PDA

View Full Version : Angry Empire Horses



Caboose123
20-03-2008, 05:31
So... a while back i had a little dispute over the hatred rule...

So, Warrior Priests confer hatred to the unit they're with, but how about the steeds of the unit he is with...

Note: Once again i display my outstanding laziness by neither fetching the empire book, nor the BRB. (Isn't proper grammar fun :D)

My argument:
I thought there was a rule that meant if part of a model had some psychology then the whole model did(Hence evil khorne horses with frenzy...). I hope this is in fact a rule i may have dreamed this up...

Other hell-spawned argument of doom (I'm totally un-biased :)):
A little more complex. I dreamed up this rule, and only the knights get the hatred. The wording of the fluff, details that characters aren't effected because they're harder to influence, this could/should (would) mean that the horses aren't effected either, after all how can you influence a horse with your fiery oratory? On the otherhand, this could be countered saying the knights spur on their steeds, making them even more vicious (They are not domestic horses but battle-trained steeds...)
Note: I wasn't arguing against conferring hatred to steeds so apologies if i left out an argument against it.

Now, on the day I told the employee that i thought said rule existed, alas, after consulting his pocket-sized rulebook (I think you get it in Skull Pass box?) he couldn't find it, and the horses have remain docile ever since.

Greatest peice of literature right here... ever...

So please, post your opinions (Only if they prove me right! :evilgring:) and resolve this issue.

Jonke
20-03-2008, 06:09
The horses do get hatred, it's some where in the psychology rules.

Mounts of a Khorne marked rider does not get frenzy because of the mark of khorne explicitly says the frenzy isn't passed on (this is an exception though).

Masque
20-03-2008, 06:14
It's in the Mounts' Psychology section on page 79 which is unfortunately found in the Characters chapter of the BRB.

EvC
20-03-2008, 12:12
Does the horse of a second character within the unit get Hatred?

theunwantedbeing
20-03-2008, 12:30
The unit gets hatred, so assuming the character gets it..so does his mount.
All parts of the model are affected.

Put a character with hatred in a chariot, and he makes the chariot hate everything as well(he probably spreads nasty rumours).
Similarly, the same thing happens with frenzy, although not if your khorne for some silly reason :P

EvC
20-03-2008, 14:05
Well there is a reason why I'm specifically asking about another character in the unit- Warrior Priest Hatred doesn't transfer to other characters in the unit (I think). So I guess not then..?

Caboose123
20-03-2008, 17:36
I guess not, thanks all!

Draconian77
21-03-2008, 10:48
Im gonna say no because I don't think it was intended.


"this could be countered saying the knights spur on their steeds, making them even more vicious (They are not domestic horses but battle-trained steeds...)"

I'd be inclined to say that the horse is as dangerous is its profile represents and short of drugging it(always good for a laugh...) or turning it into a Chaos Spawn(Apparently Sigmarite Priests frown upon this sort of thing, damn conservatives...) its not going to get any better at fighting because its riders are fully of righteous fury(Or alcohol, the difference? Not much.)

T10
21-03-2008, 12:07
It's in the Mounts' Psychology section on page 79 which is unfortunately found in the Characters chapter of the BRB.

I am sure most agree that the mount and rank-and-file rider are subject to different psychology rules it is a situation similar to when a mount and character rider are subject to diffferent psychology rules. Seing as the rules regarding the former are completely absent, and the rules for the latter work perfectly for both situations, it should not be hard to accept the idea that disregarding the "character vs. rank-and-file" aspect of those rules allow us to resolve the situation adequately.

Short version: The use the character rules to work out the rider/mount relationship for rank-and-file riders also. It works.

-T10

Alathir
21-03-2008, 13:51
Yeah, the horses do get hatred, but most players I know refuse to give them it on the basis that it is absolutely ridiculous in every single way imaginable.

EvC
21-03-2008, 15:41
A ridiculous game mechanic? Heavens forbid.

Arnizipal
21-03-2008, 17:17
Well there is a reason why I'm specifically asking about another character in the unit- Warrior Priest Hatred doesn't transfer to other characters in the unit (I think). So I guess not then..?
Doesn't he transfer hatred to the unit?
If a character joins a unit he becomes part of the unit. Therefor a character joining a unit with a warrior priest would benefit from the Hatred rule IMO.

