I've never done this before...

[C.of.N.finity]

...But I think I'm going to ignore the GK FAQ. This is pretty serious to me for several reasons, but the main reason is that I believe we need a FAQ system to be a third party in disputes. I don't believe we ever really look at it that way, we take a FAQ as law instead of playing it the way we intend and then using it to settle any disuputes that may occur but that's understandable as playing it as law avoids the disputes entirely.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm going to get people saying "good luck finding a person to play with", etc. But I just can't accept the GK FAQ as it is. Most of the things it cleared up were common sense, like a DK not being jump infantry, or helpful interpretations of RAW, such as a nemises doomfist not doubling strength becuase RAW it only works on walkers.

However, there are three things that keep me from accepting this book. The first is a selfish one - there is no way, in my opinion, that falchions should only give one attack. It's not about practicality on the table so much as it is that one of the few equipment choices present in my army is worthless so early into a book release. I base this on a few things, the lightning claw situations, the single CCW per models hand, but mostly on page 54 where it says "further abilities"; the purpose of the following paragraphs are to highlight the further abilities of the weapons in which the falchions give +1 attack is it's ability. An ability that's in addition to BRB given abilities. Moreover, I use the fluff to justify that decision as it indicates that they would strike faster than a person normally armed with two CCWs, thus the additional attack as it's 'further ability'.

Before I hear that fluff doesn't equal rules, I have to point out that it now does. I'm not sure if it's just my experience with these games, but I've seen rules that represent fluff but NEVER fluff that equals rules. GW in this FAQ has broken precedent twice in terms of using fluff to justify what is a deamon and what equals a plasma weapon. To me, this is game breaking as it does open the door (which no one really has examined closely yet) to interpreting fluff as rules. Sure, the falchions thing is a pesonal gripe but this is something new as far as I know and really needs to be examined as to how it can change the game dramaticly if we're allowed to use fluff as a basis for determing how rules and models work.

I know I have no say in this and my opinion here changes nothing. Tourneys will enforce FAQs and other plays will too as, up till now, they've been a helpful tool for resolving or avoiding disputes. However, I think this FAQ has opened a Pandora's Box filled with interpretation.

[Denzark]

Obviously people will point out that the most important rule is 'have fun'. BuFFO and me in our callow youthful days always seemed to be arguing about the FAQ being optional, the errata compulsory. On those grounds, crack on.

But...

Now you can go beyond RAI and what MAY have seemed to you obvious. you have it in writing - RAW and RAI. So why would you ignore it? The only time we ever veto rules round my way, is when it is particularly game breaking - the only one routinely that goes by the board is banning OUTFLANK from Apocalypse to stop Reavers appearing in backlines turn 1 and killing other super heavies with chain fists.

None of these things is game breaking, thems the breaks and I for one unless in your houserule environment, would want you to stick to FAQ.

Would you let me ignore the Khan FAQ that says 'the Hitting on a roll of a 2 is ONLY for targets with a WS' - so I hit turbo boosting super speedy vehicles on a 2+ because thats what my 1st print codex says?

I think not baby puppy...

[C.of.N.finity]

Obviously people will point out that the most important rule is 'have fun'. BuFFO and me in our callow youthful days always seemed to be arguing about the FAQ being optional, the errata compulsory. On those grounds, crack on.

But...

Now you can go beyond RAI and what MAY have seemed to you obvious. you have it in writing - RAW and RAI. So why would you ignore it? The only time we ever veto rules round my way, is when it is particularly game breaking - the only one routinely that goes by the board is banning OUTFLANK from Apocalypse to stop Reavers appearing in backlines turn 1 and killing other super heavies with chain fists.

None of these things is game breaking, thems the breaks and I for one unless in your houserule environment, would want you to stick to FAQ.

Would you let me ignore the Khan FAQ that says 'the Hitting on a roll of a 2 is ONLY for targets with a WS' - so I hit turbo boosting super speedy vehicles on a 2+ because thats what my 1st print codex says?

I would unless it wasn't FAQed but errata'd like the wolftooth necklace was, which since your a champion of this issue you must recognize the difference.

I see your just addressing only the falchions issue. That really was a selfish gripe of mine and, as I pointed out several times, I can't do anything about the FAQs interpretation of it for those legitimate circumstances where FAQs are endorsed. However, they may not be game breaking, but the are fun breaking. Having a equipment option that is practictally useless when your the newest book isn't fun for anyone and SINCE it's not game breaking, is further why I choose to ignore the FAQ in addition to the reasons I listed above.


I think not baby puppy...

Please keep your childish, condescending insults to yourself, this topic doesn't need to burst into flames.

[Denzark]

I think you need to get over yourself. That was quoting from a childrens film, 'Cats and Dogs' for emphasis. No intent to insult, believe me you'd know if I had but still, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you, as your initial form here has been sparkling.

Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.

And I never use lash prince nor oblits.

Mind you with your attitude your chance of a game is remote.

TTFN.

[Grailkeeper]

Please keep your childish, condescending insults to yourself, this topic doesn't need to burst into flames.

I don't think He was being particularly insulting or condescending. No need to send anyone to the naughty step just yet.

[C.of.N.finity]

I think you need to get over yourself. That was quoting from a childrens film, 'Cats and Dogs' for emphasis. No intent to insult, believe me you'd know if I had but still, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you, as your initial form here has been sparkling.

Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.

And I never use lash prince nor oblits.

Mind you with your attitude your chance of a game is remote.

TTFN.

Wow. So you end your post with a a comment thats clearly insulting, but becuase it's a qoute I never heard of from a movie I've never seen then it's my fault and I'm paranoid? I can think of many movie qoutes which you may find insulting, but I don't think mods would allow it.

Do you treat everyone so badly on these forums, or just ones looking for a decent discussion?


Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.


FAQ's aren't errata and you know this, surely you must if you urged to only use them with discretion as you say you have. I'm not trying to wage a war on FAQ's or say they don't have merit, but this is the only FAQ I've seen that lets us use fluff when interpreting rules.

How many oddities must a FAQ have before people just go "uh..no, GW, you need to try this one again". Doomfists don't double strength becuase it's not a walker, yet the entry 'nemises doomfists' only ever specify walkers possessing them yet the DK has two of them?

What, exactly, is the distinction between the teleport shunt and turbo boosting that makes one possible while the other, not?

[daboarder]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

[C.of.N.finity]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

I get it. I really do. Say I disregard this FAQ becuase of the things I mentioned, using common sense in leiu of bad writing. So, falchions give +2 attacks now and teleport shunt works since turboboosting works. Everything else, while short, nondescript, sometimes contradictory and always lazy, seems to make sense.

