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.

 Marmatag wrote:
The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.

No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.

No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.

We will go in circles here, because I believe that official GW publications are rules unless otherwise stated. Just like I won't refuse to play with people who use Forgeworld units, or counts-as proxies, or start collecting formations.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The only argument against the cards involves either an entirely different set of circumstances, or discrediting them by saying it's "future proofing," which wouldn't really make sense at all, because I doubt even GW knows if GK would get access to biomancy down the road, but more importantly it's a subjective stance based on what you think the rules mean, rather than what they say.

No. The argument against the cards and the website is the one that actually matters. That is the rules.

We will go in circles here, because I believe that official GW publications are rules unless otherwise stated. Just like I won't refuse to play with people who use Forgeworld units, or counts-as proxies, or start collecting formations.

You're really not catching on that those are all different things. Nothing anywhere grants Libs from GK access to AoD. Voldus has access to them, that does not grant a blanket rule to the whole faction. The cards do NOT grant access, they REVEAL that factions have or will have access. Marketing is not rules. Rules are what tell you how to play the game.

FW have rules.

I don't recall a rule saying you have to play with GW products.

SC formations are printed rules.

The cards have a checkmark, what does that tell us? Does it indicate which *units* can generate these powers?

You're saying HYWPI, which is fine, because that's HIWPI too. Don't pretend it's RAW, and don't assume it's RAI. People have thought RAI was "obvious" plenty of times and been wrong, so it just doesn't hold water.

If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:

four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)

We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.

Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.

For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.

Actually, Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and flip sides here. There isn't anything that says they can't and one official source that says they can. It would be different if another official source said "Librarians of the following chapters cannot", but there isn't. There's only one official comment on the matter and it says "can". Nothing in any rules book contradicts this.

 Marmatag wrote:
If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:

four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)

We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.

Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.

Misleading advertising. They made an error, there is no assumption needed. The web description claim you quoted about the SM Supplement Angels of Death is demonstrably false. Read the book. It does not contain a single reference to BA, DA, SW, GK, or DW. No mention of these factions at all in the book, regardless of the website text.

 Marmatag wrote:

For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.

A rule is at the core an instruction that tells you what you may do in the game.
A checkmark isn't an instruction you can follow, since it doesn't actually tell you what you are permitted to do.

Let me be more specific: The checkmark between Fulmination and GK means:
a) that all GK psyker units - including those with fixed powers - can generate Fulmination powers
b) that all GK psyker units - except for vehicles - can generate Fulmination powers
c) that all GK psyker units with ML2 or better can generate Fulmination powers
d) that all GK psyker units with the unit name Voldus can generate Fulmination powers

Which is it - and why?
Also, why do a judge web-shop description and an optional card decks reference card as equal or higher authority than the rule book it describes or reprints in excerpts respectively?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Aye, but the psyker entries in the codex do not list those powers. Thus Librarians, Brother Captains, etc... are not allowed to draw from those disciplines.

Angels of death was released after the Grey Knight codex. If we were judging just off the codexes that would mean no one got to use these powers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:

four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)

We can argue what is rules, and what is intended all day long, but this statement still exists, it hasn't been taken down.

Now, it is possible that GW made an error here, but that isn't something you can assume.

Misleading advertising. They made an error, there is no assumption needed. The web description claim you quoted about the SM Supplement Angels of Death is demonstrably false. Read the book. It does not contain a single reference to BA, DA, SW, GK, or DW. No mention of these factions at all in the book, regardless of the website text.

 Marmatag wrote:

For those of you who say this statement + the card shouldn't be treated as rules, I ask why? Clearly define what constitutes a rule. Also, you can argue that the green check mark meaning is unclear, but given the statement above, in the context of its release, it is very clear that it represents which powers a librarian can generate. You could argue that the green check mark means "goes good with tequila," and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if you are going to take it to that level, you could start poking holes in all kinds of rules all over the place.

