New DRAFT FAQ

[Lord Commander Vulkus Dorn]

Will this affect running a Ravenwing/Deathwing setup? That's been my plan for a while, or at least what I've been working on

[Bryan Blaire]

No, that seems to be exactly how they intended these components to work: together.

[Lord Commander Vulkus Dorn]

That's how I imagined it, hell, they work in sink with each other, I was just making sure though. I have a friend that plays DW, he's been discouraged because of the FAQ since he played an all DW force. I tried to tell him that there were still ways of doing it. Hopefully, he's taken my advice and sought out the B&C

[Solrac]

I encourage everyone to write comments on the photos that they posted on Facebook like I have. The more feedback the more chance we have to influence a change (like the Dreadnoughts ruling).

 

No use complaining on here, everyone in this forum has heard the same thing time and time again.

[twopounder]

 

 

No, I'm not. Sableclaw cannot use grim resolve at all. Also, I was referring to any dreadnought having inner circle (or deathwing last edition).

 

Grim Resolve explicitly states that units that overwatch will do so at BS2 instead of 1. It does not allow the unit to overwatch.

 

The rule book is pretty clear on this. Any vehicle that is an exception to overwatch has it listed in the rules. Land speeders cannot overwatch, therefore sableclaw cannot overwatch.

 

RWSS has it because of ravenshield. Again - a rule that explicitly gives the unit permission to overwatch when they normally could not. There is no allowance for sableclaw.

 

Oh boy, there has not been a rule called Inner Circle in the last 3 DA codexes.  

It was probably 3rd edition when that was a rule.  

Forgive me but I was more interested in current rule set.

 

You are paraphrasing the Grim Resolve rules, with the effect of adding content and meaning which isn't there.  

What it says is they "COUNT their ballistic skill as 2 WHEN firing overwatch."

Notice it says WHEN and not IF IT CAN.

 

If every unit in the codex had Grim Resolve, then I could buy your copy paste argument.

But they didn't do that, the were very intentional on which units got Grim Resolve.

 

You are correct the BRB is very clear on how the game works.

It is also clear that codexes supersede the BRB.

And I am not talking about land speeders... they don't have Grim Resolve.

I am talking about a Unique Character and its special rules.

 

And you should read the Ravenshield rule again.

Ravenshield allows the RWSS to shoot on another RW units behalf when they are charged... that is it.

See nobody questions if the RWSS can shoot a the unit charging a unit of RW bikes.... but they always ask can the RWSS shoot when they themselves get charged.

And that is be cause they are looking at the wrong rule for clarification.... it is Grim Resolve that grants them the right to fire overwatch under the normal rules for overwatch with the slight modification of BS2.

 

 

I'm not sure if there is a comprehension problem here or you're really just trolling.

 

Dark Angel Codex, 6th Edition, page 105 - "Inner Circle: Fearless; preferred enemy(chaos space marines)".

 

3rd edition only had stubborn and intractable.

 

Ravenshield is the ONLY thing that gives the land speeders ANY ability to overwatch. No land speeders, including sableclaw are allowed to overwatch. Grim Resolve enhances overwatch, it does not grant it.

 

To do so is willfully cheating. 

[shabbadoo]

You mention that no other vehicle unit was very purposely given Grim Resolve, but it is of note that not a single unit in the entirety of the game has dual-profiles, one being a vehicle and the other not, like Sammael does, which points to the inclusion of a rule which doesn't affect this type of vehicle to more likely to be an oversight.  Still, I wouldn't mind if Sammael could Overwatch (least of all because it would be very special character-ish), but under the rules he cannot Overwatch to begin with, so just slapping Grim Resolve onto a unit to which none of its rules apply, provides for no rules clarity of any sort, as nothing in Grim Resolve says a unit which cannot Overwatch gains the ability to do so, and at BS 2. It is just a general Chapter Tactics rule, which in this case doesn't apply at all. If it were to apply, the place to take care of it would not be in the Grim Resolve rule itself, but in another rule. Sammael's Swift Vengeance rule covers his two weapon capability on Corvus, so just add a rule to the Sableclaw entry, such as "Enhanced Targeting Matrix: Sammael can fire Overwatch when riding in Sableclaw."  Done.  There just isn't anything there allowing Overwatch in the first place.  Perfect for an FAQ, but I wouldn't expect the Grim Resolve rule to be changed just to make an exception for Sammael, but it to be removed altogether, because the Grim Resolve rule is about the Chapter as a whole, not about Sammael's special awesomeness.

