Page 27...

[Howloutloud]

The reason that I state the FAQ has backed it up 3 times is pretty simple really. First, with all the complaints they would have gotten from tournament players they would know that it is a "problem" so either they are aware of scoring landspeeders or are complete and utter idiots (the kind that wouldn't have been able to put a game together...). Secondly they were able to remove the scoring abilities of all the combat squaded units that aren't troops, but couldn't put in a simple "oh by the way, your landspeeders don't score either"...

 

Thus I'm not arguing a lack of evidence, but a logical step if one were to actually read and follow the FAQ's. Point in case: since they released the 1.1 FAQ for pretty much all the marine armies they also released a 1.1 of the rulebook. However they have also already released it again and it is now version 1.2 of the Rulebook FAQ. Again they could have easily added in one line that took away the scoring landspeeder, either in the rules FAQ or the codex one. They haven't.

 

By RAW its a scoring landspeeder, by RAI it can be inferred to be a scoring landspeeder (is that a better choice of words for you?) and by fluff it makes sense that the Ravenwing would have a scoring landspeeder as they do not use their bikes and landspeeders in what would be considered a "normal" usage.

 

Plain and simple then... it's a scoring landspeeder!

[Lion El Jason]

Your argument that GW "backed it up" by not mentioning it is completely invalid. Using that same logic I can say that GW backs up arson and murder because they don't mention it in their FAQ. You cannot logically argue something and say that the lack of evidence is evidence, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

You're claiming that argument is "Ad Ignorantiam" and following it up with a statement that is both a "False Dichotomy" and "Non-sequitur".

 

The argument that GW backs it up comes from GW Specifically changing the scoring unit rule in one case and not in another. They presumably have read the codex and so are aware of this, they specifically chose not to change this rule.

 

This is called a cohesive argument, it stated facts and reasons deductively from them. I have yet to see similar to indicate intent was anything else.

 

As an aside, I recall talking to Jervis in person (I know he doesn't write or even use the FAQs... I didn't mention it because its not proof or anything) before the 5th ed FAQs were released and we were happily playing with scoring devastators and the like...

He said they did actually notice the issue and at the time decided it wasn't too much of an issue: DA have lots of scoring units, thats one of their bonuses. (For those playing back then the first 5th ed FAQ didn't change this, only a later one did, presumably when they realised scoring Devs in particula was quite powerful).

 

But this is not important, the important things are:

 

1 The Landspeeder is indeed scoring.

 

2 It is neither "Abuse", "Gamey" or "Exploitative" to use this rule. Its just playing the game. Indeed, people arguing against the rule (Like the person at the OPs game) are cherrypicking updates and exploiting an old codex.

[minionboy]

You're claiming that argument is "Ad Ignorantiam" and following it up with a statement that is both a "False Dichotomy" and "Non-sequitur".

 

A false dichotomy only occurs when there are only two options, I purposely worded myself to imply that their could be more, hence two main choices, not the only two choices.

True the first example was slight non-sequitur, but I like to think of it as more of an obvious exaggeration, but since I did not lock the argument into those being the only two choices, it doesn't really matter.

 

Good shot at it though.

 

Your "cohesive" argument again and again relies on ignorance, so as I've been trying to say all along, you can't argue using the lack of evidence as evidence without relying on Ad Ignoratiam, can't be done, so stop doing it. The fact that GW changed one unit and not another, is no indication on how they feel about the later. Neither of us know the intention of GW, so claiming that anything is RAI is pointless. You claim that "They presumably have read the codex and so are aware of this, they specifically chose not to change this rule" which you cannot know, you were not there watching over their shoulder, making sure and pointing out every possible question with the rules. The only people who can say exactly what the intentions of GW are, would be GW.

 

I'll ignore your pointless conversation with Jervis, because as nice as he is, it doesn't make any difference.

 

Ultimately, I've been agreeing since my first post that RAW it is clear. So don't argue that I'm denying scoring units, all I am doing is dispelling people who believe they know the intentions (RAI) of GW.

