FAQ questions for official GW FAQ inquiry

I was being sarcastic and emphatic, Count. Not rude or angry. But you should read almost everything I write in the monotone voice of Ben Stein à la his role in "Wonder Years".

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Here are the direct QUOTES from the book:

Quote :

pg108
If a model with a webway portal is in Reserves or Ongoing Reserves, then the model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has the Deep Strike special rule. This model, and his unit, will not scatter if arriving from Deep Strike Reserve.

Rear Foldout:
If in reserves or ongoing reserves, model and any unit it has joined or is embarked upon has deep strike, and will not scatter if arriving from deep strike reserve.

Now tell me how you think one says something different than the other???? The second is more succinct, combining the two sentences into one, but the content is identical. Neither are unclear.

Um, yes - they are different.

The first says the model and his unit wont scatter. The second says the model, any unit he has joins OR IS EMBARKED UPON gain DS and wont scatter.

The second is very clear. The first only says the no scatter applies to him and his unit. Yes the vehicle gains it but the no scatter function is not there in that instance.

Do I AGREE that the second is likely correct and the intent? absolutely! Do they say the same thing though? NO!

Well... Are we really arguing about the phrasing of such sentences? It's clear for everyone and doesn't belong into an official faq. If anyone would argue that my Raider does scatter I'd laugh at him.

Much more interesting is the question: can I use this to deep Strike a fortification?

CptMetal wrote:

Well... Are we really arguing about the phrasing of such sentences? It's clear for everyone and doesn't belong into an official faq.

The reason we're arguing about it is that there are two different versions of the rule that do two different things. Now, you can say that the version you want to use is clearly the right version but then your opponent can claim exactly the same thing for their preferred version. That is the reason it needs to be FAQ'd, although if GW's track record with Dark Eldar is anything to go by we'll probably end up with only the actual bearer of the WWP not scattering!

People making an argument that the first one doesn't extend the "no scatter" to vehicles are making an absurd argument when it says elsewhere in the book that it does. The rules don't conflict in a permissive ruleset. For them to conflict, one of the 2 writeups would have to say it DOES NOT confer the no scatter portion of the rule. It doesn't say that. It just declines to word it in an inclusive way.

We have to follow all of the rules in the book. It's possible for us to follow both versions of that rule, and so we must, which results in us following the proper, clear rule.

Sorry but that's just wrong. The rules say that your vehicle scatters when it arrives by deep strike. One version of the WWP portal rule says it doesn't. The other version of the WWP rule is silent on the matter and therefore reverts to the default position from the main rules (ie it does scatter). This is a conflict and it does need to be FAQ'd.

There's also the fact that the scattering version is in the actual rules whereas the non-scatter is only in the summary. Should these carry equal weight?

Not to mention those summaries always have mistakes in them!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Sorry but that's just wrong. The rules say that your vehicle scatters when it arrives by deep strike. One version of the WWP portal rule says it doesn't. The other version of the WWP rule is silent on the matter and therefore reverts to the default position from the main rules (ie it does scatter). This is a conflict and it does need to be FAQ'd.

There's also the fact that the scattering version is in the actual rules whereas the non-scatter is only in the summary. Should these carry equal weight?

That's not how the rules interactions work, Count. This is a list of instructions we're given. Tell me at what number we're disagreeing:

1. In all cases, unless there is a direct conflict, we are to follow all rules that are applicable to a given situation.
2. In the event a rule in the rulebook conflicts with a rule in a codex, follow the rule in the codex.
3. We have 2 rules in a codex that can BOTH be followed, because 1 says they don't scatter, and the other doesn't say otherwise. For there to be a conflict, one must say yes and the other must say no. Not saying either way doesn't equal conflict, you simply refer to where it DOES say, and you have your answer.
4. Therefore the rule in the base rulebook is overridden by the one in the codex, there is no conflict between the codex versions, so we can and do follow both.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with your interpretation, it's contentious enough that I've added this to the list:

Q10 - There are 2 different writeups for webway portal, one in the back of the book summary, and a different one in the main entry. Do transport vehicles arriving by deep strike scatter if they're carrying a character equipped with a webway portal?
A - ?

I'm with betray here.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's not how the rules interactions work, Count. This is a list of instructions we're given. Tell me at what number we're disagreeing:

We didn't even get to number 1 before we disagreed, as this is an almost entirely made up list and only number 2 is actually written in the rules.

This is really a very simple matter. It's not a case of 2 different rules conflicting with each other. It's the same rule written differently in 2 places in the codex and doing 2 different things. It needs a FAQ to clarify which version of the rule is the correct one. I'm genuinely surprised that this is even a discussion. If the profile summary charts at the back of the codex said Darklight weapons had the Melta rule, but the Armoury (ie the rules) did not, do you honestly think your opponent would just let you use the Melta rule?

Not that it really matter at this stage as the FAQ submissions have now ended.

Those rules don't contradict each other, one merely describes it better. Why the fun for masochism?

CptMetal wrote:

Those rules don't contradict each other, one merely describes it better. Why the fun for masochism?

They don't have to contradict each other to say different things. One lets you do A, B and C, the other only lets you do A and B. There is either an erroneous omission from one version or an erroneous addition to the other and there is no way of knowing which is actually correct. Is this really that hard to grasp?

I just think it's poorly written but clear otherwise and that we have other more important questions to ask.

We certainly have bigger issues to deal with but let's face it, a FAQ simply isn't going to cut it when it comes to fixing the issues with our codex. Nothing short of a complete rewrite and overhaul will do that.

The question i frequently ask myself:
What were they thinking?!?

Marrath wrote:

The question i frequently ask myself:
What were they thinking?!?  

More like 'Were they thinking?"

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's not how the rules interactions work, Count. This is a list of instructions we're given. Tell me at what number we're disagreeing:

We didn't even get to number 1 before we disagreed,

Ok, so you're saying we don't have to follow all the rules we're given?

You know what? We really don't have anything to talk about if you're going to try to take the position that we need instructions to follow the instructions. That's absurd. I'm done with this element of the conversation. I've posted the question in the list. Have a nice day.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's not how the rules interactions work, Count. This is a list of instructions we're given. Tell me at what number we're disagreeing:

We didn't even get to number 1 before we disagreed,

Ok, so you're saying we don't have to follow all the rules we're given?

You know what? We really don't have anything to talk about if you're going to try to take the position that we need instructions to follow the instructions. That's absurd. I'm done with this element of the conversation. I've posted the question in the list. Have a nice day.

Fine by me. Trying to argue with someone who thinks two different versions of the same rule isn't a discrepancy is a bit like pulling teeth anyway.