Scout rules FAQ

[Mal]

The ambigiousness comes from the possibility that it could and it could not stack.... both options are plausable within the wording of the rule.

 

So unless we know the intent of the rule (and only Matt Ward knows this) then we are left with the rule as we have it, yes your free to agree to the interpretation fo a rule before the game, however if you and your opponent do not agree, then you invoke 'The Most Important Rule!'.

 

The purpose of your FAQ is to provide people with a guide as to what is considered 'the most appropiate interpretation' however it is not cannon. People are free to agree or disagree with you, and if they disagree, then the 'Most Important Rule!' should be used.

 

If you feel your opponent will 'abuse' the rule or you don't agree with the way they play, then don't play them, the only time you don't get this option is during a tournament, where the judges will decide for you.

 

Ultimately though, if your opponent does not agree with your interpretation, they are well within their rights to invoke 'The Most Important Rule!' and this rule, being an offical GW rule, will always take precident over a fan FAQ.

[greatcrusade08]

sorry Mal you dont score points for repeating what i had already said..

the difference between us is obviously a sense of fairness and decency... how far do we take the "most important rule"?

 

In this situation the argument that the rule stacks has alot of evidence to support it, the argument that it doesnt stack is based solely on the wording, scratch that your interpretation of that wording.

Without any further evidence to support this argument i dont think its fair to question the rule... simple as that.

 

what if i decide i dont like ALL the rules which give your army a benefit on the tabletop, what if i interpret them to mean something else even without evidence?

does that then mean we "roll off" on each of them.. i have a 50/50 chance each time of neutering your army/rules.

 

so whilst you disagree with my argument, unless you have enough evidence/support to prove it wrong you shouldnt claim "most important rule" it would be total rules lawyering to try and quite frankly ill be walking away from the table.

[Mal]

As I stated Gc08... if you don't like the rule, you don't have to play... but you cannot enforce your FAQ over the GW rulebook.

 

People can choose to accept your interpretations, but people do not have to...

 

This rule can be disputed because the wording is ambegious, it can potentially mean more then one thing... as for proof, there is no solid proof one way or the other, if there was the rule would never have come up in this discussion. Yes there are stacking modifiers, that doesn't prove that this is a stacking modifier.

 

If you was to invoke the 'Most Important Rule!' over say the number of shots a heavy bolter has, that would be cheating as there can be only 1 interpretation, the point people have been trying to get you to see here is that there is more than 1 potential interpretation of the wording in this rule.

[pingo]

In this situation the argument that the rule stacks has alot of evidence to support it, the argument that it doesnt stack is based solely on the wording, scratch that your interpretation of that wording.

Without any further evidence to support this argument i dont think its fair to question the rule... simple as that.

While you have, admirably, cited many things that support the interpretation that the rule does stack, I don't think they have proved it. And they haven't done that because the rule is worded in such as way that it is neither permissive of stacking, nor is it restrictive of it. While the rule is like that, someone can validly disagree with you.

 

I understand where you're coming from, and that it is probably frustrating that I'm not offering another argument than 'but the wording can be interpreted the other way', but I'm not sure what else I can say. On balance, you may be right. But the variable interpretation of the wording will remain grabbing firmly to our soft parts.

 

what if i decide i dont like ALL the rules which give your army a benefit on the tabletop, what if i interpret them to mean something else even without evidence?

does that then mean we "roll off" on each of them.. i have a 50/50 chance each time of neutering your army/rules.

The vast majority of the rules are clearly worded, so we wouldn't have this problem.

 

In any case, I am planning to use 2 LSSs, so my arguing this would actually lead to a disadvantage on the table. In fact, I think the stackable penalty might be a bit harsh. But hey.

 

so whilst you disagree with my argument, unless you have enough evidence/support to prove it wrong you shouldn't claim "most important rule" it would be total rules lawyering to try and quite frankly ill be walking away from the table.