[Howloutloud]

If I tell you something is wrong and you don't acknowledge it the first time then that could be interpreted as ignorance. A second time and you might still be able to get away with pretending ignorance. A third and conceivably fourth time?

 

Guess what? At that point, it is AS INTENDED... you argue that we can't know what GW intended based on there not being a definitive answer, however with them having multiple times choosing not to change it they are indeed giving you a definitive answer.

 

You and LEJ can go back and forth with legal jargon all you want, I'm going to put it to you in everyday speak.

 

They could have changed it multiple times, they didn't.

 

I live in Michigan, we have a posted speed limit in the city I live in of 25 MPH. They could easily change it but they leave it at 25 MPH. Therefore its as INTENDED. They could have changed it over the years many times, yet it remains 25 MPH.

 

Same thing for the codex and FAQ, they intended for the landspeeders to score in 4th. 5th came around and they could have taken away the scoring ability but chose not to. The second version of the FAQ came out and again they chose not to. Now we have the version 1.1 FAQ out and the rules have been FAQ'd 2 times and yet they haven't removed the scoring ability of the landspeeders.

 

You can argue it all you want, but RAW, RAI and Fluff all allow it.

 

like the blues on WOW would say: It's working as intended!

[Hellios]

RAW states that speeders are scoring (granted only those from the attack squad). The FAQ has backed it up 3 times. So now we need to take a look at the possibilities of RAI.

 

Your argument that GW "backed it up" by not mentioning it is completely invalid. Using that same logic I can say that GW backs up arson and murder because they don't mention it in their FAQ. You cannot logically argue something and say that the lack of evidence is evidence, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

And again as I mentioned, it is impossible for anyone, even you and me, to say it was their intention to allow this odd quirk of how the rules interact with the new edition.

 

I have always said RAW says they score, but I do not think it was their intention.

 

EDIT: had to get one more post in ^_^

The Lion saw this arguement and he LoL'ed!

 

RAW is clear...

 

RAI... hmmm you could argue this but as you have no more to support your arguement than others have to support those it is of little concern :huh:

 

However GW has a chance to fix and hasn't... from this I give you three options...

 

1) GW knows this is an issue but is cool with the way things are.

2) GW is ignorant of the issue because it isn't a big issue causing concern... in which case it isn't a big issue play by RAW...

3) GW isn't very good at FAQs (possible I admit) and so have failed to fix this by 'accident' and in this case all I can say is boo hoo go and cry to your mumma!

 

In short... all is good, it isn't a big issue & tough!

[Isiah]

Let's not argue intent because it's not an issue here -- the only thing that matters is RAW.

 

Gaming clubs etc can house rule this all they like so that RAS speeders aren't scoring -- but the simple fact is they're wrong, and, taking something away from the DA game play that they have no business to take.

 

Cheers

I

[minionboy]

Let's not argue intent because it's not an issue here -- the only thing that matters is RAW.

 

Gaming clubs etc can house rule this all they like so that RAS speeders aren't scoring -- but the simple fact is they're wrong, and, taking something away from the DA game play that they have no business to take.

 

Cheers

I

 

 

Cheers to that!

[Corton]

As I have not actively played Dark Angels since the close of second edition, I may be a bit rusty here, but I will attempt to convey what I have walked away from this debate. Now, the rules in the Dark Angels codex state that they are indeed scoring units. there is no debating that, and I understand that implicitly. However, it also very clearly states in the BRB that vehicles may NOT (as in never) count as objective holders-i.e. scoring units, even if troop choices. With that in mind, I understand how the folks running tourneys can say this is the precedent for the 'lay of the law'.

 

As for the fact that we still cannot get the turbo-burst for the scout move, because the book specifically states this, I can understand that too. Most people on here play a combo of Deathwing and Ravenwing. Deathwing Assault works turn one-see the problem here with being able to do that? I am guessing this would be the answer we would get anyway.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I will argue for getting both points till I turn blue like a 'Smurf without polished titanium-undies', but, I think this is as far as it will go.