Well, that's fine until some jackwagon comes along and says "hurr hurr, the DK is jump infantry, see him fit in mah plane", and I say, "That makes absolutly no sense. Obviously, they didn't intend for it to be that way becuase it makes no sense". Then, this 12 year old or whomeever suddenly turns into a graduated philosophy major and expounds what is common sense to me, isn't to him, while grinning like an idiot and deploying his DK via storm raven.

Despite the high probability that the writer of the book had little to nothing to do with the FAQ process, there are concearns a FAQ addresses which have more clear interpretations than others, speaking from a sensical perspective.

This FAQ just has way too many holes in it for me just readily accept, the largest and hitherto overlooked of which is the open interpretation of fluff as rules (notice how I mention that a lot, would be nice if someone else did too).

Using your Tyranid example, my problem is not so much the disagreemnt, but the lack of sense. For instance, DOM nowhere says that it should affect units in vehicles. However, if it did and then GW came out and said it didn't in a FAQ (much in the same way a model with two CCW that has a further ability of giving +1 attack ONLY gets +1 attack now) then that would be an example of what I'm talking about. Howabout this, if DOM doesn't work on unit in vehicles, but yet I have an ability worded exactly the same way that works much the same but DOES work on vehicles (much like shunting vs. turbo boosting). You can see it's not so much just the disagreement, it's as base as the logic (or lack thereof) GW used when writing this FAQ that makes me want to discard it.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Just ask any opponent you face if you could count Falchions as +2A. That's it, don't need to make it into a big thing.

Also, on the note of fluff equalling rules now: not really. Daemon is defined by a list given by a rules document, no problem there. The syphon is a bit broader, but is still fairly simple, as the user can just check for the word "Plasma" in a weapon's description. Fluff only effects rules in this one very specific instance, it can't be used as precedent for other rules.

[GrenAcid]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

Im ok with shadow in the warp part.....how metal can protect from psychic shielding couse by swarm mind??

[C.of.N.finity]

Just ask any opponent you face if you could count Falchions as +2A. That's it, don't need to make it into a big thing.

Also, on the note of fluff equalling rules now: not really. Daemon is defined by a list given by a rules document, no problem there. The syphon is a bit broader, but is still fairly simple, as the user can just check for the word "Plasma" in a weapon's description. Fluff only effects rules in this one very specific instance, it can't be used as precedent for other rules.

No disrespect intended at all, but here is the definition of precedent: a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

What GW did by using fluff to interprete rules is set a precedent. Sure, they did it using a list, but once a new book comes out for Tau with a new weapon that's not in that list but features 'plasma' in the weapons fluffy description, then we'll see the direct consequances of this.

Indirectly, just like people tried to fit a DK in a stormraven, there is now wiggle room for other cases to be made that don't even pertain to plasma and demons and, just like we just had to have a FAQ telling people DK's don't fit in storm ravens, GW will now need to FAQ even more things based on fluff.

The saddest part of this is that this problem only came about due to laziness. Really, they could just say "if it's plasma, it would be in the rules as part of 'Gets Hot', etc. If it's a demon, the unit type will say so in the rules' and then errata all the things they listed to contain that information which would also clarify any other issues people may have in the future.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

What GW did by using fluff to interprete rules is set a precedent. Sure, they did it using a list, but once a new book comes out for Tau with a new weapon that's not in that list but features 'plasma' in the name, then we'll see the direct consequances of this.

Indirectly, just like people tried to fit a DK in a stormraven, there is now wiggle room for other cases to be made that don't even pertain to plasma and demons and, just like we just had to have a FAQ telling people DK's don't fit in storm ravens, GW will now need to FAQ even more things based on fluff.

I do fail to see how this pertains to anything beyond the syphon, unless a new rule in the future once again "opens the door" to fluff interpretations. Using fluff as the decider for one specific rule (personally, I wouldn't call fluff a deciding factor for which units are Daemons since a list of applicable units is provided, with no room for additions) does not allow fluff to be used to affect "airtight" rules, rules which never allow the player to decide them with fluff.

The syphon can be effected by fluff due to the line "any weapon described as using ‘plasma’ as its effect or in its special rules." in the FAQ. That leaves a very clear criterion. If a new Tau weapon is released, read its entry in the Tau codex. If that entry mentions the word plasma, then that weapon is considered a Plasma weapon for the purposes of the syphon. It's just like how Dark Eldar Disintegrator cannons are not listed, but are effected as their wargear description classifies them as "plasma-based weaponry". It's a clear exception from the typical rules.

[daboarder]

Actually Infinity those 2 examples are what I would argue for in case of compromise, because my nids were (arguably) trashed by the new codex and then hit with their own stupid rulings in the FAQ, ie: DOM, SitW, Primes in pods.....the list goes on, falchions are a minor bug bear in comparison.

As for chaos....well thats what MoN SHOULD have done, allong with a -1I to help ballance it out.

[wkz]

>.<
If anything, GW is NOT lazy in listing out the weapons/daemons. They could have easily said "Anything with the 'plasma' rule" or "anything with the 'Marks of Chaos' or 'Daemon' rule", and left us in the lurch while sipping Martinis (shaken, not stirred) all day long.

FAQs may or may not go against your interpretation of the rules. **** happens after all, see the Tyranid codex and FAQ. BUT becasue you refuse to acknowledge 1 or 2 rulings by the GAME DESIGNERS themselves you choose to ignore those?

As a matter of fact I am already seeing, partially in your post, that you're going to uphold a lot of the FAQ (that you agree on?) but ignore the FAQ answers that you disagree on...

Well, there are two things I can respond to this I guess:

a) This is a slippery slope you're going down. If you can choose to ignore the designer's clarifications on YOUR disputed points in the FAQ of your choice... what about others? For example: What about the Tyranid player and his "Shadown into Metal boxes"? What about Grotsnik granting Invulnerable saves onto vehicles (silly yes? Go look at the rules section of the forums, someone actually asked)? I can think of more, but I'm sure there's a LOT more, in fact every single question is to answer some crazyness someone brought up. That's the entire reason for an FAQ after all.

Sooner or later you're going to face the same situation again: disagreeing on something about the FAQ. Unfortunately this time it'll be disagreeing with DROPPING an FAQ question that you agree, BUT the other guy across the table is disagreeing with. HE allowed you your FAQ question to be ignored... but are YOU going to allow him his "moment of crazyness" by dropping HIS FAQ question and make, for example, all Ork vehicle having an Invulnerable saves for 5 pts each??


b) Well, simple: find a friend that agrees with you, and go about it. Hey, Mr T, maybe you might want to teach this guy how to create his own gaming group!! And for C.of.N.finity, some context: Mr T's gaming group agrees with him, and routinely ignores the BRB FAQ on Reserves and how it interacts with Combat Squad.