[ValourousHeart]

I'm not sure if there is a comprehension problem here or you're really just trolling.

 

Dark Angel Codex, 6th Edition, page 105 - "Inner Circle: Fearless; preferred enemy(chaos space marines)".

 

3rd edition only had stubborn and intractable.

 

Ravenshield is the ONLY thing that gives the land speeders ANY ability to overwatch. No land speeders, including sableclaw are allowed to overwatch. Grim Resolve enhances overwatch, it does not grant it.

 

To do so is willfully cheating. 

Well I missed that obviously.  I guess it shouldn't be surprising as I haven't used TDA models since 2nd edition.  I don't really like them.

 

But that does make me wonder still what you were talking about... page 99 dreadnought only have 1 special rule - deathwing vehicle (ven dreads only), Page 43 - dreads only have 1 special rule - deathwing vehicle (ven dreads only - see page 40), Page 40 - Deathwing vehicle - preferred enemy (chaos SM) & re-roll damage table.

 

You said that Dreads got Inner Circle which gave fearless which dreads couldn't use.... but they didn't give Dreads inner circle.

 

I am not cheating... I just have a different opinion than you on how this works.

The players at my store agree with me... and they don't find it overpowered.

It is situational, as they have to charge me from that front 45 degrees for the AC to be able to be used. 

 

You mention that no other vehicle unit was very purposely given Grim Resolve, but it is of note that not a single unit in the entirety of the game has dual-profiles, one being a vehicle and the other not, like Sammael does, which points to the inclusion of a rule which doesn't affect this type of vehicle to more likely to be an oversight.  Still, I wouldn't mind if Sammael could Overwatch (least of all because it would be very special character-ish), but under the rules he cannot Overwatch to begin with, so just slapping Grim Resolve onto a unit to which none of its rules apply, provides for no rules clarity of any sort, as nothing in Grim Resolve says a unit which cannot Overwatch gains the ability to do so, and at BS 2. It is just a general Chapter Tactics rule, which in this case doesn't apply at all. If it were to apply, the place to take care of it would not be in the Grim Resolve rule itself, but in another rule. Sammael's Swift Vengeance rule covers his two weapon capability on Corvus, so just add a rule to the Sableclaw entry, such as "Enhanced Targeting Matrix: Sammael can fire Overwatch when riding in Sableclaw."  Done.  There just isn't anything there allowing Overwatch in the first place.  Perfect for an FAQ, but I wouldn't expect the Grim Resolve rule to be changed just to make an exception for Sammael, but it to be removed altogether, because the Grim Resolve rule is about the Chapter as a whole, not about Sammael's special awesomeness.

 

Sammie doesn't have a dual profile.  There are 2 separate unit entries.  This isn't like Khan where he has an upgrade in his profile that switches him to a speeder.  It is literally like selecting a Chaplain or an Interrogator Chaplain.  They are 2 units with similar stories but drastically different entries.  It seems like you haven't looked at these entries in a while.  Go ahead and look they are almost no similarities, and there are some points that would still make sense on the speeder that are omitted.. on purpose... so why can't the ones included be on purpose?

 

If Sammael and Sableclaw were the same, and they just copy pasted, then we would see a lot more over lap of their special rules... things like...

 

The speeder can deep strike... it says so on its unit entry.  Well the Jetbike can deep strike too, but it is not listed on its unit entry.  Why?  Because there is no need for it as it is covered in the BRB.  Fast skimmers in the BRB don't automatically get Deep strike... but jetbikes do.

 

The jetbike gets swift vengeance so that it can fire both weapons.  Well the speeder can fire both weapons too.  So why didn't they keep the swift vengeance rule?  Because that was already covered in the BRB.

 

The Raven Sword is a master crafted weapon, just like the sword of silence and the sword of secrets... so if they just copy and pasted then the Raven Sword on Sableclaw would be master crafted... but it isn't.  

 

The Jetbike has hatred (Chaos SM).  The speeder can hit models with the ravensword.  Do you think it was intentional that they didn't make that master crafted.  I think it might have something to do with not rolling to hit.

 

So the rules common to both entries are:  Iron halo, Rapid Maneuver, Ravenwing, Scout, Skilled Rider and Grim Resolve.  If GW was so careless as you claim why did they not include all of those other rules that apply to both entries but are already covered by the BRB?

