FAQs Updated!

[Yrlman]

I agree with daboarder on this one: the profile for the axe and for the sword are given as examples to demonstrate they follow normal power weapon rules with the addition of Master-crafted and Two handed. That being said, I still think it's unclear as something in me tells me that GW didn't think of the possibility of lance or maul encarmines (as the only weapons in the SG box are axes and swords). I believe it to allow lances and mauls, but there's still wiggle room outside of the unclearly worded FAQ.

[vahouth]

See your miss reading the therefore, and talking parts of the answer in isolation. The sword an axe is purely an example as stated by the use of "would therefore".

No, I don't miss reading the "would therefore" part, I just don't see it as if it means "for example" and why should I?

In your opinion the answer didn't have to include the profiles for swords & axes, because you felt it is obvious that ALL PW types should be included.

Unfortunatelly as it seems, the author of the FAQ thought that including them would restrict these options and so he did.

[daboarder]

See your miss reading the therefore, and talking parts of the answer in isolation. The sword an axe is purely an example as stated by the use of "would therefore".

No, I don't miss reading the "would therefore" part, I just don't see it as if it means "for example" and why should I?

In your opinion the answer didn't have to include the profiles for swords & axes, because you felt it is obvious that ALL PW types should be included.

Unfortunatelly as it seems, the author of the FAQ thought that including them would restrict these options and so he did.

 

I did not include the profiles due to space, because you have read this wrongly I will now edit ALL my previous posts, you are welcome. The answer however should include them because GW is trying to write a conprehensive rules set this edition and almost all their rules now contain examples that give ideas of how to implement the rules but are not the ONLY way to implement the rules.

 

As to "would therefore"

 

Would therefore what? what does this sentence rely on to make sense? It relies on the context given to it by the previous statement IE:

 

Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types

of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000

rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed

special rules....

 

If not for this sentence the preceding one would be meaningless, the context as given is the rules on pg 61 with NO restriction.

 

again I reiterate, WHERE does it say you do NOT follow the rules on page 61 of the BRB that INCLUDE the rules for lances and mauls.

 

You need to use evidence and facts in your arguments, you are not, you are merely reiterating the fact that your initial interpretation when reading the rules was limiting. I would hazard to guess that the first time you read this question you jumped directly to the profiles and then read the sentence, I do not ridicule I merely state this as your mind would then be reading the sentence in a manner to justify the information given in the profile. This is wrong the dominant, directing part of the answer is the sentences themselves.

 

edit: Yrlman PLEASE tell me the name of the game your avatar comes form, I've been trying to remember it for YEARS

[wabbitrage]

I think you could wing the arguement for spears and mauls. However i don't think that was the intention of the authour and i wouldn't be suprised if the next FAQ is clearer and disallows it.

 

I personally read it as you're only allowed swords and axes. you'll have to have a ruling if you play in a tourny.

 

My point is why bother modelling your guys and going through all the hassle when its clearly not what GW intended, they'll only clear up the FAQ next time. All so you could get +1 str on the charge for a few months. It all seems too much effort in my eyes.

[vahouth]

No I did not include the profiles due to space

No, that's not what I was talking about.

Sorry if I may have not been clear enough, I was talking about this:

The answer clearly reads that they follow power weapon rules with the addition of two-handed and master crafted, they didn't need to list the profiles at all because the question is answered in the text

You may think that the inclusion of the profiles is pointless, but apparently for the author they are essential for stating that only 2 of the profiles can be used.

 

Glaive Encarmines follow the rules as described in the Types

of Power Weapon section on page 61 of the Warhammer 40,000

rulebook, but also have the Master-crafted and Two-handed

special rules....

Up to this part you are right, but that's merelly half of the FAQ's answer.

 

again I reiterate, WHERE does it say you do NOT follow the rules on page 61 of the BRB that INCLUDE the rules for lances and mauls.

In the other half of the answer. :)

You follow the rules on page 61 of the BRB, but ONLY for swords & axes.

Where does it say that lances & mauls are legal? I think you are arguing RAI here because the Rules As Written, have only swords & axes.

 

You need to use evidence and facts in your arguments, you are not, you are merely reiterating the fact that your initial interpretation when reading the rules was limiting. I would hazard to guess that the first time you read this question you jumped directly to the profiles and then read the sentence, I do not ridicule I merely state this as your mind would then be reading the sentence in a manner to justify the information given in the profile. This is wrong the dominant, directing part of the answer is the sentences themselves.