A rule is at the core an instruction that tells you what you may do in the game.
A checkmark isn't an instruction you can follow, since it doesn't actually tell you what you are permitted to do.

Let me be more specific: The checkmark between Fulmination and GK means:
a) that all GK psyker units - including those with fixed powers - can generate Fulmination powers
b) that all GK psyker units - except for vehicles - can generate Fulmination powers
c) that all GK psyker units with ML2 or better can generate Fulmination powers
d) that all GK psyker units with the unit name Voldus can generate Fulmination powers

Which is it - and why?
Also, why do a judge web-shop description and an optional card decks reference card as equal or higher authority than the rule book it describes or reprints in excerpts respectively?

or
e) All GK librarians can generate fulmination powers. We should not act like these things have higher authority but they certainly give conflicting information, advertising is still something, it would be false advertising if GK librarians couldn't use those powers.

 Marmatag wrote:
If it isn't rules as written, then Games Workshop made a significant error on their website under AoD when they made this claim:

four complete psychic disciplines available to Space Marines Librarians of all Chapters (including Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights and Deathwatch)

The real problem with using this as rules is that it's laughably NOT rules. It's fluff, and we can't use fluff as rules. Unless you want me to claim that my Daemonettes get to always strike first in combat, regardless of initiative, because of some fluffy thing that describes their preternatural speed and grace. Just...no.
Actually, that distracted me from what I was going to type. The REAL problem is the blatant error in that quoted statement. Space Wolves don't have Librarians. That's an enormous clue that it isn't a rule.

Haha, hilarious and excellent point Elric!

So here's a clip from the Vindicare Assassin product page:

Able to instantly calculate the trajectory of their shot from seemingly impossible angles, a Vindicare Assassin can loose off a single round, powerful and precise enough to penetrate even powerful force fields, and move on to the next target even before their bullet has found its prey.

I'm going to now claim that my Vindi gets to shoot twice per turn, with the second shot rolling to hit before resolving the wound against the first target, since he can "move on to the next target even before [the] bullet has found its prey."

And Fateweaver:

This twin-headed terror is a master of magic, able to transform foes into tentacle-ridden Chaos Spawn

I'm going to claim that he now has the Mutating Warpblade that's a Daemonic Reward (even though he can't take rewards).


Nooooooooope.

This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?

 MattKing wrote:
This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?

If the label doesn't match the product, it's erroneous.
AOD does nothing for and contains no mention of GK, SW et al.

Just like a can of beans mislabelled "corn" doesn't make the can contain corn.

 MattKing wrote:
This is an equivalency error. It's not fluff, It's a statement from the company about the rules of the game. Let's entirely forget about the card and focus on the GW site statement. What specifically makes a GW statement about a GW product directly pertaining to GW rules "erroneous fluff"?

I'd say "Space Wolves Librarians" in a statement is a good indication of being erroneous and not being a rule you can accept. At the very least it indicates that the person who wrote the statement doesn't know what he's talking about.

Another way to look at it, is making a claim like this is legally binding. They're making a direct statement about the rules, and how this release interacts with them. For these to not be allowed, this would be an example of false advertising.

Also, regarding this thing about rune priests:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NO/Psychic-Powers-Adeptus-Astartes-ENG-2016

A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:

You don't have to consider this to be rules if you don't want to, but they went above and beyond in this message to clarify that when they said librarians, they meant to include rune priests. They even go on to specifically say that these are for every chapter.

"any librarian"
"these are for every chapter"

Don't see how this could be any clearer.

Saved the big guns for last I see. Very well done.

Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.

If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.

Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.

I disagree. The writer of this clearly had an understanding of the different chapters and psy characters or, as you pointed out, wouldn't have included rune priests. Raw the card is arguable weather or not it gives permission, but RAI is pretty clear. Let's put it his way I don't know any TO's that wouldn't let you use it if you brought a printed copy of this page.

Well you know of one now. (It's me.) I like RAW in tournaments, or FAQs when clarification is needed. It's easier to have a simple, provable guideline instead of making a thousand thousand exceptions.

