The new 40k FAQ is up.

[Hellios]

I'm seriously considering dropping transports in my DE army over this crap (at least when playing at said club), and I'm also considering not playing games against the guy, ever.

 

Awesome stuff Marshal Wilhelm said

 

<3

[dswanick]

Scenario B.

T1

Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot stuff [the Raiders are out of TLoS or off the table]

Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

 

T2

Space Wolves turn2: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers DO NOT die due to new FAQ ruling, because it didn't happen in the same Game turn.

 

So you can see, both times a Wolf turn followed a Deldar turn, yet the result of what happened [the passengers getting blown up] change.

 

This shows that it is not game turn, otherwise the Deldar gets a different result if he goes secong rather than going first. No way.

 

The did not mean game turn. No way you can RAI that. It does not work by the rules so how can it be intended?

[Devil's advocate]

Unfortunately that is exactly the ruling which applies to Njal Stormcaller's Lord of Tempests ability. If, for example, the Space Wolves player is going first and rolls Driving Gale

3| Driving Gale: Enemy models within 24" are at -1BS this turn (The descriptive text for Lord of Tempests specifies that the table entries are Game Turns)

his opponenets models are -1BS on their next player turn. If, however, The Space Wolves player goes second with the same roll, his opponent is normal BS, then Njal's effect happens and it ends after the Space Wolves turn (which is the end of the Game Turn. Thus, clearly, GW is OK with something affecting a Game Turn and as a result having unequal effects based on which player goes first in a Game Turn.

Q. How do Njal Stormcaller’s Driving Gale and Living Hurricane effects work if the Space Wolves player is the player going second?

A. These two abilities have no real effect in games where the Space Wolves player is going second – the tempest is yet to rage.

Yes, I know, it's dicey to argue a ruling based on another Codex's FAQ as one Codex does not interpret another - but it can give insight into how the designers may have been viewing the rules in question.

[/Devil's advocate]

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Unfortunately that is exactly the ruling which applies to Njal Stormcaller's Lord of Tempests ability. If, for example, the Space Wolves player is going first and rolls Driving Gale

3| Driving Gale: Enemy models within 24" are at -1BS this turn (The descriptive text for Lord of Tempests specifies that the table entries are Game Turns)

his opponenets models are -1BS on their next player turn. If, however, The Space Wolves player goes second with the same roll, his opponent is normal BS, then Njal's effect happens and it ends after the Space Wolves turn (which is the end of the Game Turn. Thus, clearly, GW is OK with something affecting a Game Turn and as a result having unequal effects based on which player goes first in a Game Turn.

Q. How do Njal Stormcaller’s Driving Gale and Living Hurricane effects work if the Space Wolves player is the player going second?

A. These two abilities have no real effect in games where the Space Wolves player is going second – the tempest is yet to rage.

Yes, I know, it's dicey to argue a ruling based on another Codex's FAQ as one Codex does not interpret another - but it can give insight into how the designers may have been viewing the rules in question.

[/Devil's advocate]

 

:cuss *Facepalm* What were the FAQites and Phil Kelly thinking?!

 

I am shocked that PK would write such a thing and then the FAQites would then write, in effect 'Yeah, erm, of course he meant that. Stop asking annoying questions"

 

My opinion, so completely disregardable, is the PK made a mistake and then the FAQites lacked the intestinal fortitude to say it. Imo, it isn't an insight [though it well could be :P ] but just a stuff up followed by pride.

 

As the Deldar are independent from the Wolves Dex+FAQ, that leaves the way clear for my 'Awesome stuff Marshal Wilhelm said <3' [thanks Hellios :P ] to carry the day. We all seem to be convinced that it is indeed Player turn, and hopefully my example will free the way for Ezra to convince his club and that fellow of Player turn.

 

I didn't realise that my example could be countered in some way, so thank you for that. But of course I am right, :P even if Njal's rules cast unsubstantiated aspersions on my argument. But he is a witch, what else would you expect? :D

[shatter]

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it

moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)

A: They are removed as casualties.

 

Spewin' for the Eldars, Orks and Bloods. They become high on the target priority list should they have moved flat-out, ja?

Note that it does say 'same turn' and by default this means 'player turn' (BRB pg.9) so it is only the player own actions (Ramming, difficult terrain, bad scatters and the like. It does not mean that a flat-out transport destroyed in the opponents shooting phase would auto-kill embarked units.

