Thing that will need FAQ

[Deschenus Maximus]

I'd still like a clarification (or rather, an official "told you so") so I don't have to argue with people. Especially the type of "BUT THAT'S NOT FAAAIIIIR" people I'm currently stuck with.

 

Yeah, a clarification would be nice for sure.

[Albrek]

Actually the comma is fine. It's called the oxford comma - however I can't see GW doing that on purpose

I was fairly certain oxford commas are only used when listing three or more things.

Sure that's what Wikipedia says, the most popular response. But if you check out Oxford Dictionary site, it just says it comes before the word 'and' in a list. A list does not necessarily need to be 3 or more items, though some may argue this which is I think where the confusion may come from. In the case of the Oxford comma, I trust Oxford Dictionaries more than Wikipedia personally. ;)

[toaae]

Regarding jump "infantry":

 

In the reference chart, units are classed as both jump infantry and infantry.

 

This came up in a game I played Friday.

[Jolemai]

How do you mean?

[Spinsanity]

Oh, you're right...

 

Astorath <stats> In, J (ch)

So, Infantry, Jump and Character... No mention of Jump Infantry.

 

+ Edit : Unit types at the bottom of the page reads :

Infantry = In, Jump unit = J

 

So according to that chart, not a single model in the Codex is Jump Infantry; they are Infantry and Jump (or Jump units) but the 'Jump Infantry' type doesn't exist...

[Jolemai]

Regarding Jump Infantry

 

In short, "In, J" follows the rules for Infantry and Jump Units. They are generally known as "Jump Infantry".

[Jolemai]

Not so much a C:BA FAQ but relevant as we can now take them: Grav weapons and cover/jink saves. Been reading up on this in the OR forum and my lingering thoughts can be summed up by this smiley:

Basically, I feel it needs clarifying. Anyone else feel the same?

[Remtek]

Most tournaments faq this with you can take cover saves. It's not official, but with ambigous long arguments i prefer to look refer to them. It makes sense as well. 

I'd say it def. needs a faq from GW, but that might take some time. 

 

BAO faq

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-S3lSVjM3R2t2cUE/edit

 

Nova faq

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mcnnnPW_nDoAKsWMDOQVnUi3hIizsVrNzppGggzEVs/pub

[Jolemai]

Cheers for those links :)

[t4play]

But jump infantry are still infantry

No they are not.

But they are if jump packs are removed according to my dex

[Morticon]

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the "Wall of Death"  rule.

 

The only thing that does not sit well with us is the counter-intuitiveness of it all.

 

 

"Wall of Death

Template weapons can fire Overwatch, even though th y cannot fire Snap Shots. Instead, if a Template weapon fires Overwatch, it automatically inflicts D3 hits on the charging unit, resolved at its normal Strength and AP value." 

 

Is a Frag Cannon a template weapon?  Yes?  It inflicts d3.  

 

Simple.  

It doesnt matter if its heavy2 or heavy10  - with the rules as they are its D3.  

Should it be that way?  Very likely no.  

But, if GW want us to play that way, they will have to errata that rule because its currently clear as day.

 

 

 

The WINGS power says target single friendly "Infantry unit".

 

Rules say: 

"Unlike most other unit type categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous

Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry." 

Last sentence: "Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry". 

 

Clear as day there too i feel. 

[Quixus]

Jump units are not a valid targets for Wings of Sanguinius, but infantry is. So what happens if you have to follow the rules for both types?

[Morticon]

dont see how something that follows the rules for Infantry are not considered Infantry.

[Jolemai]

As mentioned earlier and in the OR thread that was spawned from this one, Jump is a subset of Infantry/Monstrous/etc. They follow the rules for their parent category, as well as those for Jump and thus, models with Jump Packs are eligible targets for Wings of Sanguinius.

[t4play]

Codex reads " the entire squad may remove their jump packs, ***changing*** their unit type to Infantry

Blah blah blah sergeant changes to Infantry (character)

So remove jump packs and wings of sang works!!!?

[Quixus]

dont see how something that follows the rules for Infantry are not considered Infantry.

The problem is that they are considered Infantry and a Jump unit. Wings of Sanguinius does not explicitly allow jump units to be moved. Being a permissive rulesset such a permission is required. As per your quote Jump Infantry must follow all rules for Jump units and for Infantry units. So as Infantry it can be moved as Jump Unit it cannot.

 

"Unlike most other unit type categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type." This also implies, but does not explicitly say that Jump + base type becomes a type. It does not say that Jump is just a set of rules tacked onto a type making Jump + (unit type) a subset of (unit type) either. Hence the confusion. Walkers, transports and tanks work that way.