[Nabterayl]

Before I hear that fluff doesn't equal rules, I have to point out that it now does.
Does it? How else could the daemon and plasma questions been resolved? The rule was never "models with the Daemon rule," for instance. And there's no special rule or property for "plasma." I don't see the distinction between deciding what a plasma weapon is based on its description and deciding what a plasma weapon is based on its name.

Can you articulate the new canon of construction that you think the FAQ represents?

[C.of.N.finity]

Does it? How else could the daemon and plasma questions been resolved? The rule was never "models with the Daemon rule," for instance. And there's no special rule or property for "plasma." I don't see the distinction between deciding what a plasma weapon is based on its description and deciding what a plasma weapon is based on its name.

Can you articulate the new canon of construction that you think the FAQ represents?

No new format is needed, those models with the 'deamon' special rules are deamons. I imagine they listed that special rule so things that affected deamons would affect these models, hence, no reason to cite fluff when interpreting if something is a deamon as it should already be listed. GW decided to bassicly say "cmon guys, it says right there in the fluff it's a demon thingy" which only contributes (if not now, then later) to the confusion a FAQ is supposed to solve. Ultimately, they just needed to errata the specific models they mention so that if any other models or powers affect deamons then it won't be neccesary to interprete fluff or update 'soft material' lists of what is or isn't.

As for the plasma, my first thought is it shouldn't exist. If there isn't a precedent for something like this without relying on the fluff then it's an example of bad writing and shouldn't happen. Now that it has, GW has to deal with it and their approach, to rely on fluff interpretation, is a poor one. Whats going to end up happening is that (if GW cared enough to take measures and balance their books against each other, I leave it up to you) they'll have to censor the word 'plasma' from weapon descriptions, even in passing, to control what is actually accomplished on table. Fluff will be defining rules, which is a horrible precedent especially given that, in my opinion, GW doesn't care enough about where the word plasma ends up and it's going to cuase more trouble than it's worth. What would I recommend as a 'new canon of construction'? Forethought, playtesting and decent writers.

For a little perspective: why is this a big deal? Right now, it's not. It's merely a large example of the incompetance that joins smaller examples in leading me to believe that 51% garbage defines an article more than the 49% validity. In the long run however, it opens the door to any relevant fluff being able to be used to justify a rule interpretation. We already have enough rule lawyers, are you ready for an age of fluff lawyers?

[presto15]

Finity does have a point. Unless he is playing in a tournament that says a particular FAQ is in effect he may choose to ignore FAQ's. Errata is hard rules. FAQ's are soft rules. It even says so on the games-workshop website.

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

Linky:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019

[daboarder]

Actually Infinity there exists a VERY strong precedent for these rules....the Avatar is immune to all fire and melta based attacks.

[Nabterayl]

No new format is needed, those models with the 'deamon' special rules are deamons.
Mmmm, really? How do you know? The Daemon special rule never actually says that models with that rule are daemons. How do you actually know that a Bloodletter is a daemon? Articulate the canon of construction, and I think you'll see that it boils down to, "Well, because the Bloodletter is described as a daemon."


As for the plasma, my first thought is it shouldn't exist. If there isn't a precedent for something like this without relying on the fluff then it's an example of bad writing and shouldn't happen.
Well, fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the FAQ. That's a beef with the codex itself. I don't see how boycotting the FAQ helps you with this problem.

I sympathize with your frustration; as a practicing contract lawyer, you may believe that I find the imprecision in GW's writing ... less than desirable :p But I don't think either the daemon or plasma syphon issues actually do what you think they do. I have always found it best to assume that GW's FAQs are clarifications, and work backwards from there to eliminate potential valid interpretations of the rules. It was always a possibility that the terms "daemon" and "plasma" should have been construed like the word "psyker." GW has just said that in fact, they should be.

[wkz]

No new format is needed, those models with the 'deamon' special rules are deamons. I imagine they listed that special rule so things that affected deamons would affect these models, hence, no reason to cite fluff when interpreting if something is a deamon as it should already be listed. GW decided to bassicly say "cmon guys, it says right there in the fluff it's a demon thingy" which only contributes (if not now, then later) to the confusion a FAQ is supposed to solve. Ultimately, they just needed to errata the specific models they mention so that if any other models or powers affect deamons then it won't be neccesary to interprete fluff or update 'soft material' lists of what is or isn't.

As for the plasma, my first thought is it shouldn't exist. If there isn't a precedent for something like this without relying on the fluff then it's an example of bad writing and shouldn't happen. Now that it has, GW has to deal with it and their approach, to rely on fluff interpretation, is a poor one. Whats going to end up happening is that (if GW cared enough to take measures and balance their books against each other, I leave it up to you) they'll have to censor the word 'plasma' from weapon descriptions, even in passing, to control what is actually accomplished on table. Fluff will be defining rules, which is a horrible precedent especially given that, in my opinion, GW doesn't care enough about where the word plasma ends up and it's going to cuase more trouble than it's worth. What would I recommend as a 'new canon of construction'? Forethought, playtesting and decent writers.

For a little perspective: why is this a big deal? Right now, it's not. It's merely a large example of the incompetance that joins smaller examples in leading me to believe that 51% garbage defines an article more than the 49% validity. In the long run however, it opens the door to any relevant fluff being able to be used to justify a rule interpretation. We already have enough rule lawyers, are you ready for an age of fluff lawyers?

RAI from fluff = bad eh?
Well, may I ask this: WHY does meltaguns stop working on certain vehicles? You know, like the StormRaven? The vehicle has it as a rule, but why?

WHY does Spawn have random powers for each game? It makes them a sub-par unreliable unit, but WHY is this rule dumped on them?

WHY is the Eldar Avatar of Khane immune to Flame and Melta-based weaponary? Sure, it is a huge burning statue, but that is fluff, WHY is it in the rules... ... ... WHY is a Banewolf (chemical template weapon) and Eversor (Assassin template weapon) different from an Inferno Cannon (flame-based template weapon) and Heavy Flamers (flame-based template weapon) in dealing with the Avatar? There is no description called "Flame" in both weapons in the RULEs, why does one hurt but the other doesn't??

While you're asking this: WHY is a walker a monstrous creature with walker weapons? WHY is said "Monster" Str 10 despite almost all other monsters, some which are much heavier and more close-combat built having much lower strength?

A lot of our hobby revolve around the fluff explained by the rules N.Infinity. Hell, it is generally accepted that 40k is a much more "fluff"-based game than its competitors; You've probably heard of more competitive (WarmaHordes) or interesting/innovative (Infinity, amongst others) systems out there.

If you're only complaining now... ...

[C.of.N.finity]

Mmmm, really? How do you know? The Daemon special rule never actually says that models with that rule are daemons. How do you actually know that a Bloodletter is a daemon? Articulate the canon of construction, and I think you'll see that it boils down to, "Well, because the Bloodletter is described as a daemon."