Caboose123
21-03-2008, 17:53
Well yeah, i would agree with Arnizipal, if the empire rules didnt say specifically that the hatred does not confer to any characters (As they are harder to influence then regular rank-and-file, which is an argument for why horses shouldnt get hatred)

Arnizipal
21-03-2008, 17:59
Hmm. I'll have to remember that next time I face Empire.

Nurgling Chieftain
21-03-2008, 18:53
I can't think of any RaW reason why the horses shouldn't get hatred, even though it may seem kind of silly. Even disregarding the point about mounts getting their riders' hatred/frenzy, the warrior priest's ability does not exclude the horses in the first place! It excludes characters, but horses are not normally characters... Trying to stretch that rule to include them is frankly far more silly then simply allowing the horses the re-roll.

T10
21-03-2008, 19:17
The horses are rank-and-file models in the unit. They'd get Hatred even if they had no riders.

-T10

Alathir
21-03-2008, 23:33
A ridiculous game mechanic? Heavens forbid.

Point taken, but horses hating me is where I draw the line.

theunwantedbeing
21-03-2008, 23:50
If a warrior priest can make any unit he joins hate the enemy for no real reason, then there's nothing unreasonable in allowing the horses to be subject to hatred as well.

"men, hate the enemy!"
"Okay mr. warrior priest sir! I dont know why but I feel compelled to do as you wish"

Completely rediculous but we accept it...so why not horses hating as well?

WillFightForFood
22-03-2008, 00:12
"Horse, hate the enemy."

"Willllburrrr!"

Chicago Slim
22-03-2008, 00:17
Yeah, get over it, guys. It's *******' MAGIC.

Arnizipal
22-03-2008, 01:32
If a warrior priest can make any unit he joins hate the enemy for no real reason, then there's nothing unreasonable in allowing the horses to be subject to hatred as well.



Yeah, get over it, guys. It's *******' MAGIC.
It's not magic. The priest just does the whole fanatic hate speech shtick (the enemy being infidels, think about how Sigmar suffered for you, ...).

Draconian77
22-03-2008, 01:42
Ok, this is another RAW argument isn't it? This falls right under the Stank discussion.

By RAW the horses get hatred but I try not to play RAW when its a contentious point. Now its up to Empire players to actually decide if they wan't to play it that way. Its runs the risk of people taking it the wrong way saying Stanks can be spiked...

Im against it as I said previously.

Also whats all this about characters getting hatred? It says they don't so thats pretty clear to me.

theunwantedbeing
22-03-2008, 01:47
Fluffwise....well okay a horse might not be the easiest thing to give hatred, an empire horse for example.

A dark elf horse though....different story, these things are bred to be vicious, getting hatred as well as the rider is perfectly fluffy here dontcha think?

WillFightForFood
22-03-2008, 03:50
I don't get what the question is here. It's not really a contentious point. Most of the time RAW disputes are over game balance, unclear rules, and potential "Easter Eggs" people think they have found. This is not unclear. "The priest and any unit he joins Hate all models in the enemy army." Pg 53 Empire book. The BRB states that the psychology state of the rider affects the mount. "If either the rider or the steed is subject to any of these rules [e.g. hatred], the whole combined model is." It doesn't specify characters only. Were it the case that the mount's psychology rules only applied to characters then Cold One Knights wouldn't have to test for stupidity.

Here: Warrior priest gives hatred to the Knights. Knights pass it on to the horses. Horses are animals that are very smart and empathetic. You're acting as if it's unreasonable for the Warrior Priest to stir up the knights and them in turn to stir up their mounts. Moreover, it's not unbalanced either.

Although I'm not one who likes to speculate on what the authors meant (I like to go with the closest to RAW I can without hitting absurdity), this is one of those cases where they could have written it into the rule if they meant it to work differently. There is already a precedent with the Khorne marks. Plus, Empire was the second book after 7th edition came out. The new psychology rules were one of the bigger changes in the shift from 6th->7th. There's no reason to believe that they would have missed that.

showmydog
22-03-2008, 03:52
and whilst khorne knights specifically cant have crazy frothing horses, blood knights manage to ride (undead?) str4 horses with frenzy....

horses get the frenzy, but not other characters mounts (the whole model is excluded).

shutupSHUTUP!!!
22-03-2008, 04:14
Yeah, the horses do get hatred, but most players I know refuse to give them it on the basis that it is absolutely ridiculous in every single way imaginable.
Would these same players refuse to give Blood Knights frenzied horses? After all they follow the same rules regarding psychology for steeds.