If we were playing I can assure you that this discussion would last only a minute: I would then probably just let you have your interpretation as I care not how to play the rule out. I just think that it is wrong to have the attitude that if someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of a minor rule then they are a rules lawyer, and not worth playing against. Especially when any reasonable gamer would just roll off for it. I also think it would help if the FAQ was less prescriptive in this matter. It's better to be open to compromise.

 

 

GC08: I do believe that we share the USR's of 'Stubbon' and 'Relentless' :rolleyes:

 

 

EDIT: Mal has just summed up quite eloquently what I've been trying to get across: nice one.

[greatcrusade08]

The wording is not ambiguous, i agree it would have been better if it said modifies, but "reduces" as per the english language is infact a modifier..

 

If LSS 1 reduces Ld by 2 and LSS 2 also reduces Ld by 2 then if hey targetted the same unit the net reduction would be 4.. much like if two lash wielding models targetted the same unit..

there is nothing in the wording that says these cannot stack.

 

And like i said without good cause you cant just disagree with a rule and expect to get a "roll off"

 

And Mal you know full well i never intended this to surplant GW rules, so stop trying to show me up youll only embarass yourself.

 

If we were playing I can assure you that this discussion would last only a minute: I would then probably just let you have your interpretation as I care not how to play the rule out. I just think that it is wrong to have the attitude that if someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of a minor rule then they are a rules lawyer, and not worth playing against. Especially when any reasonable gamer would just roll off for it. I also think it would help if the FAQ was less prescriptive in this matter. It's better to be open to compromise.

 

Agreed i generally compromise and youll see that throughout the article, its all about table top playability and like you said ive had no arguments other than "it suggests it may not be the case"

I stand by the RAW which is described above.

whilst most games would compromise, most decent gamers also see the 'sense' in my arguments and as such happily play using these rules.

i cant see how its unfair considering its two 5 man scout squads.. if you get beaten by those you deserve to run away. then you have to take up two FA slots on what are glass speeders.

 

GC08: I do believe that we share the USR's of 'Stubbon' and 'Relentless'

:lol: too true.

I appreciate your reasons for arguing the point, you even say yourself my argument is probably what was intended.. but i have a big problem with the end result here... if all that is required is a different interpretation of rules then any rule can be disagreed upon... and as such we are left with rules lawyering..

 

This rule can be disputed because the wording is ambegious, it can potentially mean more then one thing... as for proof, there is no solid proof one way or the other, if there was the rule would never have come up in this discussion. Yes there are stacking modifiers, that doesn't prove that this is a stacking modifier

I have provided with english language and past exemplars that my argument has valid support.. it is not a grey area rule! just simply that two guys out of hundreds that have seen this article see a different interpretation.. also modifiers either stack or do not, since the previous exexplars mentioned only show the limits of stacking then if this wasnt meant to stack it would clearly show it.

To quote yourself

apples or oranges pick one, modifiers either stack or they do not

[Mal]

The point here Gc08 is that if 2 people can come to the same interpretation ofthe rule, seperately, and this interpretation is different from what you have, then there is infact the possibility that there may be other interpretations.

 

The correct procedure for these incidents are as follows:

 

Player A gives their interpretation, Then

Player B gives their interpretation, If

Players A&B agree continue game, Else

Take a dice roll as per the 'Most Important Rule!' and continue game.

 

The purpose of this FAQ of yours is simply to allow people, if they choose, to use what is given here in place of using the 'Most Important Rule!', but please remember Gc08, that it is the players choice to use this FAQ or not.

 

It cannot be enforced, and it should not be used as an excuse to put players down if they don't agree with it.

 

Please keep things in perspective my friend.

[greatcrusade08]

dont be condasending,

like i said all i have to do is disagree with an opponents rule and we go to a roll off..

this is open to abuse of the worst kind, which is why its best to have proper evidence of your argument rather than "my interpretation is different so there"

 

How far do we go?? its definately not fair to do it your way...

[Mal]

I am not being condecending, I am simply stating the correct procedure, and pointing out that this FAQ is a fan FAQ and as such is no different in game to house rules, in other words if I don't agree with your interpretation I have every right to deny its use.