 

 

And coming back to the RWSS -  The number 1 question that everyone has been asking since the codex came out is can the RWSS fire overwatch if it is the RWSS that is charged.  And the reason for this is because the RAVENSHIELD doesn't address that, the RAVENSHIELD only grants the right to fire overwatch on behalf of another RW unit.  It is Grim Resolve that gives the RWSS and Sableclaw the right to overwatch for themselves.

 

You say that they should have given us a rule that clearly states that Sableclaw can fire overwatch.  And you say that "it would be very special character-ish"  Well I am saying that they gave Sableclaw Grim Resolve on purpose, so that it could do something for the model.  And the only thing that could be is because they expected Sableclaw to overwatch.

 

The choice is yours, you can go around thinking that GW are a bunch of idiots... or that they did something on purpose.

[march10k]

Well, at least we can once again field DW with Land Raiders and don't have to use Hammer of Caliban to get a Land Raider in a Lion's Blade - although how much will that get us when it can get on the table on the second turn at the earliest (alpha strike dodge ?).

Old Codex: 7 DWK in Crusader with 1 TDA Interrogator Chaplain, starting on the forward edge of your deployment zone. Assault no later than turn three.

New Codex: no Crusader, no real reason to field DWK (absent unbound or CAD...and in CAD, a DW player sees the ten marines as a tax, which rankles the 5th company player in me!)

New Codex, as revised: 7 DWK with TDA IC in deepstrike reserve, crusader in reserve. Crusader rolls on on turn two at earliest, DWK deepstrike turn two at earliest. DWK mount crusader turn three at earliest, reach forward edge of deployment zone at end of turn three at earliest....assault no earlier than turn four.

Termies are badassed melee troops, but very expensive. They need at least three turns of melee to be worthwhile. Assaulting turn three made it a coin toss. Assaulting turn four makes it a long shot. A long shot is better than deepstriking in enemy territory and braving enemy shooting for at least a turn before moving out on foot at the same effective speed (at most) as anything they might want to charge...but it's gone from a 50/50 chance of being successful (through the pre-FAQ phase of "what idiot takes melee terminators?") to a 1/4 chance of being worthwhile.

I've had games where termies just demolished enemy lists, and games where I won in spite of being reduced to a single terminator sergeant alone and unafraid, and a whole boatload of games where 6 point guardsmen shot my 45 point termies off the board due to the tyranny of ones failing all the time. But the last edition was pretty well balanced. being able to field a pure mechanized terminator list (three squads, belial, and three land raiders at 1850) with at least a 40% chance of winning, that was pretty cool.

Now, this FAQ gives us land raiders in deathwing formations, but without any hope of making them useful. Sorry, the land raider isn't there for hurribolters or godhammers, it's there for the assault ramp. And BOARDING the crusader on turn three is unsatisfactory, it means you're PRAYING against all odds that you'll execute a turn four charge? ?!? In a meta where invisible hounds fortified by invisible heralds can be in charge range of THE WHOLE BOARD on turn two, that's bovine excrement. It's nice that a lion's blade overwatches a charging invisible hound on natural BS, but they get to eat us alive on turn two, and we need the stars to align to pull off a turn four charge (without invisibility) on turn FOUR?!? Thanks for nothing! I'll continue to run my DWSF and RWAS without dedicated transports...they just don't do anything useful!

/edit/ The bottom line is, I used to get three squads of deathwing stuck in on turn three (sometimes turn two) under the covering fire of three crusaders...I won maybe 55% of the time based on that turn two/three hammerblow. This codex stripped that entirely, I had to revert to a modified version of my 5th edition list (not entirely a bad thing, it went 23-2-1, after I climbed the STEEP learning curve). This FAQ pretends to give back the mechanization of deathwing, but when you can't count on assaulting any earlier than turn five, with some chance of turn four, it's a sick joke. I'd perhaps field a Terminus Ultra, except they're not dedicated transports...even a stock mars pattern land raider isn't really worth the points if it doesn't have the potential to dump an assault into the enemy deployment zone on turn 2.

[Interrogator Stobz]

^^^Yep. DW still are the suck. And I've been finding them the weak link in any army that they are supporting, if by supporting I mean using up far too many points for no impact.  Everything I face is more mobile and more lethal than these guys. The potential FAQ will not help fix DW in the slightest.

[shabbadoo]

Sammie doesn't have a dual profile. You know what I meant by what I wrote. Don't parce words meaninglessly.