Caboose123
22-03-2008, 04:57
We've come to the conclusion that the horses do get the hatred.

Now we're moving onto, is this RAW or RAI? My brother, says that this is the RAW ruling, there is no fluff justification, and is completly taking advantage of the rules. I think this is how the game mechanics work, and whether its RAW or RAI is not the issue, the answer is clear. He's still gonna call me a ch**sy cockbite for using the hatred.

Draconian77
22-03-2008, 06:35
"I don't get what the question is here. It's not really a contentious point."

Really its contentious because its RAW vs RAI. By RAW we know they have Hatred, but was that intended when they wrote the rules for Warrior priests?

"Would these same players refuse to give Blood Knights frenzied horses? After all they follow the same rules regarding psychology for steeds."

Of course they would get Frenzy. The rulebook says they and their mounts have Frenzy and seeing as how GW didn't make an exception like they did for Khorne Knights its seems clear from both a RAI and RAW perspective that this is how it should be played.

The whole Warrior Priest giving Hatred to his units horses doesn't really fly with most people who believe in RAI down here.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-03-2008, 08:24
There is absolutely no RaI evidence anywhere in the rules for hatred to not apply to the horses in this case. The designers went to some trouble to state that psychology is done by model rather than split between mount and rider - assuming that they somehow meant the exact opposite of what they clearly wrote is just ridiculous. (Nevermind the fact that that rule isn't even relevant since the horses would get hatred by merely being in the unit in the first place!)

No, this isn't RaW vs. RaI, this is people just not liking clear rules for their own reasons. Which is fine if you're writing you're own ruleset, but when you're arguing to disadvantage your opponent (and claiming that your argument is based in any way on the rules), it's not fine, it's classic rules lawyering.

scarletsquig
22-03-2008, 09:14
No, this isn't RaW vs. RaI, this is people just not liking clear rules for their own reasons. Which is fine if you're writing you're own ruleset, but when you're arguing to disadvantage your opponent (and claiming that your argument is based in any way on the rules), it's not fine, it's classic rules lawyering.

I have to agree.

If someone I was playing decided to randomly start a "horses shouldn't get hatred because it doesn't make sense" argument in the middle of the game, I'd immediately start thinking "oh god, I've ran into one of those players". I don't know if I'd even have the heart to bother arguing with them, I'd rather just agree and get the damn game over with instead of listening to that tripe. :cries:

Players who argue on the basis of "it wouldn't work like that in the real world" or "it isn't fluffy" are the absolute most annoying type out there. They're like a horrific combination of the worst aspects of tournament players and fluffy players.

It's a completely valid thing to do if you're playing a historical wargame, but in a fantasy setting you have to be willing to suspend disbelief quite a lot.

Spider
22-03-2008, 09:42
Lol.

I must be about the most naive player in the world.

I have been playing Empire for years and i had never once occured to me that the horses would get the hatred.

And knowing that they probably do, i still think i shal not play it that way.

Draconian77
22-03-2008, 14:03
"Players who argue on the basis of "it wouldn't work like that in the real world" or "it isn't fluffy" are the absolute most annoying type out there. They're like a horrific combination of the worst aspects of tournament players and fluffy players."

However annoying this type of player is I would still take him over Mr, RAW anyday. Mr. RAW says no IoN in combat and no VP for Stank and generally ruins everybodies fun...


"And knowing that they probably do, i still think i shall not play it that way."

Which is fine, but are you doing that because you think horses hating the enemy is silly or because you don't think the advantage it brings is overly helpful?

Tarax
22-03-2008, 15:27
I disagree that horses get Hatred as soon as the riders do.

Why? Well, everything else thrown at the model is directed at the stats for the rider not the mount. So why would in this case Psychology work against both?

Blood Knights are subject to frenzy in the 'Bestiary' of the army book, but the entry for their mounts (ie Nightmare, as opposed to Skeletal Steeds for Black Knights) say nothing about it. In the entry for the Blood Knight the characteristics for the Nightmare are given, but I believe just to state what mount they are riding.
In th O&G book there is no seperate entry for a Boar, while at the entry for Boar Boys they give extra rules for the model. Savage Orcs just have Frenzy and no seperate entry for Savage Orc Boar Boys. I don't think that their Boars are subject to Frenzy just because the entry says so.