[Shaezus]

Regarding frag cannons - we suffer for having the only template weapon in the game which has 2 shots, but every single time this came up in-game my oppo had no problem with me getting 2D3 hits on overwatch. No reason why a TO should argue otherwise, unless they are uber-anal pedantic.

 

Thanks to previous posters for highlighting the new classifications on infantry and jump. Glad to see some common sense being worked into the rules. *faints*

[Ushtarador]

 

dont see how something that follows the rules for Infantry are not considered Infantry.

The problem is that they are considered Infantry and a Jump unit. Wings of Sanguinius does not explicitly allow jump units to be moved. Being a permissive rulesset such a permission is required. As per your quote Jump Infantry must follow all rules for Jump units and for Infantry units. So as Infantry it can be moved as Jump Unit it cannot.

 

"Unlike most other unit type categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type." This also implies, but does not explicitly say that Jump + base type becomes a type. It does not say that Jump is just a set of rules tacked onto a type making Jump + (unit type) a subset of (unit type) either. Hence the confusion. Walkers, transports and tanks work that way.

 

 

So e.g. Haywire grenades will not work on walkers because they only work against vehicles? Are flyers immune to things that work only against vehicles because they are a special suptype?

 

If something works on Infantry, it will obviously also work on all subtypes of infantry, can you imagine how stupidly clunky the ruleset would become otherwise?

[Bryan Blaire]

The idea that the game is a permissive rules set and therefore "if it doesn't say X, then you can't X" is a false one. The rules set for 40K is both permissive ("you can", "you may", "the unit can", etc.) as well as restrictive ("you must", "you cannot", "a unit cannot", etc.), therefore no argument can simply be settled by saying "It is a permissive rules set" and trying to leave it at that.

 

If you disagree, the easiest place to find both permissive and restrictive rules within the game occur on pages 120-121 of the 7th Edition rules. The rules detailing Choosing Your Army are rife with both permissive and restrictive rules on those pages.

 

A purely permissive rules set would only tell you the things you can do (permissions). The implication would already be there that things not specifically described cannot be done. There would be no reason to include rules using restrictive statements in this instance, because the nature of the rules would automatically exclude anything not permitted explicitly by the rules. The fact that the rules for 40K do include restrictive statements automatically invalidates the assertion that "40K is a permissive rules set" in some sort of exclusive fashion.

 

It is both a permissive set of rules and a restrictive set of rules (and almost all games are).

 

One thing that is being bypassed is the statement that "Jump is not a classification in and of itself." It cannot be split off from the unit type it modifies (i.e. a Jump Infantry unit is not an Infantry unit and a Jump unit... Jump is not a Unit Type classification by itself - the unit is forever a Jump Infantry unit unless specifically allowed to be modified). Just because the unit shares rules of another type doesn't mean it is that other type, it simply shares the rules of that type. A Jump Infantry unit is not an Infantry unit type, not a subtype, or anything else, just like it is not a "Jump unit" by itself, it is a Jump Infantry unit.

[Quixus]

So e.g. Haywire grenades will not work on walkers because they only work against vehicles? Are flyers immune to things that work only against vehicles because they are a special suptype?

 

If something works on Infantry, it will obviously also work on all subtypes of infantry, can you imagine how stupidly clunky the ruleset would become otherwise?

You misunderstand me, because flyers walkers etc. are a subtype of vehicles all those things work unless a specific rule changes that (like walkers being able to become locked in combat). Jump Infantry however is not a subset of Infantry. If it were, they would definitely benefit from Wings of Sanguinius or any other power targeting Infantry.

 

The idea that the game is a permissive rules set and therefore "if it doesn't say X, then you can't X" is a false one. The rules set for 40K is both permissive ("you can", "you may", "the unit can", etc.) as well as restrictive ("you must", "you cannot", "a unit cannot", etc.), therefore no argument can simply be settled by saying "It is a permissive rules set" and trying to leave it at that.

 

If you disagree, the easiest place to find both permissive and restrictive rules within the game occur on pages 120-121 of the 7th Edition rules. The rules detailing Choosing Your Army are rife with both permissive and restrictive rules on those pages.

 

A purely permissive rules set would only tell you the things you can do (permissions). The implication would already be there that things not specifically described cannot be done. There would be no reason to include rules using restrictive statements in this instance, because the nature of the rules would automatically exclude anything not permitted explicitly by the rules. The fact that the rules for 40K do include restrictive statements automatically invalidates the assertion that "40K is a permissive rules set" in some sort of exclusive fashion.

 

It is both a permissive set of rules and a restrictive set of rules (and almost all games are).

