Doom of Malanti Query.

[Bean]

I offered Bean a chance to put a Wager on this FAQ, I sure wish he would have gone for it.

And Bean? If you missed my other post. PBBFFFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

No hard feeling? OK?

I seem to recall saying that, were I to wager, I'd wager on this outcome. GW is pretty inconsistent with their FAQs, but it certainly wasn't a surprise that they decided to change the rules in the way they have.

No hard feelings. =)

[Bean]

GW not applying RAW? It their rules! They are the great GM of 40K, of course GW has applied RAW, its their rules!

I guess this ends the discussion though, GW have ruled it.

GW didn't apply RAW; they changed RAW. The rules said one thing. Now, thanks to this FAQ, they say something different. What the rules are, now, doesn't change what they were.

It does end the discussion, though; you're right about that.

[Melissia]

The rules said one thing.

Yes, which didn't coincide with your beliefs to begin with.

[Bean]

Yes, which didn't coincide with your beliefs to begin with.

Really? You want to keep arguing about that even now that the argument has been rendered completely moot?

Why?

Just so that you can get a kick out of saying "I was right all along?"

Honestly, Melissia, this is just pathetic.

[Melissia]

No, I just get amused by contradicting the people who claim that somehow their interpretations of GW's rules are the only right interpretations.

[Angelofblades]

No, I just get amused by contradicting the people who claim that somehow their interpretations of GW's rules are the only right interpretations.

But...we .... all .. do that...

Hence the heated rules arguments. ...

contradiction much?

[Melissia]

Then you might guess that this is why I don't participate in rules arguments very often.

Hell, half the time I'm not even arguing what I actually believe is true in the rules anyway, just a devil's advocate position...

[Kloud]

The thing about this argument all along was that RAW was anything but clear. Don't you dare say RAW was definitive, because it was not.

And when RAW is not clear, we have to fall back, and look at RAI. Now some people say since RAI is not RAW, RAI is not relevant, but I think in this argument, and even more so in the case of the Mawloc Deepstriking, RAI was so obvious, that we ALLL knew what would, and has been written in the FAQ.

[HsojVvad]

The thing about this argument all along was that RAW was anything but clear. Don't you dare say RAW was definitive, because it was not.

And when RAW is not clear, we have to fall back, and look at RAI. Now some people say since RAI is not RAW, RAI is not relevant, but I think in this argument, and even more so in the case of the Mawloc Deepstriking, RAI was so obvious, that we ALLL knew what would, and has been written in the FAQ.

Actually I thought GW would rule the other way for the Mawloc Deepstriking. I believe GW would say SL coudln't effect units in vehicles, but then to say SitW can't either just stunned me, and others from what I have been reading as well.

I just find it funny that GW is saying that 5th edtion is suppose to be streamlined, but they have same named war gear that have different stats, same names that do different things, and similiar ability things that work totally the same but are effected different.

I think 5th edtion is more confusing that 4th edtion ever was, from what I have been reading. Hell I think Rouge Trader with all the rules in therer are less confusing than 5th edtion.

[Tynskel]

Hmmm... I think there are select individual parts of 5th edition that are confusing-- not from the way they are written, but instead from the way they are FAQed.

Overall, 5th is a much better ruleset from 4th, 3rd, and 2nd.