 

As for abusing the 'Most Important Rule!' its not actually as open to abuse as you may think... it can only be called where there are grey areas, not as you put it 'with every rule'...

 

The simple fact is that there is a grey area in the wording of this rule and no substantial proof one way or the other... as I have said previously, this is the very reason why we have the 'Most Important Rule!'.

 

As to how far we go... I have stated... if both players cannot come toa concensious over the interpretation of a grey area within a rule, then you invoke the 'Most Important Rule!'... If you think that I am abusing the rule by using it to decide a grey area within the wording of a specific rule then that is your progative, but that being said, the 'Most Important Rule!' is a rule in the 5th ed BRB and as such is just as valid as any other rule in the game... if you've the right to deny me the use of that rule, then I have equal right to deny you the use of your rules... see where this path leads? Chaos... and not the C:CSM kind.

 

As a side note... it is not my way, it is the way laid out in the BRB, if you disagree with that, then your speaking to the wrong people.

[pingo]

dont be condasending,

like i said all i have to do is disagree with an opponents rule and we go to a roll off..

this is open to abuse of the worst kind, which is why its best to have proper evidence of your argument rather than "my interpretation is different so there"

 

How far do we go?? its definately not fair to do it your way...

It's more that just disagreeing for the hell of it. The rule is ambiguously worded.

 

The statement 'reduced by 2' could mean 'reduced by 2 each time' or 'reduced by 2 only'.

 

You can't, for instance, say that Kantor doesn't give +1 Attack to all friendly models within 12 inches. If someone says that a friendly model within 12 inches of Kantor can't have +1 Attack, you can refer them to the totally unambiguously worded rule.

 

The way the rule is worded can support both sides of this debate, and that's the difference.

[greatcrusade08]

As a side note... it is not my way, it is the way laid out in the BRB, if you disagree with that, then your speaking to the wrong people.

 

I am not being condecending,

 

i suggest you rethink your statement!

 

The point here Gc08 is that if 2 people can come to the same interpretation ofthe rule, seperately,

this is clearly not the case, you picked up on pingos arguments in this thread, you didnt come to this conclusion youself

 

i repeat this is not a grey area. RAW is clearon the matter and you have provided no proof to counter this

 

The way the rule is worded can support both sides of this debate, and that's the difference.

No this is wrong... as ive shown RAW is clear, without the wording "Ld of 2 maximum" or "Ld 2 only" then it clearly stacks

[pingo]

The way the rule is worded can support both sides of this debate, and that's the difference.

No this is wrong... as ive shown RAW is clear, without the wording "Ld of 2 maximum" or "Ld 2 only" then it clearly stacks

 

Sorry, but if I need a clarification that it is 2 only, then you need one that says it is a stackable 2. That's just not fair play.

[greatcrusade08]

The way the rule is worded can support both sides of this debate, and that's the difference.

No this is wrong... as ive shown RAW is clear, without the wording "Ld of 2 maximum" or "Ld 2 only" then it clearly stacks

 

Sorry, but if I need a clarification that it is 2 only, then you need one that says it is a stackable 2. That's just not fair play.

 

Ah but we have exemplars that show that modifiers DO stack.. in a court of law, previous case law counts or to bring it across to the 40k world; rules exemplars carry weight, i have also shown that in situations when limitations are placed upon stacking they are clearly shown.. i.e power fist and other strenght modifiers

 

cannot two lashes be used in the same unit or two LR's shooting with potms? why is this any different?

what if something else were to modify leadership? using your argument it would be ignored would it not?

The maximum of 2 argument just doesnt make enough sense to be correct

[Mal]

Firstly... this is not a court of law... and you call me a rules lawyer... funny...

 

Secondly the examples you game each have additional rules to show how they are treated as to stacking, the cerebus launcher does not.

 

Thirdly, just beacuse other rules stack doesn't automatically mean this one does... thats at least as spurious as you find my own argument against stacking.

 

Lastly, it really doesn't matter, if my opponent beings the matter up I will state my interpretation, if they disagree we will use the 'Most Important Rule!' beacuse thats the rule GW have provided us with to solve these situtations. You can find it on p.2 of the BRB.