Well, fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the FAQ. That's a beef with the codex itself. I don't see how boycotting the FAQ helps you with this problem.

I sympathize with your frustration; as a practicing contract lawyer, you may believe that I find the imprecision in GW's writing ... less than desirable :p But I don't think either the daemon or plasma syphon issues actually do what you think they do. I have always found it best to assume that GW's FAQs are clarifications, and work backwards from there to eliminate potential valid interpretations of the rules. It was always a possibility that the terms "daemon" and "plasma" should have been construed like the word "psyker." GW has just said that in fact, they should be.

Page 27 of the DoC codex states 'Deamon' and then what all that entails. First and foremost, it would substantiate that they are deamons, as they have the 'deamon' special rule by which to identify them. It's not a 'described as', it's a techinical identification. It's the difference between a 'rolling stop' and a 'full stop', one is only described as a stop while the other is a techinical identification.

As for the Plasma, you asked, so I answered. It exists in the FAQ, thus discarding the FAQ dscards the plasma, thats why it's relevent.

As for GW faqs being clarifications; it clarified 'hard material' using fluff instead of other hard material. While it's a temporary solution, its a bad precedent.

Someone did mention the Avatar and it's immunities to fire and melta weapons. First, melta is a special identified rule given to weapons. Secondly, there has been confusion in the past as what counts as 'fire' with the avatar and did need a faq:

Q. Is the Avatar immune to wounds caused by
incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols?
A. Yes, as they are all either melta or flame weapons
under different names

Given this, I can actually legitmatly argue that in an eldar on eldar game, fire prisms also couldn't hurt the avatar. Not that I'm willing to devote the time or the attention in arguing that point, it's only an example of what I'm talking about.

[wkz]

...
Given this, I can actually legitmatly argue that in an eldar on eldar game, fire prisms also couldn't hurt the avatar. Not that I'm willing to devote the time or the attention in arguing that point, it's only an example of what I'm talking about.

Oooooo.... despite the fact that the description states the name as PRISM CANNON, and the fluff says it causes a concentrated BEAM OF LIGHT, you're going to say "a fire prism causes no damage to an Avatar"?

I would say it is the RULES (using the name "fire prism" to determine if something works) rather than using the RULES WITH the FLUFF (using the fluff description to determine, rule-wise, if something works)

Lets put it this way: without dragging fluff into the picture (pure, unchanged RAW rules), can a Banewolf (chemical tank) hurt an Avatar?

[Nabterayl]

EDIT: Italics meant to break up the wall of text for readability. You've been most polite so far and I hope I am returning the favor.


Page 27 of the DoC codex states 'Deamon' and then what all that entails. First and foremost, it would substantiate that they are deamons, as they have the 'deamon' special rule by which to identify them. It's not a 'described as', it's a techinical indintification. It's the difference between a 'rolling stop' and a 'full stop', one is only described as a stop while the other is a techinical identification.
I disagree. Having the special rule "Daemon" does not, by its terms, make you a daemon. It gives you the Fearless, Invulnerable!, Daemonic Assault, and Daemonic Rivalry special rules. Nowhere on page 27 is there a statement to the effect that, "Models with this special rule are daemons."

Compare, for instance, space marines codex page 56. Merely having a special rule called "Psyker" does not make librarians psykers. Librarians are psykers because they have a special rule that says "Librarians are psykers." In the same way, merely having a special rule called "Daemon" does not make a model a daemon.


As for the Plasma, you asked, so I answered. It exists in the FAQ, thus discarding the FAQ dscards the plasma, thats why it's relevent.
I don't mean to be dense about this, but I really don't understand what you plan to do if you encounter a plasma syphon in a game. Only apply it to weapons with the word "plasma" in their name? Or just say that the wargear doesn't work on anything, since there is no way to tell which weapons are plasma weapons except by reference to "fluff?"

[C.of.N.finity]

RAI from fluff = bad eh?

The relativity of intention marked by the perception of story based elements translating into a 'hard rule' that seeks to be mutually understood in a group setting does = bad, yes.


Well, may I ask this: WHY does meltaguns stop working on certain vehicles? You know, like the StormRaven? The vehicle has it as a rule, but why?

As you say, it has a special rule that clearly states they don't.


WHY does Spawn have random powers for each game? It makes them a sub-par unreliable unit, but WHY is this rule dumped on them?

Look at them, not even the Chaos Gods love them...more importantly, they have a very specific rule detialing what they do in the field.


is no description called "Flame" in both weapons in the RULEs, why does one hurt but the other doesn't??

Somewhat already asked and answered. This actually furthers my point than detract from it.


While you're asking this: WHY is a walker a monstrous creature with walker weapons? WHY is said "Monster" Str 10 despite almost all other monsters, some which are much heavier and more close-combat built having much lower strength?

A lot of differences here. There is a FAQ that suggest a model isn't S10 becuase it isn't 'silly string type'. Yet, the model has weapons that (oh, dare I say) according the fluff, belong only to 'silly string type models'. It's a contradiction, an error in logic.


A lot of our hobby revolve around the fluff explained by the rules

I disagree, I believe rules are a means to expressing fluff and no more. It has been my experience that the common creed of gamers are both, 'the rule of cool' (which doesn't apply here) and 'fluff doesn't equal rules'.

[C.of.N.finity]

EDIT: Italics meant to break up the wall of text for readability. You've been most polite so far and I hope I am returning the favor.


I disagree. Having the special rule "Daemon" does not, by its terms, make you a daemon. It gives you the Fearless, Invulnerable!, Daemonic Assault, and Daemonic Rivalry special rules. Nowhere on page 27 is there a statement to the effect that, "Models with this special rule are daemons."

Compare, for instance, space marines codex page 56. Merely having a special rule called "Psyker" does not make librarians psykers. Librarians are psykers because they have a special rule that says "Librarians are psykers." In the same way, merely having a special rule called "Daemon" does not make a model a daemon.


I don't mean to be dense about this, but I really don't understand what you plan to do if you encounter a plasma syphon in the game? Only apply it to weapons with the word "plasma" in their name? Or just say that the wargear doesn't work on anything, since there is no way to tell which weapons are plasma weapons except by reference to "fluff?"

You and I might just have agree to disagree here. If something is called a 'deamon', or in your case, a 'psyker', it does make them such. What 'terms' are you wanting it to be defined by, other than the direct implication of the given title? Honestly, following this line of logic would have us arguing symantics and what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[Nabterayl]

You and I might just have agree to disagree here. If something is called a 'deamon', or in your case, a 'psyker', it does make them such.
Wait, re-read that. "Called" in what context? Called in the context of a codex? Called in the context of a special rule? Called in the context of the name of the unit?