The characteristics for a mount would IMO already include any benefit their riders have.

I play Empire and I would not give my mounts Hatred.

WillFightForFood
22-03-2008, 18:33
We've come to the conclusion that the horses do get the hatred.

Now we're moving onto, is this RAW or RAI? My brother, says that this is the RAW ruling, there is no fluff justification, and is completly taking advantage of the rules. I think this is how the game mechanics work, and whether its RAW or RAI is not the issue, the answer is clear. He's still gonna call me a ch**sy cockbite for using the hatred.



Really its contentious because its RAW vs RAI. By RAW we know they have Hatred, but was that intended when they wrote the rules for Warrior priests?

..........................
"Would these same players refuse to give Blood Knights frenzied horses? After all they follow the same rules regarding psychology for steeds."

Of course they would get Frenzy. The rulebook says they and their mounts have Frenzy and seeing as how GW didn't make an exception like they did for Khorne Knights its seems clear from both a RAI and RAW perspective that this is how it should be played.

This is not a case of "Rules as Interpreted" versus "Rules As Written". This is "Rules As Is". As mentioned, there is no reason to believe that the designers intended it differently than it plays. The rule states that the psychology of the rider or the mount applies to both. It's not as if putting a mounted warrior priest in a unit of Knights would have been something novel that the designers would not have considered. In fact, that seems like something people would do. Unlike with the IoN controversy, where GW Canada has intervened and the WD battle reports show them using IoN in combat, there is no indication from anywhere official that it shouldn't work this way. If they didn't want mount and rider psychology to work the way it does they would have written it differently. The Khorne Knights were a hold over and an exception from the previous ruleset and they wanted to keep them the same. On the flip side the Orcs and Goblins book came out with 7th edition and there was no mention that the Boar Boys boars shouldn't get Frenzy. You don't need a separate entry for the Savage boar stating its frenzy, the psychology rules for mounts make that unnecessary

You're confusing what the whole RAW thing is about. It's not about cases of rules not being backed up by fluff. RAW vs RAI are about misprints, typos, confusing wordings, and contradictory rules. Now if you want to house rule it, fine. That can be your house rule. Just don't confuse what the rules are with what you think they should be.

As far as fluff goes, suspend your disbelief. If the rule had to follow the fluff then the new Black Coach would be in trouble, since the fluff states it feeds on the souls of men and the rules require it to suck up magic dice.

Caboose123
22-03-2008, 18:34
And i suppose your Knights move 20", its the same thing, your making up your own rules.

Whether its in the bestiary or not does not make a difference, if the riders have a psychology rule then their mounts have it aswell.


The characteristics for a mount would IMO already include any benefit their riders have.

This argument fails in this case seen as how its a granted bonus, its neither in the knights, nor their horses rules.


If a mount is subject to stupidity, then the rider tests for stupidity, no one will argue this. But if you played it the knights and not the steeds get the hatred, what happens when an enemy flees from them? Would you force the knights to pursue? (as per the rules for hatred)

theunwantedbeing
22-03-2008, 18:45
Rules as Intended blatently wants the horse to get hatred as well.
If the intended rule was to say that they dotn get.....it would have said that the mounts dont get it!
Yet it says the exact opposite.

If somebody wanted to pull this on me I'de start picking his own rediculous unbelievable army apart.
Blessing for bretonnian knights? pfft....not realistic, you cant have it.
Skaven? pfft your army cant exist I win.
Lizardmen? laughable at best.
Dwarves,elves, undead?....those are so absurd I dont even see why I would need to give any reasons as to why they are, its that blidningly obvious.
Magic phase?....doesnt exist.

Etc etc.

Yes in 5th and 6th edition, only the rider got the benefit....this is 7th edition, the rules are somewhat different now.

Caboose123
22-03-2008, 18:58
Yes in 5th and 6th edition, only the rider got the benefit....this is 7th edition, the rules are somewhat different now.

Not necessarily better.

Draconian77
23-03-2008, 00:16
"Rules as Intended blatently wants the horse to get hatred as well.
If the intended rule was to say that they dotn get.....it would have said that the mounts dont get it!
Yet it says the exact opposite."