 

This whole discussion is completly irrelivant, and as such it should be brought to a close.

 

You have said you peace, I have said mine... now lets agree to disagree and allow the thread to return to more useful subjects.

[greatcrusade08]

Firstly... this is not a court of law... and you call me a rules lawyer... funny...

condasending yet again!

 

Secondly the examples you game each have additional rules to show how they are treated as to stacking, the cerebus launcher does not.

No not at all, the only info given is how limitations are treated ref stacking

 

Thirdly, just beacuse other rules stack doesn't automatically mean this one does... thats at least as spurious as you find my own argument against stacking.

As i said modifiers either stack or they do not, we have examples of rules stating limits on stacking, which suggests they Do stack unless stated.

since spurious means false and invalid perhaps youd like to change your wording.. my argument is made using logic, yours simply your own interpretation of the rules

 

This whole discussion is completly irrelivant, and as such it should be brought to a close

So why make such a song and dance about how my article is wrong? ive explained the use of this article and you dont have to like it or use it, but i will and so will others... you cant just rubbish it and walk away.. especially when your argument is compeltely daft

[Mal]

I've said my part, you've said yours...

 

Neither of us will convince the other, so again I ask you to politely let it go.

[greatcrusade08]

@ pingo: Ive been looking at other rules that can be used as exemplars for this debate..

As it goes furious charge is very similar to this rule.. bothe are charge bonuses, one gives a bonus to the charges the other a modifier to the chargees.. but both can be used to show my point.

 

If two units with furious charge assault the same unit, both are entitled to thier own seperate bonuses, the same must go for the LSS teams.

 

We know that if LSS team 1 assaults guardsman unit 1 they cause -2ld

We also know that if LSS 2 assaults guardsman unit 2 they also cause -2Ld

 

Its also clear that if LSS team 1 charges both guardsman units at the same time both units have the -2 Ld.

 

So if both units are entitled to give -2 Ld on the turn they charge, the only thing that should prevent them from stacking is a rule that states as much.

The absence of any stacking details is immaterial in this case, clear RAW shows they will stack as each -2 modifer is independant of the other.

 

this article is meant as a guide for those who dont want to argue and go down the roll off route, as such all suggestions put forth are the most reasonable based on the strongest evidence.

Its true you dont have to follow this advice, but then the whole rules section is the same but it doesnt prevent things being debated out and the logical answer found!

In this case RAW clearly shows the modifiers must stack, without any rules to counter this i can see no reason to question this rule.

[pingo]

@ pingo: Ive been looking at other rules that can be used as exemplars for this debate..

As it goes furious charge is very similar to this rule.. bothe are charge bonuses, one gives a bonus to the charges the other a modifier to the chargees.. but both can be used to show my point.

 

If two units with furious charge assault the same unit, both are entitled to thier own seperate bonuses, the same must go for the LSS teams.

 

We know that if LSS team 1 assaults guardsman unit 1 they cause -2ld

We also know that if LSS 2 assaults guardsman unit 2 they also cause -2Ld

 

Its also clear that if LSS team 1 charges both guardsman units at the same time both units have the -2 Ld.

 

So if both units are entitled to give -2 Ld on the turn they charge, the only thing that should prevent them from stacking is a rule that states as much.

The absence of any stacking details is immaterial in this case, clear RAW shows they will stack as each -2 modifer is independant of the other.

I'm not sure that works.

 

Furious charge allows each charging unit to add +1 to their own initiative and strength in a turn in which they assaulted. There is never an opportunity for stacking the increase from this rule with itself.

 

So you have shown by analogy that if an LSS team assaults multiple units they all have a reduced Leadership. The Cerberus launcher rule already states this as it says any enemy unit assaulted by Scouts charging out of an LSS suffers a Leadership reduced by 2.

 

The furious charge rule can only ever be applied once per turn to a single unit. The Cerberus launcher rule may, or may not, need to be applied multiple times to the same unit in a given turn. The two rules are not comparable.