Edit: and those aren't big guns. Again, websites aren't rules! We look to datasheets for a model's rules. My Librarian does not have permission on his datasheet to generate from a discipline. His datasheet has not been modified in any way. Ergo, he cannot generate from that discipline.

GW does have ways to modify datasheets, and their methods for doing so are very standard and straightforward. Text on a webpage is not how they do it. They do it through PDFs or a White Dwarf or a printed Supplement.

 Stephanius wrote:
Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.

If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.

Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.

Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.

Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."

Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules. Typically user accessibility and knowledge management author documentation as well as public facing content. Marketing doesn't write these kinds of things. At least, that's how things are done in fortune 500 companies i've worked for, I can't speak to games workshop, but in my experience there is 0 evidence to support the assertion that this was written by a team who doesn't know what they're doing, and is totally disconnected from the rules writing process. It's most likely that it's the same team.

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't speak to games workshop, but in my experience there is 0 evidence to support the assertion that this was written by a team who doesn't know what they're doing, and is totally disconnected from the rules writing process. It's most likely that it's the same team.

Actually we have great evidence that they are a mishmash of clumsy The text on the AoD supplement page and the text on the AoD Psychic Cards page are different. If the same guy wrote them, he'd copy-pasta.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.

If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.

Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.

Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.

So sue them.

 Marmatag wrote:
Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."

The lack of a statement in the supplement itself or in a FAQ or, indeed, anywhere except by some marketing hack on the page meant to sell the book, is evidence in and of itself - evidence that you can't take the statement as RAW. The sales page for an item is not something that's been cited by GW as a rules source.

 Marmatag wrote:
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules.

So what? There's no evidence it was. Your point here is irrelevant. You would think, though, if the team that writes the rules wrote they hype on the webpage, then they would have had the intelligence to put the statements in the book itself. Or at least get a FAQ out quickly to correct it. So far, neither has been done.

Marmatag wrote:
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that this statement wasn't authored by the team that writes the rules.


So what? There's no evidence it was. Your point here is irrelevant. You would think, though, if the team that writes the rules wrote they hype on the webpage, then they would have had the intelligence to put the statements in the book itself. Or at least get a FAQ out quickly to correct it. So far, neither has been done.

One lousy (error wrought) faq and people forget we're dealing with GW. No. They will not "rush" to get out a faq. Especially if they think they already dealt with it by putting it on the main page.

I respectfully disagree completely - they would most certainly have had it mentioned in a FAQ or another sourcebook in the 10 1/2 months since AoD came out. Nobody in their right mind is going to think the sales blurb on a website is going to serve for providing the proper rules, and it's highly doubtful the GW people would think that either (he says, knowing someone would jump on the straight line if he didn't first).

 Marmatag wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Legally binding or false advertising is a completely different issue from a rules discussion.

If you buy a can of peas online because you were led to believe by the advertising that the product also contains carrots, that is one thing. Pointing out the misleading ad will certainly square this with your significant other. We also understand that.

Yet, this still doesn't make carrots appear in the can. Insisting that peas are peas and carrots because the advertising said there would be carrots even though there clearly are no carrots - that is just silly.

Actually it does matter, because even if they didn't want this to be true, at this point they've used it to generate a significant amount of revenue, in the US we're protected against this kind of chicanery. It would be far easier for them to make this the rules than to fight it and face sanctions.

I hope you saved your receipt. Did you buy the book or just the cards? Of course in the US you are most likely going to claim compensation for the mental anguish caused by having your claim to other factions cheese rejected by other players. This might make a great Judge Judy episode.

 Marmatag wrote:

Secondly, in your example you've opened the can to reveal that there are indeed no peas. In this case, we have ZERO evidence to suggest that this statement was made in error. A better example would be, I hold up a can of peas, with a peas label on it, and you say, "Hey there's carrots in there. You can't trust the peas label." And I say, "But, that makes no sense, it clearly says peas." To which you reply, "that's future proofing, in case peas may at some point be in the can. Therefore, it contains carrots."

