Tyranid and Blood Angels FAQ up!!

[Melissia]

Not for all armies. For example, it's cheaper for me to do Mech Sisters than it is for me to do Horde Sisters. Fun times. 'Nids don't really HAVE a mech army (their pods aren't exactly mech) either, and Ork hordes can be much more expensive than converting/scratchbuilding looted vehicles for Ork mech.

[Kloud]

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

I have not posted on BoLS in a long time, but as soon as I saw the Bug FAQ was out, a had to read it, and then figure out my password for this forum just so I can do this.


HEY BEAN!!!!!! PBFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

[Shavnir]

Not for all armies. For example, it's cheaper for me to do Mech Sisters than it is for me to do Horde Sisters. Fun times. 'Nids don't really HAVE a mech army (their pods aren't exactly mech) either, and Ork hordes can be much more expensive than converting/scratchbuilding looted vehicles for Ork mech.

Yea but given the trukk and battlewagon are (game issues aside) some of the best ork model's GW's put out to date who wouldn't want them? My point still stands that they unilaterally ruled in favor of mech.

Also double lol @ shadow in the warp not working but psychic hoods working against psykers in vehicles.

I have not posted on BoLS in a long time, but as soon as I saw the Bug FAQ was out, a had to read it, and then figure out my password for this forum just so I can do this.


HEY BEAN!!!!!! PBFTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

Since I know Bean pretty well let me summarize what he'd probably say

"All this proves is you're on the same level as GW in terms of the inability to read their own rules. This changes nothing as to who was right, it only shows how wrong GW can be and still be blind to it".

Personally I agree. If GW wanted the rule to not hit embarked units they wrote it wrong. Simple as that.

[DarkLink]

Since I know Bean pretty well let me summarize what he'd probably say

"All this proves is you're on the same level as GW in terms of the inability to read their own rules. This changes nothing as to who was right, it only shows how wrong GW can be and still be blind to it".

So you're both so obviously and utterly correct in every way that not only are all other players wrong, but the company that writes the rules, and is able to make judgement calls as they see fit in order to maintain gameplay balance as best they can is obviously completely wrong if they disagree with you as well?

Personally I agree. If GW wanted the rule to not hit embarked units they wrote it wrong. Simple as that.

Well, now they corrected their mistake.

[Bean]

QFT! Bean to for that matter. No doubt they will try to argue that because they are FAQ they are unofficial.

Why? The rules said one thing. This FAQ has changed them, so now they say something else. The FAQs are "unofficial"--according to GW--but, frankly, they still carry exactly the same weight as every other rule in the BRB or codices. GW's little disclaimer tag doesn't really reduce their significance.

I was right before. Now that the rules have changed, I have changed my position accordingly, and I am still right. What's there to argue?

[Melissia]

Why? The rules said one thing. This FAQ has changed them

No, they just clarified so that people would stop arguing that the rules said what they didn't say.

[Bean]

lol, Tynskel is gonna be pissed that he's been wrong all along in every concievable way.

This is obviously asinine. An FAQ constitutes a change to the rules. The fact that the rules have been changed so that Spirit Leech doesn't affect embarked units says nothing about whether it affected embarked units before. It resolves the issue, but offers no support for either prior position.

Nothing in the text of the FAQ states, suggests, or implies whether they consider the answer to be an extension of the rules as they were previously written, and, even if it did, GW has, in the past, made it quite clear that they really don't have a solid grasp of their own written rules.

To continue asserting that Spirit Leech affects embarked vehicles would be stupid, but, frankly, no more so that this FAQ has anything to say about what the rules were before it was released.

[Melissia]

An FAQ constitutes a change to the rules.

No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.

To assert that your interpretation is somehow better than everyone else's is laughable.

[Bean]

No it doesn't. A FAQ is a clarification of the rules. There is more than one interpretation of some rules, and the FAQ clarifies which interpretation is RAW according to GW. Now, ERRATA are pure changes to the rules.

To assert that your interpretation is somehow better than everyone else's is laughable.

GW routinely changes their rules with their FAQs. The assertion that they do not is obviously wrong.

Frankly, though, dealing with your ludicrous denial is just not worth any more of my time. Have a nice day, Melissia. I won't be responding to your garbage anymore.

[Melissia]

GW routinely changes their rules with their FAQs.

No they don't. The only time this really happens is when FAQing an old codex for a new edition, which is when it is necessary to change things in order to suit the new edition. But even then they oftentimes just leave the rules as is even though they make no sense in the current edition.