Honestly, following this line of logic would have us arguing symantics and what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
I think it would have us arguing that "fluff" and "rules" are about as clearly differentiated as "dicta" and "law." That's just the nature of technical texts.

[C.of.N.finity]

Wait, re-read that. "Called" in what context? Called in the context of a codex? Called in the context of a special rule? Called in the context of the name of the unit?

Called, as in, being identified as. identiy: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing. The context is itself, that is, what it hopes to identify.


I think it would have us arguing that "fluff" and "rules" are about as clearly differentiated as "dicta" and "law." That's just the nature of technical texts.
And I think sowing confusion in a jury is as much a legal tactic as presenting fact.

[Tynskel]

You know, I just read three pages, and I have no idea what the argument is about.

The FAQ is just house rules, if you don't like them, don't play with them--- I am the same way about INAT FAQ--- I hate that thing, so I don't play with it.

As for the Falchion-- 5-10 points for an extra Force Weapon Daemonbane attack, I don't see what the problem is. It is quite reasonable that it is 5-10 points to add another attack that ignores eternal warrior on daemons, causes instant death, and is a power weapon that, by the way, can be enhanced in strength.

[Nabterayl]

Called, as in, being identified as. identiy: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing. The context is itself, that is, what it hopes to identify.
So ... if the Chaos Space Marines codex has a unit that is "called" a daemon prince, notwithstanding the fact that it does not have the Daemon special rule and there is no sentence that says, "A daemon prince is a daemon," you would say that this unit is a "daemon" for Grey Knight purposes?

And you would call that a "rule" rather than "fluff?" I am struggling to understand how the principle you reject and the principle you propose are different.

[C.of.N.finity]

Called, as in, being identified as. identiy: to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing. The context is itself, that is, what it hopes to identify.
So ... if the Chaos Space Marines codex has a unit that is "called" a daemon prince, notwithstanding the fact that it does not have the Daemon special rule and there is no sentence that says, "A daemon prince is a daemon," you would say that this unit is a "daemon" for Grey Knight purposes?

And you would call that a "rule" rather than "fluff?" I am struggling to understand how the principle you reject and the principle you propose are different.

Then I apologize for your difficulty but I feel, if not correct as it is only opinion, that I have at the very least been clear. I don't believe the majority of the gaming community needs a definition of fluff and rules as their nuances are generally understood and asking for one under these circumstances is nothing more than trying to cloud the issue with wordplay and symantics.

To answer your first question: I'm not saying that at all, GW is saying that. I'm saying the deamon prince should be classified as such in his special rules. The classificaiton of which is identified and defined on page 23, not according to any perceptions that the fluff might give. Thats why I made the point about the fire prism not being able to hurt the avatar.

[Nabterayl]

To answer your first question: I'm not saying that at all, GW is saying that. I'm saying the deamon prince should be classified as such in his special rules. The classificaiton of which is identified and defined on page 23, not according to any perceptions that the fluff might give. Thats why I made the point about the fire prism not being able to hurt the avatar.
So when you say a bloodletter is "called" a daemon, you really mean "a bloodletter has a special rule with the word daemon in its title." And by extension, what you believe the rule to be is that a model is X if it has a special rule that states "this model is X" or if it has the word X in the title of a special rule.

Did I get that right?

[C.of.N.finity]

So when you say a bloodletter is "called" a daemon, you really mean "a bloodletter has a special rule with the word daemon in its title." And by extension, what you believe the rule to be is that a model is X if it has a special rule that states "this model is X" or if it has the word X in the title of a special rule.

Did I get that right?

What I mean is what I've said for three pages now. If I meant what you said, I would already have said it; it doesn't need further defining, just replying to. If you need further clarification on whats been said, please PM me, otherwise I'd like to move this discussion forward.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

In short: Games-workshop rules are pretty poor for sitting down and arguing about. BUT if you accept the simple explanations provided instead of debating them into the ground, they can be enjoyable to play.

[wkz]

Then I apologize for your difficulty but I feel, if not correct as it is only opinion, that I have at the very least been clear. I don't believe the majority of the gaming community needs a definition of fluff and rules as their nuances are generally understood and asking for one under these circumstances is nothing more than trying to cloud the issue with wordplay and symantics.

To answer your first question: I'm not saying that at all, GW is saying that. I'm saying the deamon prince should be classified as such in his special rules. The classificaiton of which is identified and defined on page 23, not according to any perceptions that the fluff might give. Thats why I made the point about the fire prism not being able to hurt the avatar.
So in a nutshell, you want tighter rules for your favorate game....

Note that this is GW and 40k we're talking about. It'll take an entire edition's worth of overhaul of the rulebook and all codexes, AND all the expansions (apoc, planetstrike, etc) AND forgeworld for you to have tighter rules...

For now, the best case we have is "intention of rules" such as the FAQ. I'm sorry, but given GW's love of their "most important rule" (consult with the opponent in the name of Fun) it is very likely this looseness of the rules is going to continue for quite a long time yet.

Edit: Plus, having a loose ruleset is quite interesting in as of itself. True, it sucks in competitions, but when you're playing Apoc with all kinds of funky self-made formations it is pretty fun...

[C.of.N.finity]

So in a nutshell, you want tighter rules for your favorate game....

Note that this is GW and 40k we're talking about. It'll take an entire edition's worth of overhaul of the rulebook and all codexes, AND all the expansions (apoc, planetstrike, etc) AND forgeworld for you to have tighter rules...

I disagree, sir. I've been playing for an entire edition and I've yet to see these tighter rules you speak of :p


For now, the best case we have is "intention of rules" such as the FAQ. I'm sorry, but given GW's love of their "most important rule" (consult with the opponent in the name of Fun) it is very likely this looseness of the rules is going to continue for quite a long time yet.

Isn't this a contradiction though? Aren't FAQs supposed to resolve debates and not cuase them? I understand that, for the most part, GW has been doing pretty decent in that regard but 'clarifying' that something is when it isn't doesn't make things more clear to me.

Oh I know I'll have to build a bridge to get over it. I said 4 pages ago this isn't going to change anything. I had hoped, at most, to make some people aware of the fluff/rules thing, to whine a bit, and just see if anyone else thought at all like I did. This might not have been your exact point but your right in that, in the end, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

[BuFFo]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm going to get people saying "good luck finding a person to play with", etc. But I just can't accept the GK FAQ as it is.

Don't bother with this discussion. I have been "here" so many times online it hurts my head.

When it comes down to it, the majority of 40k customers who post online are just idiots. Plain and simple. They just refuse to read plain, clean and simple English put forth by GW regarding faqs and erratas "just because", yet these same morans will attempt to play as RAW as possible.

