Interesting DA FAQ rulings

[Mycroft Holmes]

A few interesting quotes from the new Dark Angels FAQ

Q. When a unit with the And They Shall Know no Fear
special rule regroups do they get to immediately move up
to 3" as well as moving as normal that turn? (p23)
A. Yes.

Q. Can a vehicle with the ʻPower of the Machine Spiritʼ fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p34)
A. No.

Q: Can a Techmarine attempt to use his Blessing of the
Omnissiah special rule to repair a vehicle he is currently
embarked upon? (p36)
A: Yes.

I guess I find them interesting because I would have disagreed with each of these rulings.

Mycroft

[DarkLink]

GW routinely puts up FAQs that are not consistent with the rules, or even each other.

[dannyat2460]

[QUOTE=Mycroft Holmes;116429]A few interesting quotes from the new Dark Angels FAQ

Q. When a unit with the And They Shall Know no Fear
special rule regroups do they get to immediately move up
to 3" as well as moving as normal that turn? (p23)
A. Yes.

I agree with this one as it goes along with the rules.

Q. Can a vehicle with the ʻPower of the Machine Spiritʼ fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p34)
A. No.

This one goes against the rules as PotMS allows 1 more than would normaly be alowed to be fired smoke= 0 so +1 = 1

Q: Can a Techmarine attempt to use his Blessing of the
Omnissiah special rule to repair a vehicle he is currently
embarked upon? (p36)
A: Yes.

Not sure on this i supose embarked would constitute in base contact but interesting none the less

[ElCheezus]

The answers for Regrouping and the Techmarine seem pretty straightforward to me, and while the PotMS ruling can be debated, that's the way I've usually seen it played.

[FastEd]

Ignoring what I think the best rulings are for each instance, I can see logical thought behind each decision. Well played, GW, it's good to see effort put into the FAQs we have been getting recently.

[DarkLink]

It's not like Techmarines are exactly broken in the first place. It was a logical move there.

[rle68]

I made that argument about potms and smoke.. i never actually tried it in a game but i argued it was valid

but i am happy to see it was put to bed once and for all

i am also happy to see that arjac debate was ended as it should have been as well

[Fellend]

I find it funny that people are saying that they know the rules better than GW...

[BuFFo]

I find it funny that people are saying that they know the rules better than GW...

Because many of us do.

[Fellend]

You realize that's impossible right? No matter what they write they are still right because it's their rules. You know the whole RAI vs RAW gets kind of nulled by the fact that they know the intention and choose what to write?

[rle68]

these are the same guys that post battle reports in THEIR own magazine and get the rules wrong

and you still want to make the claim they know the rules better than we do ?

i know where you were going with that but your foundation is a little weak

[Soam]

Which is also funny because in some RAI vs. RAW arguments people will cite battle reports to reinforce their RAI. Its a big circle which proves that everyone is wrong!

[Mystery.Shadow]

Did they ever fix the Dark Angels' Power of the Machine Spirit?
Or does it still fire at BS2 ?

[SeattleDV8]

The DA PotMS is now the same as the SM PotMS.

[Tynskel]

GW routinely puts up FAQs that are not consistent with the rules, or even each other.

This is not the case. There is no reason in all three of these instances that the FAQ is inconsistent with the rules. I think you are mistaking GW for INAT. INAT consistently ignores rules precedents within the 40k rulebook, and are inconsistent with internal rulelings within INAT.

[Tynskel]

Which is also funny because in some RAI vs. RAW arguments people will cite battle reports to reinforce their RAI. Its a big circle which proves that everyone is wrong!

This is why I keep telling people that RAI and RAW are the same thing. An individual is interpreting the rules based upon the contexts of their choosing. Most RAW players are narrow int their rulings that they will fight n' squabble over individual phrases that maybe inconsistent with the sentence before or afterward. Taken as a whole the phrase would be interpreted differently, and is often called 'RAI'. But this is RAW, as well.

[Tynskel]

[QUOTE=Mycroft Holmes;116429]A few interesting quotes from the new Dark Angels FAQ

Q. When a unit with the And They Shall Know no Fear
special rule regroups do they get to immediately move up
to 3" as well as moving as normal that turn? (p23)
A. Yes.

I agree with this one as it goes along with the rules.

Q. Can a vehicle with the ʻPower of the Machine Spiritʼ fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p34)
A. No.

This one goes against the rules as PotMS allows 1 more than would normaly be alowed to be fired smoke= 0 so +1 = 1

Q: Can a Techmarine attempt to use his Blessing of the
Omnissiah special rule to repair a vehicle he is currently
embarked upon? (p36)
A: Yes.

Not sure on this i supose embarked would constitute in base contact but interesting none the less

The not firing with smoke launchers is internally consistent with how the rules are written. The examples are to put smoke down on the board-- this would block line of sight, preventing any sort of targeting solution. however, the opponent can fire back, because the target is within the smoke itself-- there is a chance that by firing into the cloud where the target was, you might hit them!

[steelmage99]

This is why I keep telling people that RAI and RAW are the same thing. An individual is interpreting the rules based upon the contexts of their choosing. Most RAW players are narrow int their rulings that they will fight n' squabble over individual phrases that maybe inconsistent with the sentence before or afterward. Taken as a whole the phrase would be interpreted differently, and is often called 'RAI'. But this is RAW, as well.

Nah, RAI is RAW because GW wants us to play the rules as written.

How far does an infantry model move?
What does a BS4 model need to roll to hit?
When does the Melta-rule come into effect?

