Alexis Polux FW Query answered!

[AfroCampbell]

Just got off the phone with Forgeworld, Alexis Polux can deepstrike one unit, EVEN WITH THE RITE OF WAR RESTRICTIONS.

Excellent. 

:D

[Reyner]

Nice!

[Moonstalker]

What?  How does that scan?  Stone Gauntlet does not allow models to deploy via deep strike, and Polux just gives the Deep Strike rule to one squad.

[AfroCampbell]

Yes, however Polux's Rule overrides the restriction according to FW.

[Moonstalker]

I really think there's some misunderstanding there, cause that really makes no sense.  Why would Polux's "one unit gains the Deep Strike rule" ability override "units with the Deep Strike rule may not deploy using Deep Strike?"

[Reyner]

Because he's the fleet master and if he wants air dropped/teleported reinforcements he damn well gets them :P 

[AfroCampbell]

Yea it sounded like on the phone they just hadnt fully explained the rule in the book as well as they meant to.

[AekoldHelbrass]

Yea it sounded like on the phone they just hadnt fully explained the rule in the book as well as they meant to.

Also good luck explaining that to your opponents. That's why it is better to write them emails, at least you'll have screenshots as a proof.

But I think that it makes sense, you're paying lots of points for not very impressive character, if his single useful ability was disabled that would be just unfair.

[Dono1979]

I Think Alexis is great value, even with the Deep Strike disabled, the ability to swing at Initiative with a Powerfist (twice on the Charge) is an awesome thing, coupled with a Storm Shield he becomes pretty robust.

[Nusquam]

 

Yea it sounded like on the phone they just hadnt fully explained the rule in the book as well as they meant to.

Also good luck explaining that to your opponents. That's why it is better to write them emails, at least you'll have screenshots as a proof.

But I think that it makes sense, you're paying lots of points for not very impressive character, if his single useful ability was disabled that would be just unfair.

 

 

People will claim the screenshot is fake if they really want to. If you have a good group then it shouldn't be a problem. There's a stigma in this game that a lot of people are paranoid you're trying to pull something on them or powergame if you do something out of the ordinary.

 

That aside, this development is very very interesting.

[AfroCampbell]

Yes I thought i would have a rough time explaining that, however whatever, It is what it is, the truth is it works. I will stick to what FW have said :)

[Theredknight]

I had this all over with boarding shields, about 4 ppl emailed fw and we got different answers, but surprisingly one was emailed back and told the previous answer was wrong. Emails are definitely the way to go.

[Sully ad Bellum]

Once again, I have my doubts about a "clarification" by an alleged Forge World employee about a rule that doesn't appear to be ambiguous or contradictory. 

 

Does Polux work best with the Stone Gauntlet RoW?  Yes.  But is the Stone Gauntlet the only RoW that he can use?  No.  Can you use Polux in lists that do not use the Stone Gauntlet?  Yes.  Therefore, his Void Commander rule does not create a contradiction or an ambiguity with respect to the Stone Gauntlet rule which would require deference to the more specific (i.e., advanced) rule (Polux's).  See Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, p. 13 ("Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules" (emphasis added)).  Rather, it creates a choice, a trade-off; do you want to be benefit from the Stone Gauntlet Row, or do you want to benefit from Polux's Void Commander rule? 

 

There's really no basis to justify reading "...may gain the Deep Strike special rule regardless of the limitations of the Stone Gauntlet Rite of War" into the rules.  Absent an official FAQ from Forge World correcting this "omission" on its part as errata, the rule should stand as written.  Until such we are blessed with such an FAQ, it seems pretty clear to me that you have to choose which rule you'd like to benefit from. 

[Hesh Kadesh]

To add weight to that opinion; Master of the Legion which grants access to Rites of War - but it is also an Advanced rule, and so not covered by the clause regarding "override contradicting basic rules" (emphasis added). 

[Sully ad Bellum]

To add weight to that opinion; Master of the Legion which grants access to Rites of War - but it is also an Advanced rule, and so not covered by the clause regarding "override contradicting basic rules" (emphasis added). 

 

That, too.  So there does not seem to be a way for Polux's Void Commander special rule to override the limitations of the Stone Gauntlet Rite of War.

 

Incidentally, is there a thread somewhere about interpreting the rules where there's a contradiction - not that I think there is one in this instance - between two or more advanced rules?  Is there some order of precedent (e.g., character special rules take precedence over unit special rules take precedence over weapon special rules take precedence over unit type advanced rules, etc)?

[Hesh Kadesh]

"Most Important rule" box out (early in BRB) covers this, as it roughly states agree, or dice off, IIRC

 

 

Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course).

 If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides.

[Sully ad Bellum]

 

"Most Important rule"

 

So...not so much, then.  Fair enough.

[depthcharge12]

No.

 

You solve the argument like gentlemen.

 

You take 10 paces then draw pistols.

 

...or you could argue the wording of a paragraph endlessly like in the government only to lose but then turn out to be right a year down the road. :P

 

Are we seriously debating RAW vs. RAI about the section of RAI vs. RAW? This humors me to no end.

[Kastor Krieg]

Are we seriously debating RAW vs. RAI about the section of RAI vs. RAW? This humors me to no end.

We have to zeal deeper.

[Nusquam]

We could all solve this if we each emailed FW, reconvened with our answers, and compared notes. You would each get an answer from the people who wrote the original rules and whether or not they are currently functioning as intended and if they aren't: how they're intended to work. If you're suspicious, just ask FW. Why argue when you could get the answer from the source? There's no point.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Thats not the point. That FW write rules that are not contradictory in any way whatsoever, then on the basis of someone whinging, the rule is arbitrarily changed. If anything it just hoghlights how badly GW need a rules checker. 2 minutes reading highlights the errors

[AfroCampbell]

Thats not the point. That FW write rules that are not contradictory in any way whatsoever, then on the basis of someone whinging, the rule is arbitrarily changed. If anything it just hoghlights how badly GW need a rules checker. 2 minutes reading highlights the error

 

 

I wasnt whinging. I was enquiring as to whether somebody had overlooked what seems to be an obvious unintentionally muddy point needing some clarification. they clarified their intention. think that is really the end of the issue.

[Nusquam]

 

Thats not the point. That FW write rules that are not contradictory in any way whatsoever, then on the basis of someone whinging, the rule is arbitrarily changed. If anything it just hoghlights how badly GW need a rules checker. 2 minutes reading highlights the error

 

 

I wasnt whinging. I was enquiring as to whether somebody had overlooked what seems to be an obvious unintentionally muddy point needing some clarification. they clarified their intention. think that is really the end of the issue.

 

 

@Afro I agree. It was a valid question. My group also wondered if it was the case, so you weren't the only only one. Good on you for taking initiative.

 

@Hesh It is the point. If you're unwilling to follow up and confirm by asking the source, who is the one you should be complaining too(though be sure to be constructive in your criticism), you have no course to sit in a thread and complain about it. That is the very definition of arbitrary and is in no way constructive. Asking them is only going to let them know how important it is to be throughout in writing and help avoid situations like this altogether. Wouldn't that be great?