[greatcrusade08]

So you have shown by analogy that if an LSS team assaults multiple units they all have a reduced Leadership. The Cerberus launcher rule already states this as it says any enemy unit assaulted by Scouts charging out of an LSS suffers a Leadership reduced by 2.

 

No not quite right here.

the rule states a when a unit of scouts that disembarked from the speeder assaults, any unit they contact have thier leadership reduced by 2.. this is not a blanket statement covering all LSS and scouts, it specifically refers to a single scout unit charging from a singular LSS.. therefore a second such unit will also confer the same reduction.

this point cannot be argued, what your saying is that the second unit are disallowed thier special rules but have no evidence to suggest why other than implied wording.

 

Im using strict RAW

 

The furious charge rule can only ever be applied once per turn to a single unit. The Cerberus launcher rule may, or may not, need to be applied multiple times to the same unit in a given turn. The two rules are not comparable.

Actually despite obvious differences its very similar in principle, each LSS is only ever applying the rule once per turn, what we are seeing is the end result, in this case its two lots of -2ld... in the case of furious charge its a few more casulties.

[pingo]

So you have shown by analogy that if an LSS team assaults multiple units they all have a reduced Leadership. The Cerberus launcher rule already states this as it says any enemy unit assaulted by Scouts charging out of an LSS suffers a Leadership reduced by 2.

 

No not quite right here.

the rule states a when a unit of scouts that disembarked from the speeder assaults, any unit they contact have thier leadership reduced by 2.. this is not a blanket statement covering all LSS and scouts, it specifically refers to a single scout unit charging from a singular LSS.. therefore a second such unit will also confer the same reduction.

this point cannot be argued, what your saying is that the second unit are disallowed thier special rules but have no evidence to suggest why other than implied wording.

 

Im using strict RAW

I apologise for the oversight: I of course meant to say when the Scouts are assaulting after having disembarked.

 

Actually... I did say that in the second sentence.

 

And many times previously.

 

It still stands that your comparison to Furious Charge is invalid, and can't be used in this debate.

 

Actually despite obvious differences its very similar in principle, each LSS is only ever applying the rule once per turn, what we are seeing is the end result, in this case its two lots of -2ld... in the case of furious charge its a few more casulties.

I disagree. Furious charge bonuses can never stack, as there is never an opportunity. A unit being charged by multiple Scouts units from their LSSs must endure multiple applications of the rule, and we're still left with the question of whether it stacks or not.

 

The question is not whether the LSSs apply the rule more than once. It is if the rule is applied more than once, does it stack?

[greatcrusade08]

no need for an apology mate, as it happens i think we are arguing different points.

the main argument for me is that the rule refers to a single LSS team,therefore each team gets the same rule.. in order to deny one LSS its rules we need a limitation on the rules

It has to be written that it doesnt stack..

[pingo]

no need for an apology mate, as it happens i think we are arguing different points.

the main argument for me is that the rule refers to a single LSS team,therefore each team gets the same rule.. in order to deny one LSS its rules we need a limitation on the rules

It has to be written that it doesnt stack..

I see what you mean, but the rule is referring to the enemy unit(s) that are being charged. It is not a question of denying an LSS it's rule.

 

If we take 'any enemy units that the Scouts assault have their Leadership reduced by 2 for the duration of that assault phase' to mean that they have a Leadership that is two less than normal rather than reduced by 2 for each assaulting LSS Scout unit, then a second LSS is not denied it's rule. Rather, the rule is already in effect, so it is irrelevant.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Lash whips (by codex)

 

"Models in base contact with a creature with lash whips lose one attack in each assult phase (to a minimum of 1)"

 

These were ERRATED to

 

"Enemy models fight with one less attack (to a minimum of 1") for each tyranid equiped with a lash whip they are in base to base contact with"

 

The fact that it was errataed instead of FAQed lends support that by raw the orignial would NOT have ben cumulitive.