FAQs are house rules. Erratas aren't. End of discussion if you are a rational adult, but as you can see from this thread, our hobby lacks in rational adults.

40K stopped being fun many, many years ago when it's player base forgot about the golden rule, and just became a mountain of power gaming, responsibility deflecting cry babies who want to stomp their opponents into the ground when the rules suit them for WAAC gaming, but will cry foul when they lose a model to something they don't understand.

The golden era of playing 40k for fun is long gone. Enjoy the sterile, WAAC environment 40k has become not because of GW's greedy hand, but because of the jaded, selfishness their customers have grown into being over the past decade.

If you want to play fair, play by the Gray Knight erratas, and chuck the FAQ section into the dumpster.

[Lord Castellan]

I think the complaint about fluff affecting a rule is silly. Fluff begets ALL the rules!

In the fluff, a Meltagun is a powerful heat weapon that can tear through tanks, so the rule is designed to represent this. Power Armor is thick, hard, and extremely durable even more so than most other forms of armor, so the rule was designed to represent this.

Grey Knights hunt Daemons, and are good at killing Daemons. An Avatar of Khaine is a Daemon of the Warp, so since its what Grey Knights hunt, they are good at killing it.

Whats that? Fluff shouldnt dictate rules? Fluff dictates every single rule in the game period. Its stupid to say it has no merit when it comes to rule issues.

[scadugenga]

You know, I just read three pages, and I have no idea what the argument is about.

The FAQ is just house rules, if you don't like them, don't play with them--- I am the same way about INAT FAQ--- I hate that thing, so I don't play with it.

As for the Falchion-- 5-10 points for an extra Force Weapon Daemonbane attack, I don't see what the problem is. It is quite reasonable that it is 5-10 points to add another attack that ignores eternal warrior on daemons, causes instant death, and is a power weapon that, by the way, can be enhanced in strength.

Careful, Tynsk...you're applying reason and logic to a waac argument for extra force weapon attacks--that are even more powerful with the FAQ stating that hammerhand freaking stacks!

So let's try to further your logic a bit. (And, for the record--I'm bang on with you on this.)

Okay falchions-are-only-+1-attack haters: Show me any other non-MC/HQ/Walker entry In. The. Game. that can get 5 force weapon attacks on the charge. (2 base, +1 charge +1 falchion, +1 brotherhood banner). And then throw in the 2+/5++ save, and the fact that they do not have to give up their long ranged weapon. The only thing that comes close is the DE Hekatrix--and that's only S3, T3, and not a force weapon.

And this you can get for the measly price of +5 points. (Using Paladin/GK Term entries)

QQ-freakin'-more.

[wkz]

Don't bother with this discussion. I have been "here" so many times online it hurts my head.

When it comes down to it, the majority of 40k customers who post online are just idiots. Plain and simple. They just refuse to read plain, clean and simple English put forth by GW regarding faqs and erratas "just because", yet these same morans will attempt to play as RAW as possible.

FAQs are house rules. Erratas aren't. End of discussion if you are a rational adult, but as you can see from this thread, our hobby lacks in rational adults.

40K stopped being fun many, many years ago when it's player base forgot about the golden rule, and just became a mountain of power gaming, responsibility deflecting cry babies who want to stomp their opponents into the ground when the rules suit them for WAAC gaming, but will cry foul when they lose a model to something they don't understand.

The golden era of playing 40k for fun is long gone. Enjoy the sterile, WAAC environment 40k has become not because of GW's greedy hand, but because of the jaded, selfishness their customers have grown into being over the past decade.

If you want to play fair, play by the Gray Knight erratas, and chuck the FAQ section into the dumpster.

Wow. Nice burn. You actually just attacked people on BOTH SIDES with a single post...

[scadugenga]

Don't bother with this discussion. I have been "here" so many times online it hurts my head.

When it comes down to it, the majority of 40k customers who post online are just idiots. Plain and simple. They just refuse to read plain, clean and simple English put forth by GW regarding faqs and erratas "just because", yet these same morans will attempt to play as RAW as possible.

FAQs are house rules. Erratas aren't. End of discussion if you are a rational adult, but as you can see from this thread, our hobby lacks in rational adults.

40K stopped being fun many, many years ago when it's player base forgot about the golden rule, and just became a mountain of power gaming, responsibility deflecting cry babies who want to stomp their opponents into the ground when the rules suit them for WAAC gaming, but will cry foul when they lose a model to something they don't understand.

The golden era of playing 40k for fun is long gone. Enjoy the sterile, WAAC environment 40k has become not because of GW's greedy hand, but because of the jaded, selfishness their customers have grown into being over the past decade.

If you want to play fair, play by the Gray Knight erratas, and chuck the FAQ section into the dumpster.

Having fun with the game is all about the quality of people you play with. And I'm not talking about skill level.

When the purpose of the game is to have fun, and not be a dick, then it doesn't matter what system you're playing--it'll still be fun.

So--#1 rule--don't play d-bags. :)

Of course, that's hard to do when you're playing in a tournament. But hey, who said you have to play in those?

[daboarder]

Don't bother with this discussion. I have been "here" so many times online it hurts my head.

When it comes down to it, the majority of 40k customers who post online are just idiots. Plain and simple. They just refuse to read plain, clean and simple English put forth by GW regarding faqs and erratas "just because", yet these same morans will attempt to play as RAW as possible.

FAQs are house rules. Erratas aren't. End of discussion if you are a rational adult, but as you can see from this thread, our hobby lacks in rational adults.

40K stopped being fun many, many years ago when it's player base forgot about the golden rule, and just became a mountain of power gaming, responsibility deflecting cry babies who want to stomp their opponents into the ground when the rules suit them for WAAC gaming, but will cry foul when they lose a model to something they don't understand.

The golden era of playing 40k for fun is long gone. Enjoy the sterile, WAAC environment 40k has become not because of GW's greedy hand, but because of the jaded, selfishness their customers have grown into being over the past decade.

If you want to play fair, play by the Gray Knight erratas, and chuck the FAQ section into the dumpster.

Why should we completely disregard the FAQ's?

Saying they're house rules is a load of BUNK. Even if they are house rules at minimum their amendments and clarifications that the Designers THEMSELVES use when balancing (arguably) and playing the game, as such they hold weight on whether we go one way or another with a rule that is sitting on the fence.

Now I'm all for "modding" the game so to speak with custom scenarios, lists that aren't official (see Eo's harlie list or an chaos army with terminator troops) but these things require discussion and preparation and as such are special occasion's, if I walk over to a gaming table on a Thursday night and you roughly demand that falchions offer +2 attacks because the FAQ is "clearly" bunk then Im either going to want my own ignore the FAQ, or I'm not going to play you. Why? because my free time is precious and I don't want to spend it playing against selfish fools who think their own view is the only one that matters.