The speeder can deep strike... it says so on its unit entry. Well the Jetbike can deep strike too, but it is not listed on its unit entry. Why? Because there is no need for it as it is covered in the BRB. Fast skimmers in the BRB don't automatically get Deep strike... but jetbikes do. Right, and so your point is...that the BRB contains rules?

The jetbike gets swift vengeance so that it can fire both weapons. Well the speeder can fire both weapons too. So why didn't they keep the swift vengeance rule? Because that was already covered in the BRB. Right, the BRB has rules.

And coming back to the RWSS - The number 1 question that everyone has been asking since the codex came out is can the RWSS fire overwatch if it is the RWSS that is charged. And the reason for this is because the RAVENSHIELD doesn't address that, the RAVENSHIELD only grants the right to fire overwatch on behalf of another RW unit. It is Grim Resolve that gives the RWSS and Sableclaw the right to overwatch for themselves. No, it does not. Read the rules for Ravenshield:

"Ravenshield: When an enemy unit declares a charge against a friendly unit with the Ravenwing special rule, models from this Formation within 24" of that friendly unit can choose to fire Overwatch against the charging unit (***even though vehicles cannot normally fire Overwatch***). [<--- See that right there? That's called *AN EXCEPTION TO THE CORE RULES* allowing for a unit that can not normally Overwatch to do so; the remainder of the Ravenshield rule serves to limit the *ADDED* capability. You will note Grim Resolve does NOT make any inclusion of Overwatch capability, only enhances the *ALREADY PRESENT* capability of a unit, if any.] Template weapons can only use the Wall of Death special rule if they are within 6" of the friendly unit. Remember that a unit can still only fire Overwatch once per turn."

Note the Green bit, which is what grants the ability to fire Overwatch, and NOT Grim Resolve. You see, when a rule, like Grim Resolve, does NOT grant an ability like Overwatch, *another rule is required to do so*, like was done with the Ravenshield rule. For Sableclaw, this was not done. As it can't fire Overwatch to begin with, no rule that modifies its inability will give it the ability. It is a good question for an FAQ, but I'm sorry to tell you that Grim Resolve in and of itself does not grant Overwatch capability to units which cannot fire Overwatch in the first place (which is what you are stating it does), only Overwatch at BS 2 to units units *that already have the ability to Overwatch in the first place*, which Sableclaw does not.

You say that they should have given us a rule that clearly states that Sableclaw can fire overwatch. And you say that "it would be very special character-ish" Well I am saying that they gave Sableclaw Grim Resolve on purpose, so that it could do something for the model. And the only thing that could be is because they expected Sableclaw to overwatch.

I know you are saying they gave it on purpose, but you might want to ask yourself why would they purposely give a unit a rule which it can make no use of any part of. That's what we call a mistake, and the mistake doesn't lie in the wording of Grim Resolve rule, but in its appearance in the Sableclaw profile. If you saw the word Rapid Fire appear in the profile of a melee weapon, you wouldn't think that each attack actually means you get to swing twice with it, right? Hey, its a weapon so it must have purposely been put in there, as Rapid fire is a "weapon ability". Yeah, for ranged weapons. Well guess what Overwatch is? It's a shooing rule for non-vehicle units, excepting those vehicles which share qualities with non-vehicle units, like Walkers do. Guess what Sableclaw is? It's a non-Walker vehicle which can't fire Overwatch, as per the BRB, and so it can't fire Overwatch because it has no specific rule that makes an exception to the BRB like the RW Support Squadron very specifically does. As such, it cannot make use of Grim Resolve, as it modifies rules that Sableclaw simply doesn't have.

The choice is yours, you can go around thinking that GW are a bunch of idiots... or that they did something on purpose. Or I can go around thinking GW are idiots because they perhaps did intentionally do something, but didn't understand their own rules well enough to know how to do it properly (but I don't in this case). I can also go around thinking Grim Resolve doesn't do what you say it does, because it does NOT. If it did what you think it does, nothing regarding the ability to Overwatch - which counters the BRB - would necessarily need to be very thoughtfully delineated and explained in the Ravenshield rule at all, as the units in that Formation also gain the Grim Resolve rule, which they normally wouldn't be able to use at all without the special exception mentioned in the Ravenshield rule. Which seems the more likely mistake to you? Somebody taking the time to unnecessarily lay out the required exception in the Ravenshield rule for the unit to be able to Overwatch at all (and incidentally be able to make use of the Grim Resolve rule they were also given), or that somebody accidentally included Grim Resolve on a profile that cannot use it, and that it is an understandable mistake because that unit is a variation of another unit which is actually is able to use it? So, no. It is NOT utterly obvious what GW's intent is. If their intent was purposeful, as we would probably all like it to be, Sableclaw needs another rule in addition to Grim Resolve, similar to what the Ravenshield rule has, so that it can actually make use of Grim Resolve. But, somebody didn't very thoughtfully construct and include a special rule that allows for this, did they. They certainly did it for the RW Support Squadron, which means they sure as hell knew about the need for the exception, and yet Sableclaw doesn't have a similar special rule making a similar exception for it, does it.