The answers to these questions are always resolved straight up as written. There is no reason why any guesses at the designers intentions are relevant. This applies to the vast vast majority of situations.

Of course there a very very few true "irresistible force vs. immovable object"-type situations, but they are extremely rare and can be solved by a 4+ roll. I think I can think of two currently.



RAW is RAI. RAI is RAW.

98% of the time we use RAW. Infantry models may move up to 6" per Movement Phase. Models with Ballistic Skill of 4 hit on a roll of 3+. Flamers ignore cover saves. And so on.

98% of the time a literal interpretation of the rules is what the games designers intended. RAW is RAI.
1.5% of the time something doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of the rules. Most often fluff is the main protagonist.
.5% of the time there is a geniue "irresistable force vs. immovable object"-situation. Roll for it.

RAW is what makes it possible for us to play the game!


A good example was the discussions about Drop Pods and their (in)ability to shoot the turn they landed just about the time codex: Space Marines was released.

*Time-machine copy-paste*

P1: Drop Pods are defined as being Type: Vehicle (Open-topped). Codex Space Marine, pages 69 and 135.

P2: Vehicles arriving via Deep Strike are counted as moving at Cruising Speed. Rulebook page 95.

P3: Vehicles having moved at Cruising Speed are not allowed to fire any weapons. Rulebook pages 58 and 73.

C: Drop Pods are not allowed to fire any weapons on the turn they land.




Most counter-arguments fall into 4 categories, that can be dismissed out of hand;

1. "I would like them to shoot on the turn they land!"

And I would like My Eldar Wave Serpents to have the Assault Vehicle special rule. If wishes were fishes........

2. "The fluff say they can....."

The fluff also state that an Ork can crush a mans skull in his hand, yet Orks only have strength 3. The fluff state that Genestealers move so lightning-fast that they can avoid Marine bolter fire, yet they only move 6". Fluff is a literary tool used to make good stories, not good rules.

3. "They used to be able to shoot."

Land Speeder Tornados used to be exclusive to Ravenwing and Orks used to be able to buy Bolt-on Big Shootas for their Battlewagons. Things change. This is one of those things.

4. "They shot with it in a WD battlereport."

Either they made the battle report at a time when Drop Pods actually could shoot on the turn they landed, or they made a mistake. We have seen Bloodthirsters consolidate 12" and Sammael shoot both his Plasma-cannon and his Bolters at the same time, so mistakes can't be ruled out.

In the end we are left with the rules, and following those, we find that Drop Pods cannot shoot on the turn they Deep Strike.

GW could have done a number of things to ensure that Drop Pods could shoot on the turn they Deep Strike.

They could have made the Pod Type: Fast, but they didn't.
They could have given the Pod the "Power of the Machine Spirit", but they didn't.
They could have made a special rule to allow it to shoot, but they didn't.
The intention of the Games Designers seems pretty clear. They don't want Drop Pods to shoot on the turn they land.

[Tynskel]

your example is poor.

A better one would have been the Power of the Machine Spirit: Some people treat it as always able to fire one weapon, the rulebook states to put cotton down on the board--- this actually has a LOS blocking effect. That's why the FAQ ruled the way it did. It is RAW, but most people leave the Cotton at home, and have mistakenly read the rule as 'RAW', but were way too narrow in their interpretation--- ie, they left out the examples in the Rulebook. They based their ruling on one sentence, the one in the Codex. Then they called people who said otherwise not following RAW, and said they were following RAI--- but the reality is that they are both. These were two different interpretations of the rules, both using the same basis for making decisions how to play the game--- the way the rules are written.

[somerandomdude]

the rulebook states to put cotton down on the board--- this actually has a LOS blocking effect.

No, the rulebook suggests cotton or another suitable marker, in the same way that it suggests to tip your models on the side when they go to ground. If one were to take this as RAW, they may take the models out of LOS from the rest of the board (behind a hedge for instance), whether they tip them over or not, according to you. However, since the models were not tipped over, you couldn't check for TLoS, which means that you're not playing by the rules.

A single cotton ball does not block TLoS. The only things that have a "LOS blocking effect" are things that *gasp* actually block line of sight.

[Tynskel]

No, the rulebook suggests cotton or another suitable marker, in the same way that it suggests to tip your models on the side when they go to ground. If one were to take this as RAW, they may take the models out of LOS from the rest of the board (behind a hedge for instance), whether they tip them over or not, according to you. However, since the models were not tipped over, you couldn't check for TLoS, which means that you're not playing by the rules.

A single cotton ball does not block TLoS. The only things that have a "LOS blocking effect" are things that *gasp* actually block line of sight.

The rulebook doesn't say use a single cottonball, it says a suitable marker. It is supposed to go around the vehicle--- definately not a 'single cottonball'.

Here's the thing---- the FAQ ruled in that direction--- that essentially, the cotton ball was the correct way of playing. It is RAW.

And you are correct, if you put your models on the side, they drop outta LOS, hence, gone to ground. You can play the game that way, too. It is RAW.

You are accenting my point--- that people who are 'RAW' choose to ignore things written the rulebook--- their viewpoint is too narrow.

[Fellend]

Also really depends on the size of said cotton ball

[BuFFo]

You realize that's impossible right? No matter what they write they are still right because it's their rules. You know the whole RAI vs RAW gets kind of nulled by the fact that they know the intention and choose what to write?

You assume GW writes the FAQs. They don't. Gamers like you and I do, and one dude puts it up on the website.

FAQs are there to placate the masses, not to be official.