|
|
Post by zimko on Jun 22, 2021 16:44:03 GMT
How are we supposed to know 'why' a rule is the way it is? We're not GW.
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Jun 22, 2021 17:37:29 GMT
All I was saying with psychic barrage is there are HUGE inconsistencies with the tyranid book. I understand the rulebook, do you understand the codex? Read the Codex for tyranids. Any Keyword for Tyranids has to have <hive fleet> in front of it pg. 82. Broodlord's +1 to hit specifically says <hive fleet> genestealers benefit from any <hive fleet> broodlords within 6". Goin back to feeder tendrils; NONE OF THE STRATAGEMS BESIDES HIVE FLEET STRATAGEMS SAY <HIVE FLEET>. Codex trumps rulebook. Nothing in that stratagem says you cannot use a broodlord, you are pulling that out of thin air. If they didnt want broodlords benefiting from it; maybe they would have FAQ'd it in the past 3 or 4 years? Why WOULD they give broodlords a keyword that they share anyways? No other benefit in the whole game for even having the Genestealer keyword. By your interpretation thats means that no one can use it, but a lictor, and that is not right. Howabout instead of trying to tell me why im wrong you try and explain why LICTOR is the only word in bold. Just give me one good reason why feeder tendrils works that way. That's not true, our base psychic powers which target friendly units only have the keyword TYRANIDS with no <HIVE FLEET> in front of it. This is in the current FAQ as well: "In the rules described in this section we often refer to ‘Tyranids units’. This is shorthand for any Tyranids unit that also has the <Hive Fleet> keyword." We can extrapolate that any mention of a type of unit is also shorthand and has the <Hive Fleet> keyword. Example, "genestealer" is shorthand for "<Hive Fleet> genestealer", and based on the Broodlord's own rules makes a Broodlord ineligible to use Feeder Tendrils. They could have very easily made Feeder tendrils with the GENESTEALER keyword, but they did not. The Broodlord was given the GENESTEALER keyword as part of 9E, so the lack of an equivalent change to Feeder Tendrils points more towards GW's intent to disallow rather than allow. The LICTOR keyword is obviously there to allow Deathleaper to use the stratagem, who also had the LICTOR keyword in 8E (unlike the BL) and is probably the least confusing part of Feeder. The lack of change to the GENESTEALER keyword instead of "genestealer" could also have been an oversight... those are generally common in rule books greater than 10 pages. However, RAW locks the rule down beyond a shadow of a doubt for BL's, so RAI has no foothold. |
|
|
|
Post by arsonfire on Jun 22, 2021 22:29:29 GMT
All I was saying with psychic barrage is there are HUGE inconsistencies with the tyranid book. I understand the rulebook, do you understand the codex? Read the Codex for tyranids. Any Keyword for Tyranids has to have <hive fleet> in front of it pg. 82. That is not true at all. Page 82 explains how the <HIVE FLEET> keyword works. i.e. that it's a special keyword which you replace with a fleet keyword of your choosing when you add a unit to your army. It does not state that all keywords for tyranids must be prefixed by the <HIVE FLEET> keyword. I'd advise you to be certain of what a page says before you reference it. Inventing rules does not help your argument. Goin back to feeder tendrils; NONE OF THE STRATAGEMS BESIDES HIVE FLEET STRATAGEMS SAY <HIVE FLEET>. Codex trumps rulebook. I've already addressed that the <HIVE FLEET> keyword isn't a requirement for the subsequent use of another keyword. But thought it might be enlightening to elaborate on why stratagems typically don't mention it. It's a side-effect of the nature of how stratagems are used. The <HIVE FLEET> keyword is primarily used when a rule involves two units. Usually a source and a target. For instance the previously mentioned broodlord giving +1 to hit to genestealers. Its purpose is that it adds the requirement that both units must be from the same fleet. So it's commonly seen in rules on unit datasheets that affect other units in your army. There are some rules which don't mention it and so can be used on units from different fleets, such as the excellent example of Catalyst mentioned by piersonsmuppet. In the case of stratagems however, they typically don't have a source unit. Only a target. There are a few cases where it becomes relevant, such as the Synaptic Channeling stratagem from Blood of Baal, which allows a psyker to use a power known by another psyker from the same fleet. But for the most part mentioning the <HIVE FLEET> keyword in a stratagem which only involves a single unit would be meaningless. Nothing in that stratagem says you cannot use a broodlord, you are pulling that out of thin air. If they didnt want broodlords benefiting from it; maybe they would have FAQ'd it in the past 3 or 4 years? Why WOULD they give broodlords a keyword that they share anyways? No other benefit in the whole game for even having the Genestealer keyword. You have it the wrong way around. Nothing in that stratagem says you can use a broodlord. If they wanted broodlords to benefit from it, they had plenty of opportunity to FAQ it in the past 3 or 4 years. Why GW gave the broodlord the genestealer keyword is not something we can definitively answer. One possible explanation is future-proofing. They wrote the rules to be extendable, with expansions like the psychic awakening books adding in new rules. In this case they didn't end up using the GENESTEALER keyword on the broodlord, but they left the possibility open to themselves. By your interpretation thats means that no one can use it, but a lictor, and that is not right. Already addressed by your misunderstanding of keywords, but no. By our interpretation the stratagem is usable by genestealer units, lictors, deathleaper, toxicrenes, and venomthropes. Genestealers, toxicrenes and venomthropes are called out directly by name, while lictors + deathleaper are included by the LICTOR keyword which they share. Howabout instead of trying to tell me why im wrong you try and explain why LICTOR is the only word in bold. Just give me one good reason why feeder tendrils works that way. This can't be definitively answered by anyone other than the codex author. However a pretty good guess about why this decision was made is that there has never been an official broodlord model released which features feeder tendrils. Lictors, Deathleaper, Toxicrenes, and Venomthropes all have tentacle heads. The genestealer kit contains an optional part for one. However the broodlord model does not have one. So GW decided to disallow the broodlord from using the stratagem. |
|
|
|
Post by conquest on Jun 23, 2021 1:07:21 GMT
I am basing my findings on a Q and A in an FAQ that states in BOLD what is and what is not a keyword. FAQ takes precedent over codex. Again, you will say "we dont know that for sure". But it is written. no where in any book or FAQ does it support your claim.