A tiny mistake would be the inclusion of Grim Resolve in the Sableclaw profile. A BIG MISTAKE would be leaving out a rule that allows Sableclaw to break the BRB rules and be able to fire Overwatch, and so then actually be able to make use of Grim Resolve. You are not even acknowledging that an exceptional rule is *REQUIRED* for a Sableclaw (i.e. a Land Speeder) to be able to fire Overwatch in the first place, such that it would then actually be allowed to make use of Grim Resolve, and that is why your interpretation is utterly baseless. If GW's intent really was for Sammael to be able to fire Overwatch, and therefore also make use of Grim Resolve, then yes, they really are complete and utter idiots for not having included an *ADDITIONAL* special rule allowing Sableclaw to do so; especially when the evidence in the Ravenshield rule shows us they clearly know that it would be necessary to do so. And so I prefer to think that GW are NOT idiots in this case, just poor editors, and that Grim Resolve was accidentally added to a profile which cannot make use of it.

EDIT: Sorry if that is somewhat repetitive in places, and the typos are now mostly taken care of...I think.

Post an FAQ on their Facebook page, and perhaps they will answer it. If they do, be prepared to receive either a response of "Delete Grim Resolve from the Sableclaw entry.", or "Add the following special rule to the Sableclaw entry...", but not a response of, "Grim Resolve allows units that cannot Overwatch the ability to do so, just because the word 'Overwatch' is referenced in the rule."

[o8oo Anarch]

The flaw I see with the "Grim resolve was a miss print on Sableclaws data sheet" argument is that it didn't get removed with the errata?

[ValourousHeart]

Wow, Shabbadoo, you went all angry red text on me.

I'm not trolling here, we are just having a friendly row about the rules.

 

I'm sorry if I crossed a line... that wasn't my intention.

 

Typically the counter argument I get is "You're dang right GW is a bunch of idiots, they gave Grim Resolve to Deathwing Knights.  That unit doesn't even have guns. They would never get to use Overwatch, let alone Grim Resolve."

Which is a good point in most situations... but it doesn't consider what I like to refer to as the "found weapons" situation.

Yes it is situational... most things in this game tend to be that way... but the DWK could be in base contact with the armored containers, or the gun from an aegis defense line, or any other fortification or battle field debris with a weapon profile, or a daisy chain of terrain pieces with guns at which point they could make use of both Overwatch and Grim Resolve in the event that a charge is declared against them.

 

I am impressed... no one has ever countered this with a rapid fire CCW.

My mind doesn't even go there.

 

I think it is more that you would never as opposed to could never get to attack twice with a Rapid Fire CCW.

But I think I might have come to that conclusion in a different way than you did.

Rapid Fire allows you to double your attacks or shots when at half range.

CCW have a range of base to base, which is approximately zero... so it would be difficult to claim half range to take advantage of Rapid Fire under the current rules.

 

Now I am sure that some rules lawyer out there, certainly not me, but someone would claim that supporting attacks in the BRB have a range of sorts, and that models within half of that range could possibly make use of a Rapid Fire CCW.

But like I said, I am not that person.

 

However if, when 8th edition comes out, they rewrite the assault phase to give CC attacks a range, say 1-3 inches, then it would be perfectly viable for Rapid Fire to apply to a CCW.

 

I did send the Sableclaw question into GW for inclusion in the FAQ, but I missed the dead line.

And I did add it to the DA FAQ page on Facebook so that hopefully it will be resolved.

You are probably right, that they will answer with remove this or add that.

 

But if they just say "Yes, Sableclaw can fire overwatch" in the FAQ without changing any text in his entry.... would that be good enough for you?