No. Actually, in my example, the webshop shows an image of a can of peas. The picture shows a can with a label that says "Peas" and a picture of peas. Yet, the webshop text says: "contains carrots, which are awesome for YOU!". When you get the can, it looks just like the can in the picture. No trace whatsoever of the mentioned carrots on the label. Or in the can. Hint : the carrots would be rules for non-SM marines.

See, if you'd bought and read the AoD book, you'd know that it's SM on the cover, SM on the rear cover. SM in the table of contents. SM on every page. Which kinda makes sense for a SM supplement. It doesn't mention anything about DA/BA/GK/SW/DW.

 Marmatag wrote:
Another way to look at it, is making a claim like this is legally binding. They're making a direct statement about the rules, and how this release interacts with them. For these to not be allowed, this would be an example of false advertising.

Also, regarding this thing about rune priests:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NO/Psychic-Powers-Adeptus-Astartes-ENG-2016

A set of twenty-eight datacards detailing four psychic disciplines usable by any Space Marine Librarian (even a Space Wolves Rune Priest – these are for every Chapter!), each consisting of seven psychic powers:

You don't have to consider this to be rules if you don't want to, but they went above and beyond in this message to clarify that when they said librarians, they meant to include rune priests. They even go on to specifically say that these are for every chapter.

"any librarian"
"these are for every chapter"

Don't see how this could be any clearer.

From the Solitaire's explanation:

None, even amongst the Harlequins, know the limits of the Solitaire’s abilities. Tales exist of these supernatural killers running up sheer fortress walls, spilling from the shadows inside locked bunkers, even slowing time itself. For any who stand in the Solitaire’s way, death is destined

So if not even the harlequins know his rules, can I just make up whatever rules? If he kills literally everything in his path then he should be erasing entire armies? If he slows time itself, then why can't I just have him move a lot faster than he does? His explanation is quite flattering, but his actual in game rules are situational at best. Therefore, the marketing is not indicative of the rules themselves.

Its pretty obviously RAI, but not RAW.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

Its pretty obviously RAI, but not RAW.

Again, I'd be pretty careful saying "obviously RAI." People saying that have turned out to be 100% wrong pretty often lately.

If you can't tell the difference between fluff, and rules, because it's posted on the website, I don't even know what to say. The Harlequin example really shows willful ignorance, nothing more.

And you can call the powers cheese if you want to, but most tournament formats flat out ban or neuter these powers heavily, so it's not even a big deal.

And yeah, it says "Space Marines." I guess according to this thread, "Hatred: Space Marines" would exclude Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Space Wolves. Of course in the C:SM it does explicitly say that the category 'Space Marines' comprises all units taken from the following codexes: Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves.

I mean to click on a different page and accidentally exalted this post. no idea what that means but it wasn't on purpose.

All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!

SJ

 Marmatag wrote:
...
And yeah, it says "Space Marines." I guess according to this thread, "Hatred: Space Marines" would exclude Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Space Wolves. Of course in the C:SM it does explicitly say that the category 'Space Marines' comprises all units taken from the following codexes: Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves.
...

Which is a completely separate, clear rule and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

AoD uses clearly defined terms to explicitly state which units it applies to: "Any Psyker with the Space Marines Faction can ...".
If you are unsure what that means, refer to page 118 of Warhammer 40k The Rules. You'll see the BA, DA, GK, SW and SM factions clearly pointed out as separate.

Yes, in the fluff SM are basic and the separate codices marines are the best of the bestest. Yet, from a rules perspective they are completely separate factions.
That's also why GK cannot simply take anything SM can - and vice versa.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All this back and forth, yet no one mentions which unit is a Space Wolf Librarian. Space Wolf Librarians case access AoD powers per the marketing blurb, but to my knowledge there are no Space Wolf Librarians!

SJ

They published another statement saying the same thing and added that it includes rune priests.