 

Psychic scream

 

"Any enemy unit within 18" of a creature with this power suffer a -1 to all leadership tests. If several creatures with the psychic scream power are within range of the unit, the modifires are cumultive"

 

 

Of course as said before looking for any kind of consitancy from GW, especialy between different codexs is foolhardy, but it is precidence. I also checked ork and dark eldar dex's, didnt find anything aplicable. Someoe else can check chaos marines and deamons.

Weather this is food for thought, or fuel on the fire is up to you.

[greatcrusade08]

this errata is worded very similar to the LSS rules, i think it adds more weight to my argument.. it is shown from the enemies point of view and describes a reduction.. and it doesnt state modifier..

All in all im happy with this as further evidence that im right.. the fact it was erratad was probably because it was argued much like this and they wanted to clear it up.

It is a perfect exemplar of this rule though

 

but then with RAW on my side i was never wrong :lol:

 

I see what you mean, but the rule is referring to the enemy unit(s) that are being charged. It is not a question of denying an LSS it's rule.

 

If we take 'any enemy units that the Scouts assault have their Leadership reduced by 2 for the duration of that assault phase' to mean that they have a Leadership that is two less than normal rather than reduced by 2 for each assaulting LSS Scout unit, then a second LSS is not denied it's rule. Rather, the rule is already in effect, so it is irrelevant.

 

In answer to your first point its not clear about which view can be taken, its the scouts assault that causes the reduction to all units they contact, and to further answer your second point i again argue that since each seperate LSS has its OWN rule then it cannot cover another unit.. rather each LSS cerberus launchers are exclusive to its own scout squad only..

the wording of the rule states A scout squad charging from THE speeder.. both singular.

the rule from LSS 1 wont cover scouts charging from LSS 2 as they are seperate rules covering only the scout squads that charge from them.

 

I understand what you mean but i beleive your mistaken if a Ld10 unit has its leadership reduced by 2 it will be 8, if it has its leadership reduced by 2 again your argument is its workign from its base leadership so again 10-2 is Ld8.. however since it doesnt say base/starting leadership when the second unit charges in the Ld of 8 will be reduced to Ld6

[pingo]

this errata is worded very similar to the LSS rules, i think it adds more weight to my argument.. it is shown from the enemies point of view and describes a reduction.. and it doesnt state modifier..

All in all im happy with this as further evidence that im right..

 

Yes, the Lash whip one is very much like the LSS rule. But, it is a different rule, in a different codex, we still don't know the intent behind the LSS rule, just as people were clearly confused by the lash whip rule. Clearly, the LSS rule needs a similar errata to remove the confusion.

 

The psychic scream is unambiguous in it's intent.

 

but then with RAW on my side i was never wrong ;)

 

False. Put it like this:

 

The rule says the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by 2. Not 4, not 6, but 2.

 

Each LSS launcher uses the same rule, regardless of how many there are. That rule says the enemy unit's leadership is reduced by 2.

 

The rule is not individual to each speeder, but specifically says that if a unit is charged by Scouts after disembarking from an LSS, their Leadership is reduced by 2.

 

You only need one unit of Scouts to satisfy that condition, and multiple units do not make the condition more satisfied. If 2 or more LSS scout units assault a unit, the enemy has still been assaulted by Scouts after LSS disembarking. Therefore in all cases, they reduce their leadership by 2. No more.

 

I also do not think this precludes leadership modifiers from other rules as they are separately applied and determined.

[Isiah]

Gc08 and Mal by all means have a discussion – but keep the personal sniping in check please.

 

I think that the argument for the Cerebus is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

My own view for what it's worth is that it does indeed stack, based upon my reading that the rule is for each cerebus attacking any enemy unit. So thus any unit attacked by any particular cerebus suffers a -2 reduction to their Ld. This 2 reduction isn't stated as being the lowest limit to which their Leadership can fall for any particular attacked unit, its merely detailing the limit of effect of each Cerebus. But I can see why others would see it differently.

 

As this is essentially one persons' FAQ for Scouts doesn't mean to say everyone has to agree with everything – at best it's a houserule solution. As always if you can't agree with an opponent then dice for it.

 

As it goes I can see this Cerebus element heading for the Grey Area topic pretty pronto :lol:.

 

Cheers

I