[shabbadoo]

The FAQ RAW alters things such that only Ravenwing Land Speeders taken as part of a Troops choice are scoring. Those taken as a Fast Attack choice are not Scoring.

[Isiah]

The FAQ RAW alters things such that only Ravenwing Land Speeders taken as part of a Troops choice are scoring. Those taken as a Fast Attack choice are not Scoring.

 

That was always the case -- the new FAQ hasn't changed that.

[Lion El Jason]

The FAQ RAW alters things such that only Ravenwing Land Speeders taken as part of a Troops choice are scoring. Those taken as a Fast Attack choice are not Scoring.

 

That was always the case -- the new FAQ hasn't changed that.

 

 

The FAQ hasn't changed anything. RAS Landspeeders and attack bikes are scoring even if bought as Fast Attack and regardless of Samael's presence.

If you think there has been a change please say where in the FAQ because I can't see it.

[ValourousHeart]

However, it also very clearly states in the BRB that vehicles may NOT (as in never) count as objective holders-i.e. scoring units, even if troop choices. With that in mind, I understand how the folks running tourneys can say this is the precedent for the 'lay of the law'

 

The BRB also restricts scoring units to ONLY troops, which if we follow it out would mean sternguard could not score. Funny how the TO catches us with that crap, but not c:sm.

 

About your second point about turbo boost scouting and DWA, I would like you to look closer at c:sm. They get to do this with scout bikers and ls storms, and get location beacons which means that there second / third / fourth waves also do not scatter, and they could even take vanguard and get an assault off. Even if we did get to turbo boost, we wouldn't get any where near the advantage c:sm already has on that front.

[SeattleDV8]

The FAQ RAW alters things such that only Ravenwing Land Speeders taken as part of a Troops choice are scoring. Those taken as a Fast Attack choice are not Scoring.

 

Not true, DA Codex pg 27 "....always operate as completely independent scoring units of one model."

 

That is why they are scoring, not because they can count as troops.

In fact if that was the only reason they were scoring (being troops) they would not count as scoring as BRB pg. 90 tells us that vehicles that are troops do not count as scoring.

 

This is RAW, it is not overpowered as you have to take 6 bikes and a land speeder for 320+ points to gain 2-3 scoring units.

Which have 6 wounds with normal marine saves and a Armour 10 speeder.

None of which are very survivable.

 

It is the Attack Bike, which no one blinks at, that could be claimed to be sightly overpowered.

 

House rules aside this is very clear.

[wrist]

Remember that Codex:DA is a 4th ed codex, and that in 4th ed all units where scoring. The rule on p. 27 simply states that the at-bike and speeder always are separate from the ordinary bikes.

 

When 5th ed. came along it changed things so that only non-vehicle Troop-choices that are scoring. That goes for all armies. It is one of the basic rules.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Remember that Codex:DA is a 4th ed codex, and that in 4th ed all units where scoring. The rule on p. 27 simply states that the at-bike and speeder always are separate from the ordinary bikes.

 

When 5th ed. came along it changed things so that only non-vehicle Troop-choices that are scoring. That goes for all armies. It is one of the basic rules.

Well I beg to differ. DA is really a 4.5 Codex, when it was written they already had 5th edition in mind (it came a few months later). In 4th edition all units were scoring thus they didn't need to imply that in the Codex if it was meant to be played as 4th.. like every other codex that only mentioned what wasn't scoring, never what was scoring.

So with 5th ed. in mind they mentioned what would count as scoring and what wouldn't, knowing that despite being released in 4th ed. it would serve into 5th ed.