[shabbadoo]

I don't mean the text to be angry, just stand out as responses, and red goes with the site theme I have. As to any FAQ, if GW stated that Sammael can fire Overwatch, it wouldn't be as part of any current rule. It would be an *added* rule, and hopefully GW would, if they responded in the affirmative, present it as a new rule, as that would be the proper way to do it. Otherwise, people might think it a precedent and be even more likely to read things into rules that are just not there. As to Deathwing Knights and Grim Resolve, that rule shouldn't be present in their profile. A reason to include it is "for completeness", but it really shouldn't be there at all, as it has no more effect on Deathwing Knights than it does on Sammael. Previously Grim Resolve did have an effect, that of preventing Deathwing Knights from being able to voluntarily fail a Morale check. Of course Deathwing Knights previously didn't have Grim Resolve at all. Seeing as it does nothing for them, it is also very likely a mistake that it was included in this edition.

You may have noticed there has been a problem with GW's editing department in regard to the last few dozen army books they have published.

Glad you appreciate the madness of the rapid fire close combat weapon. If we choose to "fire" it, then we can't assault, right? So, exactly how does it work...

Also, everyone should go to the Dark Angels Facebook FAQ page and post replies/likes to any additional questions (well, the actual rules questions, not the "Why don't Dark Angel still wear black armor?" or whatever questions) that have been posted . If nobody does this, GW might not take some very good questions to not be be FREQUENTLY enough asked questions, and so may ignore them. There are some important questions yet to be dealt with, so please everyone go there and chime in. Squeaky wheel and all.

[ValourousHeart]

Well my question is on page 4 of the DA FAQ, a couple dozen more up-votes and GW might notice it.

Or if we just copy the exchange here over there, that might work too.

[SnakeChisler]

I don't understand why you think Sableclaw would be able to overw\tch its a vehicle and unless it has an exception it can't

 

The Profile was a bodge job anyway with a stupid sweep attack instead of just making it a chariot (but then its not open topped?) 

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Can we stop going in circles about the same subject? The effort spent here trying to convince each other (and failing) can better be spent on GW Facebook asking that question. ;)

[ValourousHeart]

I don't understand why you think Sableclaw would be able to overw\tch its a vehicle and unless it has an exception it can't

 

The Profile was a bodge job anyway with a stupid sweep attack instead of just making it a chariot (but then its not open topped?) 

 

That is fair.. I can accept the fact that you don't understand my POV.  I can accept it because I don't understand why you think it should have been a chariot.  I would love to hear your reasoning for that.

 

My first point is that Sableclaw is a character.  And it is generally understood that character models get to do things that non-character models generally don't get to do. This isn't to say that all characters get to overwatch, but just to remind you that Sableclaw is a character and as such means you need to expect him to not simply follow the basic infantry rules.

 

My second point is that not every unit in the DA codex gets Grim Resolve.  But every unit that has this rule it is generally accepted that they, in the right circumstances, can overwatch.  Grim Resolve DOES NOT say "only models that have overwatch according to the BRB, get to count their BS as 2 when firing overwatch."  It also DOES NOT say "count their BS as 2 if they are allowed to fire overwatch."  What it DOES say is "count their BS as 2 when firing overwatch."

 

My third point is about Ravenshield - Ravenshield grants the RWSS an ability similar to the TAU ability of Supporting Fire.  The clause that reminds us that vehicles normally can't overwatch is in parentheses meaning it is not part of the sentence.  You can remove the text in parentheses and it will not change the meaning of the sentence or the rest of the paragraph.  I can understand why that statement in there would cause confusion... But understand that part in parentheses is not part of the rule.

 

If Ravenshield granted Overwatch, then the first part that the rule would have needed to say that it grants overwatch, but it doesn't.  It starts with talking about when other RW units get charged, and then defining the criteria that needs to be met in order for the RWSS to add "Supporting Fire" to those other RW units.  The very way the rule is written, assumes that the RWSS is already able to overwatch, and this rule just addresses this unit's expanded role during overwatch.

 

As to your points, the sweep attack was present in an earlier edition of the rules, so it is understandable that they would bring it back.  It is very much like Jink, which used to be a RW only rule, then no one had it, then everyone got it, and finally we got it a little better.  I have a feeling that making Sableclaw a chariot would ultimately make it a weaker unit, and most certainly not play in line with the fluff.  Sammael is not suppsed to fight to the death, which is why I'm assuming you want him to be a chariot, he is supposed to gather information about the fallen and get that back to the Inner Circle at all cost.

 

Yes I know that doesn't line up with the heroicly dead way we typically use SM Characters.  I kinda like that about him... makes him unique.