[Orminah]

Wow. I'd never even have had issues like this in a game with someone. If it has it in it's name, or has a special rule that just screams daemon, I'd be all for taking a halbred in the ***. While the syphon is a tad wonky as far as the Tau goes, hey, that just means you have to throw down a few submunitions at his unit and rake them with suit fire. Heh.

I mean really. How hard is it just to put down your dice, hug the guy on the other side of the table, and just 4+ it?

It's not like you're playing for your eternal soul. Lol.

[Nabterayl]

You know, the whole "FAQs are rules" vs. "FAQs are house rules" distinction has always seemed false to me. It's not as if the "rules" themselves are binding. If I decide with my opponent that infantry can move 8" and all units fire twice the listed number of shots, that's fine. Even the hardest of rules is only binding because my opponent and I agree. Similarly, the FAQs are as binding, or as persuasive, as my opponent and I agree it is so.

[wkz]

You know, the whole "FAQs are rules" vs. "FAQs are house rules" distinction has always seemed false to me. It's not as if the "rules" themselves are binding. If I decide with my opponent that infantry can move 8" and all units fire twice the listed number of shots, that's fine. Even the hardest of rules is only binding because my opponent and I agree. Similarly, the FAQs are as binding, or as persuasive, as my opponent and I agree it is so.
Basically, I am "nearby" in my stance of GW's FAQ, but not in terms of the rules:

- For rules, there should be only one version and interpretation, and one version only. (but good luck trying to extract the same version/meaning from the rulebook. I've lost faith we can all read it similarly :()

This is so that 2 different people from different walks of life can just simply meet each other, shake hands, and immediately jump into a game without ten tons of rules clarification before the game even starts. With the same rules, everyone would have the same framework to have fun (aka: the golden rule)... and even subtle rules differences can be ironed out for the moment, in the name of fun.

- In this regard, "FAQs being as binding as my opponent and I agree" is dangerous: if you and your opponent are random strangers and/or people who don't play together often, the FAQ is similar to the main rulebook: it contains a clarification from the rule's authors themselves, and thus even if they are technically house rules (as written in the FAQ document itself, no less), they should carry a lot of weight on what the actual INTENTION of the wording of certain rules (that's the same "I" in "RAI").

With the FAQ backing up the rules, a certain meaning, more or less similar, can be extracted. Fully ignoring said FAQ will result in local variances which will change the rules significantly in the more ambiguous areas (example: all the FAQ'ed stuff mentioned here for Gray Knights: +1 or +2A? Str10 Monstrous? etc...)

Thus, if you choose to ignore the FAQ completely... ... well... ... I hope you have a lot of people you're playing together regularly and understand what your local gaming group's rules variance are, because a "walk in stranger" is going to have some difficulty understanding your "local dialect" of the rules, and will have a hard time getting broken in before he speaks the same "lingo"

But at the end of the day, Mr "dual-sided hater" Buffo has it correct: The Golden Rule > Everything. Even the BRB and Codexes themselves.

[eldargal]

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

From here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019).

For example, my group is ignoring the bit about Mandrakes being daemons because it has no basis in the rules, fluff not being rules*. But we will be abiding by the bulk of it because we had already houseruled it so.

If you are arguing about rules with someone, you are doing it wrong. We have another rule in my group, if a discussion/argument about a rule during a game lasts more than five minutes you roll a dice to decide it and that is an end to it.

*Everything else on that list has the Daemon special rule, apart from the daemon prince in CSM, but the daemon prince in the daemon codex has it. If GW wanted Mandrakes to be included on that list hey should have a daemon special rule, as the Eldar Avatar does depite its fluff not mentioning daemons at all. I could argue, with as little backing, that the Avatar gets Eternal Warrior because that is what daemons have, the Avatar being a daemon and all.

[daboarder]

not to argue but what is your groups stance on Obliterators?

They are not daemons any more than mandrakes are, hell they don't even get the benefit (T5) that they used to get.

[eldargal]

We take the view that for it to be a daemon from a weapon rules perspective it has to have a/the daemon rule. Yes its silly when it comes to CSM daemon princes and obliterators, but it avoids arguments and makes sense from a rules perspective.

[C.of.N.finity]

We take the view that for it to be a daemon from a weapon rules perspective it has to have a/the daemon rule. Yes its silly when it comes to CSM daemon princes and obliterators, but it avoids arguments and makes sense from a rules perspective.

QFT


Okay falchions-are-only-+1-attack haters: Show me any other non-MC/HQ/Walker entry In. The. Game. that can get 5 force weapon attacks on the charge. (2 base, +1 charge +1 falchion, +1 brotherhood banner). And then throw in the 2+/5++ save, and the fact that they do not have to give up their long ranged weapon. The only thing that comes close is the DE Hekatrix--and that's only S3, T3, and not a force weapon.


You forget that it's 45 points more for all of this, the attacks from the banner aren't nemises so they're normal and there's no reason to take the falchions over the FREE halberds. Assualt termies with a pair of lightning claws get 20 power attacks (or 15, since apperently CCW bought in pairs don't give extra attacks) which are essentially master crafted - our termies with the banner get 20 power attacks, force instead of master crafted, and 4 regular plain attacks for a difference in 45 points. Given the larger amount of single wound models in the game and the proliferation of eternal warrior, I'd say it's very argumenative which unit is better - not the huge land slide you pretend it is.

[Denzark]

Hahaha BuFFO is proving old skool is the new black - we haven't had this for ages. For some people, I suspect a vast majority of players, their fun is enhanced by adherence to what comes out from GW - hence like Star Wars special editions are supposed to be as close to what the director intended as possible, the supposed 'house-rules' of FAQs are what the firm wanted.

Therefore to comply with the BRB most important rule of having fun, people stick to what GW intends even if the idiot company don't lay it down as the word of god.

[C.of.N.finity]

Ok, so I had a thought. It's late and I'm tired, but it's worth saying:

What if this whole falchions thing is prep for 6th edition? Maybe two CCW's won't give an extra attack. Maybe they'll act like having two of the same ranged weapon and allow for rerolls, etc?

[scadugenga]

QFT



You forget that it's 45 points more for all of this, the attacks from the banner aren't nemises so they're normal and there's no reason to take the falchions over the FREE halberds. Assualt termies with a pair of lightning claws get 20 power attacks (or 15, since apperently CCW bought in pairs don't give extra attacks) which are essentially master crafted - our termies with the banner get 20 power attacks, force instead of master crafted, and 4 regular plain attacks for a difference in 45 points. Given the larger amount of single wound models in the game and the proliferation of eternal warrior, I'd say it's very argumenative which unit is better - not the huge land slide you pretend it is.