Everything you say is just the long way of saying "we dont know why broodlord has the genestealer keyword". I am telling you why he has the genestealer keyword and its use. For someone who says "only the author knows why" you sound like you sure know how to extrapolate all the rulings for the author. The fact is neither of us know. So play it how you want, and when an FAQ comes out we'll sit down and read it together.
|
|
|
|
Post by arsonfire on Jun 23, 2021 2:20:31 GMT
I am basing my findings on a Q and A in an FAQ that states in BOLD what is and what is not a keyword. FAQ takes precedent over codex. Again, you will say "we dont know that for sure". But it is written. no where in any book or FAQ does it support your claim. Everything you say is just the long way of saying "we dont know why broodlord has the genestealer keyword". I am telling you why he has the genestealer keyword and its use. For someone who says "only the author knows why" you sound like you sure know how to extrapolate all the rulings for the author. The fact is neither of us know. So play it how you want, and when an FAQ comes out we'll sit down and read it together. The only answers I'm saying are unclear are for your questions about 'why' GW did something. That's asking to peer into someone else's head. Sometimes the reason they made a decision is apparent, and sometimes not. But the questions about how the rules work as written are easily answered. Regardless of whether you like the answer or not. The FAQ in question clarified whether you can use Feeder Tendrils after Implant Attack. It has no bearing on the wording of Feeder Tendrils itself. People have been bringing up this particular issue pretty much since the codex was released, and GW has been content with the current wording all that time. So wait on that FAQ all you like. I suspect you'll still be waiting when the next codex invalidates all this. |
|
|
|
Post by conquest on Jun 23, 2021 4:30:21 GMT
I am basing my findings on a Q and A in an FAQ that states in BOLD what is and what is not a keyword. FAQ takes precedent over codex. Again, you will say "we dont know that for sure". But it is written. no where in any book or FAQ does it support your claim. Everything you say is just the long way of saying "we dont know why broodlord has the genestealer keyword". I am telling you why he has the genestealer keyword and its use. For someone who says "only the author knows why" you sound like you sure know how to extrapolate all the rulings for the author. The fact is neither of us know. So play it how you want, and when an FAQ comes out we'll sit down and read it together. The only answers I'm saying are unclear are for your questions about 'why' GW did something. That's asking to peer into someone else's head. Sometimes the reason they made a decision is apparent, and sometimes not. But the questions about how the rules work as written are easily answered. Regardless of whether you like the answer or not. The FAQ in question clarified whether you can use Feeder Tendrils after Implant Attack. It has no bearing on the wording of Feeder Tendrils itself. People have been bringing up this particular issue pretty much since the codex was released, and GW has been content with the current wording all that time. So wait on that FAQ all you like. I suspect you'll still be waiting when the next codex invalidates all this. Yeah now you are just flip flopping your stance, which is even more confusing than your argument. The Q and A in case you didnt bother reading. The Question: If a GENESTEALER, LICTOR, TOXICRENE, or VENOMTHROPE from my army attacks an enemy CHARACTER in the Fight phase, reducing it to 1 wound, and I use Implant Attack Stratagem to kill that character, can I then use the Feeder Tendrils Stratagem? Answer: Yes If GW wanted it to be only a genestealer unit, the answer would be; Yes, but a broodlord cannot use the Feeder Tendrils stratagem. I know you gonna get condescending and say I dont understand the words. However, according to your logic, as long as it is bold it is a keyword(but it doesnt always have to be according to you). So there it is. Using your own logic. Feeder Tendrils works on a broodlord. Why you keep bringing up random reasons why you think GW added a keyword to a unit, but never gave it a single benefit, Ill never know. But it has no sustenance, so I dont care why GW gave the broodlord the GENESTEALER keyword, but they did. So I will play it the way it is worded and the way it is intended. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Jun 23, 2021 4:49:58 GMT
That FAQ is incredibly strange and makes no sense: for the entirety of 8th, and most of 9th, it didn't use Keywords for anything other than lictor, as it should. In the newest FAQ, it does use Keywords for all, even though it shouldn't, without marking it as a change, or changing feeder tendrils.
