe even though it is a zooming flyer.

I understand trying to follow the letter of the rule and the fun tricks and "cheats" you can develop out of it, but sometimes it is good to take a step back, make some food, and go for a jog to clear your mind and get a fresh perspective of it.

I leave for a few days and get the same thing. There is more of 'Hey they told us we can do a thing, but here is why we still can't' than there is 'We are supposed to be able to do this thing, let's figure out how.'

The recent bits about how both the Tesla Spheres and Embarking on a Nightscythe show that there are a few players who won't try to figure out how to work it. Tesla Spheres are defined as sponsons. What some interpret to be the Barrel, or that you must have one to be able to draw a line to, conflicts with the FAQ. I can see I'm not the only one who has just figured out that LoS can be drawn from the Orb part. I'm not hung up on there being a Barrel and that limits its Sight options because the part is fixed. It seems like a lot of effort to stop the 5 shots from an AP- weapon, that's most likely going to be snapfiring when it starts to Thunderblitz. Especially on a model that rarely sees table time as is.

Same goes for the Nightscythe. Not having permission to embark on a zooming flyer in the rules prevents the FAQ from happening. Again, we just go off the base. It seems like a lot of work just to prevent someone from removing shots for a turn. Outside of maybe getting the Warlord out of harms way I can't really see any tactical benefit from doing it. Necrons have a huge ground presence as is, and flyers are rarely seen. Death from the Skies made flyers in general even less practical. So why the effort to prevent something we're told we can do, on something that isn't often, in an army that doesn't really benefit from it? I don't think we'll ever know.

Personally, I think too many people here treat YMDC as a place to get a definite answer on how a thing should work. It's a good place to come and hear all sides of an argument so that YOU can make the call, and not have it made for you. Which is what keeps me coming back. I'll ask questions when something I don't know is stated, and then make up my own mind. I kind of miss the days when this forum did that. 'Here is how most people will play it, but be aware that some people will try and do this other thing.' It's like we've forgotten how to just let our opponents roll some dice and have a good time.

The upside, is it becomes quite clear who the repeat offenders are, and it sorts out your ignore list real fast. It's a good solution to the whole 'Can't Sleep, someone on the Internet is Wrong!' scenario.

YMDC has always been a breeding ground for people with an obsessive need to argue with people. The one good thing about this whole FAQ fiasco is that I can legitimately say that these people are now willfully ignoring the words of the game's actual creators

This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

 JimOnMars wrote:
This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

Actually, since we're dealing with a DRAFT FAQ, there is option 3) Post to GW in their Facebook page about the problems (perceived or real) about the draft FAQ question/answer and they may further clarify or change their answer. We've already had one draft FAQ question where they posted that they made an error; it could happen again.

 JimOnMars wrote:
This whole argument is stupid.

If there is an FAQ that should have been an ERRATA, what do we do with it? Either:

1 - pretend it's an ERRATA

or

2 - ignore it completely, as if had never existed.

People who are arguing for #2 are not thinking clearly. It is GW we are talking about; they are never very good at ruling and classifying.

To imply that we should just ignore the thing completely because GW put it in the wrong column is just daft. If we eliminate all rules, rulings and FAQs that were slightly imperfect the entire world of 40k could be printed on a postcard.

The only answer that makes any sense, from GW, is #1.

Also:

for those that are claiming FAQs are house rules: It is a VERY big house..it literally encompass the known universe. And...just because they are house rules it does not give you the right to disobey them.

If you can browbeat your "friends" into houseruling the houserules, than you win! Yea! Victory for you! Woo hoo!

If you can't, you lose. It's that simple.

About like 2-3 pages back someone literally said that the source of the ruling is irrelevant if they didn't like the ruling. Basically they're already arguing for the Death of the Author Trope just to justify how they're not wrong.

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

I'm not familiar with what you are talking about. Did they reverse an FAQ or something?

If so then I'll be ok with a new FAQ that changes their answer to no, but until then it seems pretty silly to argue that by saying "yes" they meant "lol yes but if you read the rules its not possible, so actually no" when they could have just not answered at all and gotten the same result.

At the same time, nothing is preventing anyone from posting on their Facebook page and asking for clarification.

If they clarify then great, but if they don't then its pretty ridiculous to find some lawyery way around the FAQ to make it say "no" instead.

Charistoph and Jeffersonian00,

in your opinion is this faq item just a house rule?

.

 Forcast wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Forcast wrote:
Why would you clarify something that can't be done with a "Yes"?