[Bryan Blaire]

in parentheses meaning it is not part of the sentence.  You can remove the text in parentheses and it will not change the meaning of the sentence or the rest of the paragraph.  I can understand why that statement in there would cause confusion... But understand that part in parentheses is not part of the rule.

Not true.

 

Parentheses are used to indicate a clarification, aside, or follow-on idea that the author intended to either explain a previous portion of the sentence or to indicate that the comment has less importance. A statement in parentheses is very much a part of the statement that it is with though. Often parenthetical comments could be offset with commas or colons instead, showing that they are very much part of the sentence.

 

You cannot simply ignore something in parentheses or state that they are not part of the sentence.

[ValourousHeart]

 

in parentheses meaning it is not part of the sentence.  You can remove the text in parentheses and it will not change the meaning of the sentence or the rest of the paragraph.  I can understand why that statement in there would cause confusion... But understand that part in parentheses is not part of the rule.

Not true.

 

Parentheses are used to indicate a clarification, aside, or follow-on idea that the author intended to either explain a previous portion of the sentence or to indicate that the comment has less importance. A statement in parentheses is very much a part of the statement that it is with though. Often parenthetical comments could be offset with commas or colons instead, showing that they are very much part of the sentence.

 

You cannot simply ignore something in parentheses or state that they are not part of the sentence.

Oh boy, the state of our educational system.

I'm sorry, but while you are correct about the purpose of parentheses, you have been misinformed about the ramifications of their use.

Whatever the material inside the parentheses, it must not be grammatically integral to the surrounding sentence. If it is, the sentence must be recast. This is an easy mistake to avoid. Simply read your sentence without the parenthetical content. If it makes sense, the parentheses are acceptable; if it doesn’t, the punctuation must be altered.

Had GW wanted that part of the sentence to be an integral part of the rule, then they would have needed to use different punctuation.

 

If you would like read more, here is the link.

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/parentheses.html

[Bryan Blaire]

Oh boy, the state of our educational system.

I'm sorry, but while you are correct about the purpose of parentheses, you have been misinformed about the ramifications of their use.

 

 

Whatever the material inside the parentheses, it must not be grammatically integral to the surrounding sentence. If it is, the sentence must be recast. This is an easy mistake to avoid. Simply read your sentence without the parenthetical content. If it makes sense, the parentheses are acceptable; if it doesn’t, the punctuation must be altered.

Had GW wanted that part of the sentence to be an integral part of the rule, then they would have needed to use different punctuation.

If you would like read more, here is the link.http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/parentheses.html

:lol:

 

Yeah, oh the state of our education system, that you decided to neglect the entire first portion of what you linked to:

Parentheses (always used in pairs) allow a writer to provide additional information. The parenthetical material might be a single word, a fragment, or multiple complete sentences.

So, exactly what I said.

 

It allows the writer to provide additional information. ;)

 

It doesn't have to be grammatically included, no, but it is additional information. The statement(s) is/are still written there with the intent to be read. Don't confuse "grammatically integral" with "intellectually integral". Consider the following two statements:

They gave him a fantastic bonus ($12,000), considering his salary ($30,000 per year).

They gave him a fantastic bonus ($50), considering his salary ($80,000 per year).

 

We can see that while the main statement "They gave him a fantastic bonus, considering his salary" is exactly the same in both cases, the two statements clearly indicate different intellectual recognition and could even imply a connotation (the second could be considered sarcastic).

 

You are also changing the meaning of the term "grammatically integral" to "informationaly complete." Grammatically integral elements are those elements needed to make a grammatically correct sentence. What the concept the quoted text is trying to explain is that your elements to make a grammatically correct sentence can not be found within the parenthetical element.

 

For example:

The boy (was wearing an orange shirt and jumping) over the fence.

 

This is a sentence where the parenthetical is incorrect, because it has taken grammatically integral elements and included them in a grammatically excluded portion of the sentence. The sentence with the parenthetical removed would read "The boy over the fence."

 

It would necessarily need to be changed where elements needed to make a grammatically correct sentence have been moved outside the parenthetical, for example: "The boy was (wearing an orange shirt) jumping over the fence."

 

No where in what you quoted does it ever state that grammatically integral and integral are the same thing. You have tried to argue that they are. You are incorrect and the quote you have provided does not back you up on that. Simply ignoring information contained in a parenthetical can be very detrimental.