As feeder tendrils has not been errata'd, it still does not use Keywords (we know what those are, don't try to pretend otherwise).
|
|
|
|
Post by arsonfire on Jun 23, 2021 5:17:49 GMT
The only answers I'm saying are unclear are for your questions about 'why' GW did something. That's asking to peer into someone else's head. Sometimes the reason they made a decision is apparent, and sometimes not. But the questions about how the rules work as written are easily answered. Regardless of whether you like the answer or not. The FAQ in question clarified whether you can use Feeder Tendrils after Implant Attack. It has no bearing on the wording of Feeder Tendrils itself. People have been bringing up this particular issue pretty much since the codex was released, and GW has been content with the current wording all that time. So wait on that FAQ all you like. I suspect you'll still be waiting when the next codex invalidates all this. Yeah now you are just flip flopping your stance, which is even more confusing than your argument. The Q and A in case you didnt bother reading. The Question: If a GENESTEALER, LICTOR, TOXICRENE, or VENOMTHROPE from my army attacks an enemy CHARACTER in the Fight phase, reducing it to 1 wound, and I use Implant Attack Stratagem to kill that character, can I then use the Feeder Tendrils Stratagem? Answer: Yes If GW wanted it to be only a genestealer unit, the answer would be; Yes, but a broodlord cannot use the Feeder Tendrils stratagem. I know you gonna get condescending and say I dont understand the words. However, according to your logic, as long as it is bold it is a keyword(but it doesnt always have to be according to you). So there it is. Using your own logic. Feeder Tendrils works on a broodlord. Why you keep bringing up random reasons why you think GW added a keyword to a unit, but never gave it a single benefit, Ill never know. But it has no sustenance, so I dont care why GW gave the broodlord the GENESTEALER keyword, but they did. So I will play it the way it is worded and the way it is intended. I gave my stance on this FAQ earlier in the thread. Here, I'll quote myself. The most you can argue from that ruling is that you could use Feeder Tendrils after a Broodlord killed a character via Implant Attack. It still doesn't work if the broodlord kills a character with its normal attacks. Inadvertently or not, it does provide permission to use Feeder Tendrils on a Broodlord after killing a character with implant attack. Emphasis on the part you are conveniently ignoring. Whether the FAQ author intended to give permission to broodlords in that scenario can only be guessed at. However stretching this ruling further than what is printed, to try and say a broodlord can use feeder tendrils after killing a character with its regular attacks, goes further than the rules support. That would require another change to update the wording used in the Feeder Tendrils stratagem itself. Which does not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by papo28 on Jun 23, 2021 10:32:44 GMT
Is this conquest guy mentally handicapped or what? its kinda funny to read all this mental gymnastics. It's a pretty straight forward RAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Jun 23, 2021 13:41:46 GMT
I think this comes down simply to him reading into it RAI (Rules As Intended) where everyone else is trying to explain RAW (Rules As Written).
We can only ever definitively know RAW, RAI is open to debate and argument, which is why we try not to use RAI when discussing rules unless RAW is completely ambiguous, then we try to compare to similar cases in other codecies/rules.
I think we can all see what you are saying from an RAI perspective, but you can't reliably get RAI interpretations to go your way at tournaments. Especially in cases where RAW is clear, even if weird.
The rules as written state that the Broodlord cannot use feeder tendrils if it kills an enemy character with a normal attack, but it CAN in the bizarre case of using implant attack to finish it first. It makes no sense from an RAI perspective but that IS what the rules SAY. It is stupid and frustrating, but it is clear. Until/unless GW FAQs this mess that is how the rules work.
|
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Jun 23, 2021 14:22:45 GMT
IMO, GW RAI always goes towards the simplest interpretation or towards the "nope" ruling in their FAQs.
The major rules debates we've had that I can remember:
Turn 1 cult deep strike? Nope
Turn 1 lichtor bouncing a unit from deep strike? Nope
Onslaught allowing advance and shoot heavy weapons? Nope
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Jun 23, 2021 14:30:10 GMT
They're also (generally) good now with RAI=RAW: if it's not working properly, actually change the rule, rather than release an ambiguous FAQ that just says to play it differently (see: Inexorable).
Also:
The strat:
It's almost like it not working on broodlords is intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Jun 23, 2021 17:07:57 GMT
Is this conquest guy mentally handicapped or what? its kinda funny to read all this mental gymnastics. It's a pretty straight forward RAW. Dude, not cool. Conquest is arguing his point as he sees it. It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, he is entitled to do that as long as he’s here. Calling him stupid, mentally handicapped, retarded, or any other names reflects poorly on yourself, your argument, and this forum in general. If you think he’s wrong then challenge his ideas. If all you can do is base name calling then I’d rather you keep it to yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Jun 23, 2021 17:38:34 GMT
Yori the mod be like:  |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Jun 23, 2021 17:44:00 GMT
Lol not this (please do not swear) again Come on giga? You don't like endless arguments about KEYWORDS, <KEYWORDS>, keywords, words that are key, and important language?  |
|