I'm trying to use evidence and facts in my arguments and honestly I'm not saying anything different from what it is written.

And no, IMHO my interpretation after reading the rules was not limited because I also took into consideration the profiles given as a fact and not an example.

The question was : are Glaives unusual or are they sword/axes with MC & TH?

The answer was: they are not unusual, they are swords/axes with MC & TH.

It's as simple as that.

Whether they should or shouldn't I honestly don't care.

I can't see it differently nor will I ever play it as such.

[daboarder]

Not quite. The answer was

 

They are POWER WEAPONS and would therefore have the following profiles.

It's not an exclusive list

[Ushtarador]

I must say, I agree with daboarder on this one. I also believe the writer of this FAQ just didn't even consider someone would go out of his way to model everything with spears or mauls instead of the usualy weapons.

[Morticon]

Im going to step in here as mediator (not moderator).

 

 

Vahouth has shown how he understands the argument, and explained why he disagrees with it and then offered his counter argument.

 

Daboarder have shown his argument and reiterated it but has not seem to have acknowledged or addressed Vahouths argument (merely reiterated his).

 

 

The debate boils down to this question:

 

Is the list inclusive or exclusive.

 

 

Some believes it is, others believe it isn't.

Since only two types of power weapon profiles were listed (irrespective of the "power weapons" reference), the burden of proof rests with those wanting to argue for the case of mauls and lances.

 

The argument will rest on convincing readers that "and therefore...." is in regards to the very first sentence speaking specifically, and exclusively to axes and swords. This cannot be done substantively as it can also be argued (as Vahouth noted) as an inclusive sentence.

 

While the counter argument will rest on showing that "and therefore" is only inclusive (and likewise is difficult with the truly ambiguous structure of the sentences) the burden of proof does not rest with those wanting to argue against the maul.

 

 

 

On a personal note, i see absolutely no reason to specify two profiles if the intention was to have them as any "power weapons". They could have left the profiles out entirely, but instead they chose to specify.

[vahouth]

On a personal note, i see absolutely no reason to specify two profiles if the intention was to have them as any "power weapons". They could have left the profiles out entirely, but instead they chose to specify.

 

Excactly my point.

[daboarder]

I'd just like to clarify my intention was never to denigrate vahouth or dismiss his arguments. I do see how it could be rea that way i just do not think that is the correct way. I won't reiterate my arguments again but I would just like to point out again that if they had wanted them to be limited to sword and axes they would have said that they followed the rules for swords and axes on pg61 not power weapons.

[Xenith]

And boy did this interesting thread about the FAQ changes to go **** fast.

 

Thanks for ruining that one for me, guys: New FAQ, same damn arguments.

 

Play it how you want to, and in a way that your opponent is happy with. That's what people did before the FAQ, that's what they'll do after.

 

Asking politely, is there any chance wording disagreements could be kept to a separate thread/PM in future?

[Lanfear]

the thing you all miss in context to the sword /axe discussion is, that the answer is bound to the question.

The question asks for sword/axe, the answer deliveres the stats for sword/axe as an example for the profiles which are (not exclusively) possible by the ruling of power weapons.

 

there is no need for detailing lance or Maul, because its not asked for in the inicial question.

[JamesI]

the thing you all miss in context to the sword /axe discussion is, that the answer is bound to the question.

The question asks for sword/axe, the answer deliveres the stats for sword/axe as an example for the profiles which are (not exclusively) possible by the ruling of power weapons.

 

there is no need for detailing lance or Maul, because its not asked for in the inicial question.

That was my point, as the person who asked the question.

 

I did not ask GW about mauls/spears, because all the arguing at the time I sent the email was over axe/swords.

 

I suggest this argument be taken to two places, as there is little left to be done with it here.

 

1) Take it to the Official Rules forum. This argument has taken over the FAQ thread and probably deserves its own thread,

 

2) Someone send an email to GW and ask if Glaive Spears or Glaive Mauls are legal too.

[Sixestohit]

It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can <---- Has never been much of an argument in my book. ;)

 

Back to the FAQ though, overall I'm really happy with it. Just purely from a swords and axes point of view, I'm over the moon that my Sanguinary Guard can carry axes! AP2 in the unit without switching to a fist is really nice!