Why would GW answer 'Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists'? 'Yes', when they actually meant 'No' ..?

I'm not familiar with what you are talking about. Did they reverse an FAQ or something?

If so then I'll be ok with a new FAQ that changes their answer to no, but until then it seems pretty silly to argue that by saying "yes" they meant "lol yes but if you read the rules its not possible, so actually no" when they could have just not answered at all and gotten the same result.

At the same time, nothing is preventing anyone from posting on their Facebook page and asking for clarification.

If they clarify then great, but if they don't then its pretty ridiculous to find some lawyery way around the FAQ to make it say "no" instead.

The posted picture said that Apothecaries could take the various weapons. In the post itself, they said "Oops, we goofed, it's suppose to be no." (not necessarily in those words).

Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

What GW provides in the faq answers are official rulings, not house rulings.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written.

What, then you would do about erratas without an explanation?

If GW had put the exact same verbiage on the errata page you would magically be gung-ho in favor of it? Even knowing that GW is terrible at differentiating the two?

You trust GW's clerical abilities that much?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I think the purpose of the FAQ is to help when two players have an argument.

In the case of an argument between two players on whether you can embark on a Night Scythe, they would turn to the official FAQ and find the answer is Yes.

That means that, effectively, everyone is just going to play it that way because why not? And if you don't think it should happen virtually any TO is going to cite the Official FAQ.

So yeah, I think this argument is pretty moot. Though, its not official just yet so perhaps they will overturn it.

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I already tried pointing out how GW's own facebook page stated this came from the authors who wrote the rules. I was basically told that the rules team didn't understand the intention behind their own rules. Apparently their word is worth jack unless printed in a codex, then they're just idiots for not printing the right set of words that conform to a very specific, very weirdly read english sentence.

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

Plus a lot of these people are claiming the skies are falling when GW themselves stated that, being a first Draft, these can be overturned. Plus it's not like they really need to give us a heads up for overturning rules either; the FAQs of Olde never did. Remember when the Helturkey's Baleflamer could no longer be farted out the back? I do

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

I suspect that you're blowing a very small group up into something far out of proportion here.

 insaniak wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

I suspect that you're blowing a very small group up into something far out of proportion here.

If I remember the thread lasted for a good few pages and it wasn't the usual "two people bickering" type either, which to me says that there are a good deal more people that believe it than the usual troublemakers. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

gungo wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, in my opinion, the FAQ response without an explanation is how the responder would play it, not rules as written. If it were an Errata or an addendum, then it would be rules as written. If it included an explanation, it would be a clarification. Since it was neither an Errata nor clear on what rules we should followed, we are left with house ruling a way to embark on this specific zooming flyer.

The fact I and others stated this at the very beginning and spent several pages restating the exact same point demonstrates why GW needs to hire a line editor to review their rules and FAQ answers for clarity and consistency. Remember, all I've asked is for people to support their statements, of which none of my detractors have done.

For the record, How I Would Play It is to allow the unit to follow the embarkation rules while ignoring the restriction on zooming. I of course also understand that by doing so I would be using a houserule, because the actual rules as written tell me I cannot.

And yes, I do realize no one here seems to understand the context.

SJ

If by faq responder you mean the actual rules team who wrote the rules.

And if by how they would play it they mean no you are wrong and playing incorrectly and this is how we wrote the rules that you don't understand how to play.

Then yes you are correct!!!

People already supported thier statements with many many pages of arguments ymdc on many topics. The fact you continue to ignore all the people who stated you can't share rules with independant characters (and other similar arguments) and even now still continue to argue how the rules team who wrote the rules are wrong and somehow your interpretation is the only correct interpretation shows that you are to stubborn to accept the fact you are wrong. It's somehow both funny and sad you and a handful of others continue to make a mess of this forum.

I already tried pointing out how GW's own facebook page stated this came from the authors who wrote the rules. I was basically told that the rules team didn't understand the intention behind their own rules. Apparently their word is worth jack unless printed in a codex, then they're just idiots for not printing the right set of words that conform to a very specific, very weirdly read english sentence.

Remember this is also the forum where a good portion of the players think we're not suppose to play with the FAQ until they finalize it. You know, the one that needed people's Playtesting Feedback to finalize.

Plus a lot of these people are claiming the skies are falling when GW themselves stated that, being a first Draft, these can be overturned. Plus it's not like they really need to give us a heads up for overturning rules either; the FAQs of Olde never did. Remember when the Helturkey's Baleflamer could no longer be farted out the back? I do

First baseless assumptions and ad hominem attacks on the rules team because they didn't intend the rules you interpreted to be your assumptions is completely fabricated and unfounded. Because some random person told you they have no idea what their intentions are?