[shabbadoo]

I stand corrected. The FAQ very much avoids that scoring sentence bit, and only changes the last sentence of paragraph 3 from "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa." to "“If you decide to break the unit down, then each Combat Squad is treated as a separate unit for all game purposes from that point.” Going along with the core rule book's instructions on p. 97 of the little rulebook/p. 289 of the big rulebook on the "REFERENCES" page:

 

"As such, in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

Hey, wait a minute. Serves me right for not looking at this bit more closely too. Let's quote that again, but with some relevant highlighting:

 

"As such, in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

"this section" mean the References section. So, it's not the difference between the core rules and the codex being referred to here, but the difference between the Reference section and the codex. Codex stats/rules trump core rulebook Reference section stats/rules is all this says. There is nothing in there about ignoring the core rules themselves. So, still nothing concrete. Old codex says X, new core rules says Y. What a mess. RW Attack Squadron Land Speeders and turbo-boosting bikes still need to be FAQ'd I guess. By the way, is this the only rules bit still in contention so far as the most recent FAQ is concerned, or has anything else been missed?

[minionboy]

I stand corrected. The FAQ very much avoids that scoring sentence bit, and only changes the last sentence of paragraph 3 from "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa." to "“If you decide to break the unit down, then each Combat Squad is treated as a separate unit for all game purposes from that point.” Going along with the core rule book's instructions on p. 97 of the little rulebook/p. 289 of the big rulebook on the "REFERENCES" page:

 

"As such, in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

Hey, wait a minute. Serves me right for not looking at this bit more closely too. Let's quote that again, but with some relevant highlighting:

 

"As such, in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

This is a common logical mistake, when you change emphasis, you change meaning.

 

In the first sentence, all it says is that contradictions in that specific section, the codex takes precedence.

 

In your second example, you put emphasis on "this section" you are changing the meaning of the sentence sound like "this section and this section only."

 

Nothing has changed, codex always takes precedence over rule book, that's what makes the game work. Otherwise, our bikes could turbo boost when they scout, mycetic spores could transport IC's, and the whole world would go topsy turvy because special rules in all army books that restrict normal rules would all be negated by the rules in the core rule book.

[Master Avoghai]

Remember that Codex:DA is a 4th ed codex, and that in 4th ed all units where scoring. The rule on p. 27 simply states that the at-bike and speeder always are separate from the ordinary bikes.

 

When 5th ed. came along it changed things so that only non-vehicle Troop-choices that are scoring. That goes for all armies. It is one of the basic rules.

Well I beg to differ. DA is really a 4.5 Codex, when it was written they already had 5th edition in mind (it came a few months later). In 4th edition all units were scoring thus they didn't need to imply that in the Codex if it was meant to be played as 4th.. like every other codex that only mentioned what wasn't scoring, never what was scoring.

So with 5th ed. in mind they mentioned what would count as scoring and what wouldn't, knowing that despite being released in 4th ed. it would serve into 5th ed.

+1 with Lucifer here... And I also disagree with your last sentence : in 5th you can have some elite troops choice scoring... The Sternguard led by Pedro Kantor... so no : in 5th NOT ONLY troops choice are scoring.

[shabbadoo]

This is a common logical mistake, when you change emphasis, you change meaning.

I made no mistake in regard to logic or otherwise. I only need to know what a pronoun is and how it is used. Emphasis changes nothing about the language usage itself. "this"refers to the word "Reference", not "rulebook". Emphasis does not change what a pronoun refers to. Yes, pronouns are that specific. Your "logic" is therefor flawed. If I take a sandwich off of a platter of sandwiches, put that sandwich down in front of you, and say "Eat this.", if you think it is logical to then reach for and eat a sandwich from the platter, you need to study both logic just a bit more. Emphasis is not needed to figure out the meaning in either this example or in the Reference section quote, nor does it change the meaning at all.

 

So yes, it does change things a bit by making the reading murkier. Beyond that, there is no order of rules precedence sited anywhere in codex, rulebook, Shrine of Knowledge intro page, or in the FAQ. Because of that omission, one can argue from a completely solid platform either way, meaning it needs to be FAQ'd.