 

For example:

"A breech of this contract carries penalties (civil penalties can range from $300,000-$1,500,000 or the reasonable estimation of damages) that will be set by the court upon judgment indicating that a breech has occured."

 

If you try to go in and make a legal argument that because the range of penalties was disclosed in a parenthetical, a penalty of $1,250,000 can't be enforced because it isn't "grammatically integral" to the sentence, you will find that the judge will have little sympathy, because a lack of being grammatically integral doesn't mean that the information is able to be ignored.

 

Like I said, it's information the author included, you can't just ignore it because you don't want to read something that is clarified or added to it, when the author clearly wrote it.

[Interrogator Stobz]

TL/DR: So ValourousHeart thinks that Sammy in a speeder should have the ability to overwatch and plays it that way with his friends, cool. Nearly no-one else here at least (it seems) agrees and they play it differently, also cool.

5+4=9 and 6+3=9 and 7+2=9 etc. That people is GeeDubMath 101. Play it how you want, even TOs change rules and clarify how they want things to go. Parentheses or not

If ValourousHeart ever visits my home town and wants to play me, and then asks if he can overwatch with Sammy on his speeder, I'll let him. Even though I wouldn't play it the same way.

Any more news on the FAQs?

[Jazzhands]

I'm just over the moon my support squad can overwatch for itself.

 

As this rule was more open to interpretation (not a bracket in sight) i had been playing it to my disadvantage until it was clarified. Now it is!

 

While I love the fact we are arguing grammar, my education brought me to R. Barth who tells us that as each reader brings their own metatext to the reading, the author's intent is meaningless.

 

This will make for a 40k where no dice are rolled and every game endds in fisticuffs!

[ValourousHeart]

TL/DR: So ValourousHeart thinks that Sammy in a speeder should have the ability to overwatch and plays it that way with his friends, cool. Nearly no-one else here at least (it seems) agrees and they play it differently, also cool.

5+4=9 and 6+3=9 and 7+2=9 etc. That people is GeeDubMath 101. Play it how you want, even TOs change rules and clarify how they want things to go. Parentheses or not

If ValourousHeart ever visits my home town and wants to play me, and then asks if he can overwatch with Sammy on his speeder, I'll let him. Even though I wouldn't play it the same way.

Any more news on the FAQs?

Thanks Brother Stobz. I don't know when I'll be getting over to your side of the world, but I would love a game.

You are also changing the meaning of the term "grammatically integral" to "informationaly complete." .....

No where in what you quoted does it ever state that grammatically integral and integral are the same thing. You have tried to argue that they are. You are incorrect and the quote you have provided does not back you up on that. Simply ignoring information contained in a parenthetical can be very detrimental.

For example:

"A breech of this contract carries penalties (civil penalties can range from $300,000-$1,500,000 or the reasonable estimation of damages) that will be set by the court upon judgment indicating that a breech has occured."

If you try to go in and make a legal argument that because the range of penalties was disclosed in a parenthetical, a penalty of $1,250,000 can't be enforced because it isn't "grammatically integral" to the sentence, you will find that the judge will have little sympathy, because a lack of being grammatically integral doesn't mean that the information is able to be ignored.

Like I said, it's information the author included, you can't just ignore it because you don't want to read something that is clarified or added to it, when the author clearly wrote it.

And for you... hmmm.

In your example the part in parentheses discusses the penalty should the breech be proven, whereas the rest of the sentence shows that the decision has not been made yet.

So focusing your attention solely on the part in parentheses could lead a person to misread that sentence and assume that a judgment had already been handed down.

Also there are some points that are added via parentheses that while they add detail, are only adding meaningless details.

Jim bought two ice cream cones ($4.72) for him and Julie.

The cost of the ice cream is extraneous and somewhat irrelevant.

The combination of those two is my point.

I believe that most of you are reading Ravenshield and placing far to much attention on the "(even though vehicles cannot normally fire overwatch)" part of that sentence.

And because of that you are drawing the conclusion that Ravenshield grants overwatch.

That text is extraneous also... its inclusion in the text doesn't affect any aspect of the game.

It inclusion doesn't affect other codexes or even other unit entries within this codex.

Whereas if you read the Ravenshield rule without the part in parentheses, for comprehension only, then you will start to see that the rule only ever discusses the criteria required for the "supporting fire" aspect.

*Edit* computer error.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

OK. Please stop. Any rules discussions either go to +OR+ section or to GW facebook page. The argument is far gone to a no return point and serves no purpose at this point.