 

I was also happy with Astorath being given an ap2 weapon too!

 

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too! :)

 

James.

[Xenith]

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too!

Just remember that you still need models on the table end of your opponent's turn 1 or you lose.

[Brother_Angelus]

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too! ;)

Where are you finding this part? I can see the question about Valks/Pods (which are dedicated and thier contents has never counted) but not SR (which aren't).

[vahouth]

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too! ;)

Where are you finding this part? I can see the question about Valks/Pods (which are dedicated and thier contents has never counted) but not SR (which aren't).

 

It says vehicle that must start in reserve, not dedicated transport.

 

Q: Do units that are transported in a vehicle that MUST start in

reserve count towards the number of units that can be placed in

Reserves? For example, must I count the units in a Drop Pod or

Valkyrie towards the 50% of units I can place in Reserves? (p124)

A: No.

[Morollan]

Q: Do units that are transported in a vehicle that MUST start in reserve count towards the number of units that can be placed in Reserves? For example, must I count the units in a Drop Pod or Valkyrie towards the 50% of units I can place in Reserves? (p124)

A: No.

[Sixestohit]

Ok I just rang GW.

 

Anyone can call them too in the UK on 0115 91 40,000

 

The guy on the phone was in hysterics over these shenanigans and gave me these answers:

 

Me: As the FAQ mentions that Glaive Encarmines are axes or swords, can the Sanguinor be remodelled to have an axe?

 

GW: No. The Sanguinor has a sword and as such we model special characters to be carrying what we intended them to carry. You can change the Sanguinors model to carry and axe if you like, but it will still be a sword in game. People trying this at tournaments will learn quickly that it isn't allowed.

 

Me: Leading on from that, the FAQ mentions glaive encarmines to be power weapons, it specifically mentions axes and swords, but doesn't mention Mauls and Spears. Could you remodel a sanguinary guard to have a spear and use it as such?

 

GW: Again you can remodel all you like, but it will still count as a sword or an axe. It mentions swords and axes because that's what we intended them to use.

 

He went on to mention that in future releases we would have exact weapon stats to avoid any confusion. So a special characters armament would be named as a power axe with ap2 etc.

 

James.

[Lanfear]

good call james :P

 

i called GW Germany just a few seconds ago, and asked the same questions as you did. Here are the answers that were given to me:

 

Sanguinary Guard can take any weapon they wish, they are treated as shown on the model. the sword/axe shown in the FAQ are examples, nothing more.

 

the sanguinor on the other hand should be played as provided from gw, because as a named character he stands with his name for his equipment. so as he is delivered with a sword, he should be played as having a sword.

 

 

 

have a nice day :)

[daboarder]

That's nice and all but really the reply from the gw mail order trolls doesn't mean squat. I'll call tomorrow and get a different answer.

 

As to the statement that the argument us "it doesn't say I can't therefore I can." please read the actual posts by he mods. Mort has summarized the gist of the argument quite well.

[Volcatus]

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too! :P

Where are you finding this part? I can see the question about Valks/Pods (which are dedicated and thier contents has never counted) but not SR (which aren't).

 

Valkyries are Fast Attack choices, not Dedicated Transports. ergo, Stormravens fall into the new %50 ruling.

[Sixestohit]

So we're supposed to what? Not take anything GW says as truth because people don't want it to be true?

 

James.

[Brother_Angelus]

My overall favourite thing is that the stuff embarked on the raven will no longer count towards the 50% for reserves, grabbing a unit, chaplain, character and dread in a raven made it a nightmare to balance the 50%, so GG to GW, I can now reserve and attack the way I like too! :)

Where are you finding this part? I can see the question about Valks/Pods (which are dedicated and thier contents has never counted) but not SR (which aren't).

 

Valkyries are Fast Attack choices, not Dedicated Transports. ergo, Stormravens fall into the new %50 ruling.

Derp :P . Yep, seems i'm failing hard today. Thankyou for the clarification.

 

Good news then!

[daboarder]

So we're supposed to what? Not take anything GW says as truth because people don't want it to be true?

 

James.

 

Look as a bloke whose been around since late 2nd i can tell you that the call team are not the word of GW they are notorious for giving multiple un reconcilable answers to the same question depending on the time of day, earth position relative to the sun and moon and wether or not you have a towel with you.