I'm not forgetting the cost. 45points for a terminator with 4 (or 5 w/banner) attacks on the charge is cheap.
Now throw in funky wound allocation with weapon swaps and multi-wound terms (Paladins) and you get more bang for your buck.

Your analogy re: weapons bought in pairs is incorrect. You can buy a single lightning claw. So having 2 of them (at twice the points of a single claw) clearly provide the +1 attack bonus for two weapons. In fact, the BRB specificially states the only way you can get the two weapon bonus attack (for lightning claws) is with a second lightning claw. You cannot buy a single falchion. A prime example would be the eldar scorpion exarch chainsabres--they are bought as a pair, just like falchions, yet only provide +1 attack for two weapons--just like falchions.

The main problem is that Matt Ward cannot write in clear concise terms. Apparently that's Phil Kelly's bag, since he's much more clear re: paired weapons and what bonuses they provide. (IE: Mirrorswords, hydra guantlets, razorflails, shardnet/impaler, chainsabres, etc.)

And to touch back briefly re: your close assault term and GKT: Close assault terms don't have any ranged weapon options, while the GKT has spiffy nemesis weapons, plus the ubiquitous storm bolter, as well as psycannon, psylencer (blech, what a stupid name) and incinerator options. If anything, GKT are underpriced compared to their vanilla counterparts. Assault termies don't get Aegis suits either. :)

[zenjah]

If you are arguing about rules with someone, you are doing it wrong. We have another rule in my group, if a discussion/argument about a rule during a game lasts more than five minutes you roll a dice to decide it and that is an end to it.

I've always been curious how this works in the long run. The next time you play the game with the same opponent, do you roll the dice again, or remember how it came out the first time you rolled the dice and treat that as your permanent house-rule?

[Demonus]

To the OP i wont tell you if you are right or wrong, play the game how you want, if people in your gaming circle agree with the rules. I have a friend with a converted Imperial Basilisk, for his Iron Warriors army he used to play. In the current codex, the iron warriors rules dont exist any more, and since Chaos Marines can't take allies like they could in 2nd edition, some of our other friends wont let him use the basilisk.

I personally dont care, cause 40k is about fun to me. I let him use it with IG stats cause it makes him happy and enjoy the game more.

For the record though, I have always played that a pair of falchions was a 5pt upgrade for +1 attack. Honestly cant see how people read it as otherwise, but Im not surprised by people and reading what they want to read.

[BrokenWing]

It's not people reading what they want to believe, it's people reading that it's an ability granted by the weapon and at the same time you get a pair of weapons.

So either falchions actually don't grant you anything at all (which is what I'm seeing) or paired weapons no longer provide +1 attack.

[zenjah]

It's not people reading what they want to believe, it's people reading that it's an ability granted by the weapon and at the same time you get a pair of weapons.

So either falchions actually don't grant you anything at all (which is what I'm seeing) or paired weapons no longer provide +1 attack.

Agreed. They could have worded it so it was obvious that the +1 attack was as a result of having a second close-combat weapon. Since they didn't mention that, people had every reason to believe that the standard rule would still apply. Even if the Rule As Intended was obvious to some, the wording left ambiguity.

[BrokenWing]

This is why I was so happy to see the FAQ come out, so that it would be crystal clear, one way or another.

[C.of.N.finity]

After getting back from my local hobby store, I need some help with something. I checked all over - nowhere in the description of the mandrake does the word deamon appear. Not even in passing. So, not only are we interpreting fluff as rules but now it seems a lot more confusing. I'm sure i missed something, can anyone find a reference to deamons with mandrakes? (P.S. I thought the reference had been in the description of their ward save, but as far as I could tell it wasn't).

[BrokenWing]

In the fluff Mandrakes are part Dark Eldar and part....something else. Read the fluff entry for the Decapitator.

[s_harrington]

In the story about Asbrudel Vect letting a Salamander's Battle barge into Commorragh, it specificly calls the Mandrakes "half-daemons"

Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence

[C.of.N.finity]

In the story about Asbrudel Vect letting a Salamander's Battle barge into Commorragh, it specificly calls the Mandrakes "half-daemons"

Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence

Awesome! I knew I had seen it somewhere. Still though, that doesn't strike anyone else as being a little excessive in terms of digging for interpretation. I mean, it's not even in their description, but in the part of a story that even GW considers non-canon? (as GW's position is that there isn't any official canon, last I checked)


In the fluff Mandrakes are part Dark Eldar and part....something else. Read the fluff entry for the Decapitator.


That was the first palce I looked, as really I thought that was the origin of their ward save but it doesn't even specify there. As for as I can tell, it's not in the units description at all, harrington was kind enough to go through the other fluff to find it.

[daboarder]

excuse me Nifinity but why are you having such a hard time dealing with changes to a "fictional universe" by the authors of said universe?

HELL'S! EVERY SINGLE RULE IN THE GAME IS DERIVED FROM FLUFF.

its been pointed out time and time again in this thread and others (that I know you have posted in) that this designation of a broad rule is nothing new....every avatar (baring the 3rd ed one) has been immune to "FLAME" weapons....now look up the description of weapons.....can you find a place where "flame" is defined as a weapon type? NO because its not there. 40K is a beer and pretzels game based upon FLUFF so the inclusion of FLUFFY rules in it is more than justified.

[HsojVvad]

Posting before I forget. Try being a Tyranid player? Talk about the FAQ nerf bat. You don't want to play with your FAQ, find don't ask me to play with mine. Shadows in the Warp effect units in vechicles, Spirit Leach effects units in vehicles and GET NO COVER SAVE etc etc.

Back to reading. page one.

[HsojVvad]

Ah 7 pages? I thought there was only 3 before I posted. I guess I jumped the gun.

Well I agree with the OP, if there is a rule you don't like to use, say it before the game and explain politely. Just know if you ask for it, I would in return be asking for the Tyranid FAQ not to be used as well and have great explanation as to why not.

This game is about fun. So if it makes more fun for you, great. So if you get the +1 attack that would only be fair for my Hormies and Geneis to have them as well even though the codex doesn't say so. It goes both ways, give and take.

Remember that. Just because you choose not to accept a soft rule, FAQ and will clamp down on Hard Rules Errata, it goes both ways, other wise you are picking and choosing how YOU have fun and placing YOUR IDEAS on every one else.

:)

[Tynskel]

I love that people are complaining about this FAQ. Seriously?

Think about tyranids--- I can no longer have a spore pod army. I must either take the parasite or hive tyrant with wings.
I don't understand why they just didn't say the "Tyranid Prime can only join a warrior squad in a pod."

And that's just ONE of the things they FAQed for tyranids that don't make sense.

[BrokenWing]

Some people are complaining, alot of people (myself included) are just pointing out something about one specific upgrade.

As for Tyranids, I played them back in 3rd edition straight out of the rulebook.