I disagree. Those rules that forbid you from doing stuff, do not make restrictive rules, but they are a way of giving permission to do a more limited number of things. Just because a couple of rules are worded as restrictions, does not mean that the ruleset becomes restrictive. The presence of a rule worded like "models equipped with TDA may not embark on Rhinos or Razorbacks" instead of "models in TDA may embark on any transport but Rhinos and Razorbacks" does not permit you to move your opponent's units as you please (that is not explicitly forbidden).

 

One thing that is being bypassed is the statement that "Jump is not a classification in and of itself." It cannot be split off from the unit type it modifies (i.e. a Jump Infantry unit is not an Infantry unit and a Jump unit... Jump is not a Unit Type classification by itself - the unit is forever a Jump Infantry unit unless specifically allowed to be modified). Just because the unit shares rules of another type doesn't mean it is that other type, it simply shares the rules of that type. A Jump Infantry unit is not an Infantry unit type, not a subtype, or anything else, just like it is not a "Jump unit" by itself, it is a Jump Infantry unit.

A Jump Infantry unit is definitely not the same as an Infantry Unit, and unless a Jump Infantry unit is an Infantry Unit it cannot be targeted by abilities that only target Infantry Units.

 

I totally agree that everything that works on Infantry should also work on Jump Infantry, unless a specific rule in the Jump property denies that, but the rules unfortunately do not say that.

[Jolemai]

Quixus, did you read the thread about this onthe OR forum?

[Antarius]

Regarding the frag cannon and overwatch, I do think it actually FIRES twice, hence 2d3. Which makes sense with the wording where it's related to the weapon, not the model. So if it had said "a model firing overwatch" I'd be more inclined to buy the 1d3 interpretation.

The way I see it goes: template weapon fires = 1d3 hits, but as you get your normal complement of shots, template weapon fires again = 1d3 hits (so the wording is followed perfectly but the end result is 2d3 hits).

 

I'm not sure this is the best wording but I hope you catch my drift.

[Jolemai]

Assault two allows the Frag Cannon to fire twice in the shooting phase and sadly, Overwatch is not considered shooting (don't ask, :facepalm smiley:). For Overwatch, the Frag Cannon is governed by the Wall of Death rule which states 1D3 which is per weapon, not per shot.

[Kastor Krieg]

Saying that Infantry modified by "Jump", therefore "Jump Infantry" is not still "Infantry" as well is like saying "Jump Monstrous Creature" is not a Monstrous Creature. Come on, quit beating on the dead horse, please. Jump and Jet Infantry is obviously, RAW and RAI, still a subtype of Infantry.

[Bryan Blaire]

Those rules that forbid you from doing stuff, do not make restrictive rules, but they are a way of giving permission to do a more limited number of things. Just because a couple of rules are worded as restrictions, does not mean that the ruleset becomes restrictive. The presence of a rule worded like "models equipped with TDA may not embark on Rhinos or Razorbacks" instead of "models in TDA may embark on any transport but Rhinos and Razorbacks" does not permit you to move your opponent's units as you please (that is not explicitly forbidden).

Uh, think you might need to check the definition of restriction:

re·stric·tion

rəˈstrikSH(ə)n/

noun

-a limiting condition or measure, especially a legal one.

"planning restrictions on commercial development"

synonyms: reduction, limitation, diminution, curtailment

"the restriction of personal freedom"

-the limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being limited or restricted.

"the restriction of local government power"

synonyms: limitation, limit, constraint, control, check, curb

As I said, 40K is a rule set comprised of both permissions and restrictions, and therefore is neither a pure "permissive rules set" or "restrictive rules set". Therefore the use of "It's a permissive rules set" as an attempt to close an argument as if it means something is only partially true and totally meaningless at the same time. It is not a point in and of itself because it is a known reality, but as it is only part of the story, it contributes nothing to the argument but to state a partial reality.

 

Your attempt to twist what I have said does nothing to invalidate what I have said, because you did not disprove anything. I did not claim the rules set became a purely restrictive one. ;)

 

If you still feel that you have a point to argue, then quote the page of the rulebook where it states "This is a permissive rules set" or anything like that. If you can't, then you have no support from the rules that your assertion is true and the fact that both restrictions and permissions can be found within the bounds of the rules, making it a comprehensive set of both permissive and restrictive rules, must stand.

 

Saying that Infantry modified by "Jump", therefore "Jump Infantry" is not still "Infantry" as well is like saying "Jump Monstrous Creature" is not a Monstrous Creature. Come on, quit beating on the dead horse, please. Jump and Jet Infantry is obviously, RAW and RAI, still a subtype of Infantry.

It's not really defined that way though, and therein lies the problem. It is a situation where a lack of clarity has caused a question about whether something can be allowed or not.