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

 

Suggest to him you need to ask his mother for a FAQ on him as he seems inconsistent and imbalanced.. Clearly he's not working as intended.

 

Seriously though, the pointing and laughing backed up with Wilhelm's statement seems adequate.

 

When your people say "well, the majority here says..."

 

Cut them off there and ask them if they're flat-Earthers stuck in ignorant adherence to status-quo or rationalists. (point to page 9)

 

I get pretty righteous in said environments.

 

Also tell him he's mispronouncing RAI. tell him,

"Dude, you're saying it wrong. What you mean is RAIW; Rules As I Want,

"Which is cute, but embarrassing. Yes, I'm a bit sorry for you."

Smile at him indulgently, and give him a grandfatherly pat on the shoulder.

 

I'm serious, bud. Stand up for yourself and don't back down. Remember the laughter... and offer him a snack... a potato chip from a bag or something. A jelly-baby, who knows. The psychology is important if you live with it, errr, him.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I'm seriously considering dropping transports in my DE army over this crap (at least when playing at said club), and I'm also considering not playing games against the guy, ever.

 

Present them with this scenario. If people can't abstract things very well, put flesh on it and see if it holds true :)

 

*If* it is game turns [which it is not] this will happen:

 

Scenario A.

T1

Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers die due to new FAQ ruling.

 

Okay, cool.

 

Now try this out.

 

Scenario B.

T1

Space Wolves turn1: Long Fangs shoot stuff [the Raiders are out of TLoS or off the table]

Deldar turn1: Deldar Raider flat-outs.

 

T2

Space Wolves turn2: Long Fangs shoot down Raider - Raider and passengers DO NOT die due to new FAQ ruling, because it didn't happen in the same Game turn.

 

So you can see, both times a Wolf turn followed a Deldar turn, yet the result of what happened [the passengers getting blown up] change.

 

This shows that it is not game turn, otherwise the Deldar gets a different result if he goes secong rather than going first. No way.

 

The did not mean game turn. No way you can RAI that. It does not work by the rules so how can it be intended?

 

I discussed that with him. I even pointed out the actual wording in the rules. His reply? "They obviously intended it to carry over from turn to turn. It's the only logical answer." And any attempt to tell him that the rules don't care for logic when the rule is there in black and white and very clear got me no-where. Reciting examples of rules that didn't make logical sense got the response that those were exceptions. So yeah, I'm giving this up. To the warp with that guy.

 

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in the same turn as it

moved flat out what happens to any embarked models? (p70)

A: They are removed as casualties.

 

Spewin' for the Eldars, Orks and Bloods. They become high on the target priority list should they have moved flat-out, ja?

Note that it does say 'same turn' and by default this means 'player turn' (BRB pg.9) so it is only the player own actions (Ramming, difficult terrain, bad scatters and the like. It does not mean that a flat-out transport destroyed in the opponents shooting phase would auto-kill embarked units.

A fellow I know is very keen on arguing that they "obviously intended turn to mean game turn", and refuses to play by any other ruling. RAI, that's his warcry. Not that he listens to any attempt to point out that he cannot read the minds of the FAQ people and the designers and thus cannot divine intentions.

 

Suggest to him you need to ask his mother for a FAQ on him as he seems inconsistent and imbalanced.. Clearly he's not working as intended.

 

Seriously though, the pointing and laughing backed up with Wilhelm's statement seems adequate.

 

When your people say "well, the majority here says..."

 

Cut them off there and ask them if they're flat-Earthers stuck in ignorant adherence to status-quo or rationalists. (point to page 9)

 

I get pretty righteous in said environments.

 

Also tell him he's mispronouncing RAI. tell him,

"Dude, you're saying it wrong. What you mean is RAIW; Rules As I Want,

"Which is cute, but embarrassing. Yes, I'm a bit sorry for you."

Smile at him indulgently, and give him a grandfatherly pat on the shoulder.

 

I'm serious, bud. Stand up for yourself and don't back down. Remember the laughter... and offer him a snack... a potato chip from a bag or something. A jelly-baby, who knows. The psychology is important if you live with it, errr, him.

 

Oh, I'll very much do that. I just hope I get actual results rather than whining. The guy in question has a sense of entitlement as large as the EoT.