[Isiah]

Beyond that, there is no order of rules precedence sited anywhere in codex, rulebook, Shrine of Knowledge intro page, or in the FAQ. Because of that omission, one can argue from a completely solid platform either way, meaning it needs to be FAQ'd.

 

No. there is precedence. Look at the reference to Smoke Launchers in the main rulebook [bRB p62] -- it states that where different the Codex's version will take precedence:

 

"[...] As normal, rules in the Codex takes precedence. [...]"

 

It's common knowledge that any Codex overrides the main Rulebook. I really don't know how or why you can think otherwise -- otherwise what's the point of a Codex's special rules where they are different form those in the core book :) ?

 

Cheers

I

[Howloutloud]

There should also be the concern about how broad the term "section" is meant. Yes it could be referring to that particular section of the rules, or it could be referring to the rules "section" as there is a fluff section (amongst other parts) in the book.

 

Just a thought :)

[wrist]

Remember that Codex:DA is a 4th ed codex, and that in 4th ed all units where scoring. The rule on p. 27 simply states that the at-bike and speeder always are separate from the ordinary bikes.

 

When 5th ed. came along it changed things so that only non-vehicle Troop-choices that are scoring. That goes for all armies. It is one of the basic rules.

Well I beg to differ. DA is really a 4.5 Codex, when it was written they already had 5th edition in mind (it came a few months later). In 4th edition all units were scoring thus they didn't need to imply that in the Codex if it was meant to be played as 4th.. like every other codex that only mentioned what wasn't scoring, never what was scoring.

So with 5th ed. in mind they mentioned what would count as scoring and what wouldn't, knowing that despite being released in 4th ed. it would serve into 5th ed.

+1 with Lucifer here... And I also disagree with your last sentence : in 5th you can have some elite troops choice scoring... The Sternguard led by Pedro Kantor... so no : in 5th NOT ONLY troops choice are scoring.

I'm not convinced.

My personal view is still this:

When Codex:DA came out all units where scoring, unless stated otherwise. In the light of that fact the section on p. 27 only states that the attack bike and the speeder always are treated as separate units from the ordinary bikes. The fact that 5th ed was on its way doesn't change that. There is no 4.5 ed, and sadly that means that Codex:DA is a 4th ed 'dex. It was written and published during 4th ed, which means that its rules are in concordance with that edition, regardless of how late in the edition they came out.

 

With the 5th ed came a major change that made only non-vehicle Troop scoring. This applies to all armies of the game. Since C:DA came out prior to this major change there are statements in the 'dex that no longer apply.

 

In the Pedro Kantor case that's because the character as such has a special rule that makes a specific unit scoring. There are more characters that confer special effects, but that doesn't change the norm. It creates exeptions from the norm that you only get if you take the specific character, just like we get from taking Belial and/or Sammy.

The norm of the game is still that only non-vehicle Troop-units are scoring. Any exeptions from that norm are just that; exeptions.

 

That's the way I see it, and that's the way I play it.

 

...but hey! apples and oranges, right!?

[Lion El Jason]

The fact is it was written before 5th ed was finalised.

 

GW then looked at the DA codex and said "Hey, they have loads of scoring units! Lets make it so they have less."

 

And they took away scoring Devastators, veterans, assault marines and scouts, leaving us with scoring Tacticals and RAS EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF OPTIONS AS VANILLA!

 

Whatever the reason behind it, its very clear what the rule now is and what the rule is supposed to be.

[breng77]

Any exeptions from that norm are just that; exeptions.

 

Which is the case with RW speeders, they are an exception as no other speeders are scoring. Codex trumps rule book, always has, otherwise DA would have had new smoke as of 5E because smoke launchers are described in the core rule book as giving a 4+ cover save, and RW bikes would be able to turbo boost because the FAQ is newer than the codex. Unless specifically stated by GW in a DA FAQ the speeders are scoring RAW.