Secondly GW directly stated this draft of faqs will not be overturned. This isn't a popular vote system. Seriously where do you come up with your nonesense?

Finally the reason a good portion said to wait for the final draft isn't to overturn rules it's because the rules team still aren't clear in thier rules writing. And 40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want. No one ever claimed GW are good rules writers.

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

 adamsouza wrote:

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

I'm pretty sure that needs to be the official description of YMDC on the forum index page.

 EnTyme wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

gungo wrote:
40k is full of a bunch of asshats (on the forums and in games)who will argue all day to twist the slightest word inflection to construe whatever nonsense they want.

Sig worthy

I'm pretty sure that needs to be the official description of YMDC on the forum index page.

I confess I enjoy reading some of the ludicrous results of strict RAW interpretations. I think it helps me to better understand the rules and to better design any house rules I might want to come up with. "Usually" for the really silly arguments people are very clear about the fact that they're arguing about what the RAW actually say - not how they, or any decent human being, should actually play the game.

Even when the occasional person does cling to a strict RAW interpretation of a silly rules interaction I can at least understand where they're coming from.

Having said that, this bizarre argument that GW published a rules change in an FAQ, not an Errata so therefore it doesn't apply, is a new bottom of the absurdity barrel.

....4 pages of meaningless back and forth and I chime in just in time for the red warning.

Back to the actual topic please.

If there's no new discussion until the next FAQ then, well, we'll cope.

We can do without the spam too -- this includes posts that are just images.

Thank you.

gungo wrote:
Secondly GW directly stated this draft of faqs will not be overturned. This isn't a popular vote system. Seriously where do you come up with your nonesense?

Did they state that before or after their posting of a "we goofed" response with a change to one of the FAQs?

I'd say there's a chance they might find another mistake, but odds are very good that no other particular statement will be overturned. Unfortunately, there probably won't be further elaboration on the FAQ answers where it would help clarify some things.

 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

Codex Blood Angels FAQ HERE

Codex Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar and Harlequins HERE

Codex Tau Empire HERE

Codex Orks HERE

Codex Chaos Space Marines HERE

Codex Tyranids HERE

Astra Militarum and Grey Knights HERE

Codex Necrons HERE

Codex Chaos Daemons HERE

Chaos Daemon FAQ is up. This should be the last draft FAQ unless they decide to add Deathwatch.

The Nurgling grenade question was confusing. I saw the "No" before completely reading the question and was about to rage. Why did they pick such and awkwardly worded question.

FYI: Yes, they can still throw poop grenades

Making Exalted Flamers into Jump Infantry was ...odd. Jet-Pack Infantry would have made them better. But at least now you can move them with Flamers or get them into a good position to fire their Heavy weapons.

Kinda sad that Tetrad Khorne Princes can't be Psykers, but it makes sense at least.

-

I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

 vercingatorix wrote:
I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

Fateweaver doesn't generate his Change powers, he always knows them all, so there would never be a difference between him from a CAD or from an Incursion. He would know all 7 powers either way.

This rule allows Incursion Psykers to lift the "half generated for your Patron god" restriction in the main codex. So a ML3 LoC from a CAD can only generate 2 powers from Change, whereas form an Incursion he could generate all 3, then would gain Flickering fire for Psychic focus.

It's interesting that Daemons get Chaos focus and Psychic focus. So a Pink Horror unit can have 3 powers (but only use 1)

-

 Galef wrote:

 vercingatorix wrote:
I am not a fan of the command benefit they put in the errata at the end. I think what that means is that fateweaver from a CAD would only know three change powers while fateweaver from a Daemonic incursion would know six. If you have a screamerstar that consists of two heralds and one herald is from a CAD and one is from Daemonic incursion they need two different charts to generate from.

Maybe I'm alone in disliking identical models using different rules depending on which book they are taken from.

Fateweaver doesn't generate his Change powers, he always knows them all, so there would never be a difference between him from a CAD or from an Incursion.

This rule allows Incursion Psykers to lift the "half generated for your Patron god" restriction in the main codex.

Okay, yeah, looks like your right. I had a knee-jerk reaction. It does mean that the LoC can't take advantage of the endless grimoire unless he's in an incursion. Which sucks because that's what I was using for my list. Oh well.

So does this mean we definitely are replacing the old change table?