 

Whatever the reason behind it, its very clear what the rule now is and what the rule is supposed to be.

 

I'm not sure we can argue this point, but the rule is what it is.

[HsojVvad]

Remember that Codex:DA is a 4th ed codex, and that in 4th ed all units where scoring. The rule on p. 27 simply states that the at-bike and speeder always are separate from the ordinary bikes.

 

When 5th ed. came along it changed things so that only non-vehicle Troop-choices that are scoring. That goes for all armies. It is one of the basic rules.

Well I beg to differ. DA is really a 4.5 Codex, when it was written they already had 5th edition in mind (it came a few months later). In 4th edition all units were scoring thus they didn't need to imply that in the Codex if it was meant to be played as 4th.. like every other codex that only mentioned what wasn't scoring, never what was scoring.

So with 5th ed. in mind they mentioned what would count as scoring and what wouldn't, knowing that despite being released in 4th ed. it would serve into 5th ed.

+1 with Lucifer here... And I also disagree with your last sentence : in 5th you can have some elite troops choice scoring... The Sternguard led by Pedro Kantor... so no : in 5th NOT ONLY troops choice are scoring.

I'm not convinced.

 

Fair enough. Love having a good friendly debate.

My personal view is still this:

When Codex:DA came out all units where scoring, unless stated otherwise. In the light of that fact the section on p. 27 only states that the attack bike and the speeder always are treated as separate units from the ordinary bikes. The fact that 5th ed was on its way doesn't change that. There is no 4.5 ed, and sadly that means that Codex:DA is a 4th ed 'dex. It was written and published during 4th ed, which means that its rules are in concordance with that edition, regardless of how late in the edition they came out.

 

With the 5th ed came a major change that made only non-vehicle Troop scoring. This applies to all armies of the game. Since C:DA came out prior to this major change there are statements in the 'dex that no longer apply.

 

Well you still haven't proven anything here. You keep talking about the rules made for 4th edtion. How come you are only going on p.27 then? How come you are not making a debate for DA bike being able to turbo boost durint a scout move? Clearly that is a Rule for 4th edtion, and DA still can't turbo boost during a scout. If you are going to do one, you do everything. It just looks like you are nitpicking to make the DA weaker. You need to be fair across the board. So what you are saying is that DA can turbo boost during thier scout moves then correct? OOO just imagine a scout bike with a teleport hormer for the D/S DW on Turn One. :P. As you say, this is a legal move because it was clearly intended for 4th edtion rules.

In the Pedro Kantor case that's because the character as such has a special rule that makes a specific unit scoring. There are more characters that confer special effects, but that doesn't change the norm. It creates exeptions from the norm that you only get if you take the specific character, just like we get from taking Belial and/or Sammy.

The norm of the game is still that only non-vehicle Troop-units are scoring. Any exeptions from that norm are just that; exeptions.

 

Ahhh, so now it's a special case for SM now is it? Funny how you say it's a special rule. P.27 is a special rule as well. The only thing, it's not a special character giving the special rule.

That's the way I see it, and that's the way I play it.

 

...but hey! apples and oranges, right!?

I wouldn't say it's apples and oranges, because you are arguing them as apples to apples then. Then again if it's really apples (Dark Angels) to oranges (SM)

then you admit right there they are different rules so shouldn't be treated that they are the same.

 

That is fine if that is how you play it, but then it goes both ways, DA get to turbo boost during the scout move then. It's only fair right?

 

One other thing, though you haven't really proven your point. Again, you are going by intention. So if you are going by intention then, when GW made the DA FAQ, they intended for the devesator squds, vetreans, scouts and assault marines not to be scoring, so they have said they are not scoring. If GW intended for the RWA Speeder not to be scoring as well, they would have as well. I find it funny you will not comment on this aspect. GW specifically says that what use to be a DA scoring unit is no longer a scoring unit but they leave others out as well.

 

I would really like to hear what you have to say. :)