Thats not always the case, if they wanted IoN to be cast in combat they would have said it right? But they didn't. GW make mistakes, so do people, but GW are the distributors

"If somebody wanted to pull this on me I'de start picking his own rediculous unbelievable army apart.
Blessing for bretonnian knights? pfft....not realistic, you cant have it.
Skaven? pfft your army cant exist I win.
Lizardmen? laughable at best.
Dwarves,elves, undead?....those are so absurd I dont even see why I would need to give any reasons as to why they are, its that blidningly obvious.
Magic phase?....doesnt exist."

I think you have stretched this argument to absurdity. It is a Fantasy game after all. Logically we expect Magic and Fantasy Genre creatures but do we expect hating horses? Hmm...

"Rules as Interpreted"

I always say "Rules as Intended" but same as.


"Just don't confuse what the rules are with what you think they should be."

You know its entirely possible your wrong. I promise to leave this discussion until a FAQ comes out. In the mean time I would just like to say I don't plan to enforce this rule, I am more interested in seeing how Empire players are playing it atm and many don't seem to be playing with hatred. Food for thought?

Caboose123
23-03-2008, 00:49
Learn to use quotes.

Really, i dont think many people would agree that we're wrong in the assumption that they get and should get hatred.

Bleakwood
23-03-2008, 01:35
I think I'm on the same page as many(if not most) of the people who have used or faced cavalry giving hatred by a warrior priest: I never considered that the horses could benefit from it.
At first I was skeptical, which is quite natural when something just jumps out of "nowhere" and it certaintly wouldnt be the first time someone has made outrageous statements in the comforting anynomity of the web.

But it checks out, the rules are quite clear cut and no exception has been hinted at in the slightest way. This is not IMO. I'm surprised but in in a "huh, alright" kinda way.

As for fluff(which isnt "fluff" but animal psychology) it is not unrealistic in any way. Horses are very easily influenced by people around them, most especially their riders. While only defensively minded in their natural environs, a horse can be trained to attack without provocation, even when left on its own.
If the rider of a trained warhorse gets all bloody-minded, exited and spurs the horse on, it would certaintly influence the horse to greater levels of violence.

Kinda recent scientific studies have proven emotions such as sorrow and racial hatred in more intelligent mammals(the study was concerned with elephants) so it is quite possible that horses can indeed hate.

T10
23-03-2008, 01:42
Not necessarily better.

Oh, they are better if only by merit of being consistent.

-T10

Nurgling Chieftain
23-03-2008, 07:41
Thats not always the case, if they wanted IoN to be cast in combat they would have said it right?Saying that GW perhaps forgot something when there's evidence that it was intended (there are rules for what happens when it's cast into combat!) is very different from claiming that they didn't mean to write a rule that does exist.


GW make mistakes...The lifeblood of this forum. :cool: But it's rather uncharitable to assume they've made a mistake without substantial evidence. You might as well claim they mixed up the WS table because you think it's ridiculous that WS1 can hit WS10 on a 5+.


I think you have stretched this argument to absurdity.I think the point was precisely that the horse hatred argument has been stretched to absurdity.


You know its entirely possible your wrong. I promise to leave this discussion until a FAQ comes out.It's really not, y'know. Any FAQ which changed this would have to be classified as a change rather than a clarification.

EvC
23-03-2008, 21:03
I think without doubt, the most annoying thing that happens on this forum is when someone is arguing something (badly) and they say that until the answer is FAQed then we can't truly know the answer... when there's already an FAQ out covering the issue.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/wh/warhammer7.pdf

End of discussion.

Tarax
24-03-2008, 09:57
This argument fails in this case seen as how its a granted bonus, its neither in the knights, nor their horses rules.

What I meant was that the training of the steed, ie its ability to fight, was already worked out in its characteristics.


If a mount is subject to stupidity, then the rider tests for stupidity, no one will argue this. But if you played it the knights and not the steeds get the hatred, what happens when an enemy flees from them? Would you force the knights to pursue? (as per the rules for hatred)

In the Dark Elf book the Cold Ones suffer from Stupidity. In the entry for Cold One Knights it says nothing about it. Now, do the Knights suffer from Stupidity or not? No, they are not. The just suffer the effects when the test is failed for the Cold Ones.

But this is all besides the point as I have found the Q&A/FAQ where it says the mounts get the same benefits (drawbacks) as the riders. My apologies. I stand corrected.

Alathir
24-03-2008, 10:43
Just to clarify, I never said I would argue against another player who gave his Empire horses hatred, just that my regular empire opponent doesnt play it for reasons we both agree upon.

WillFightForFood
24-03-2008, 22:19
I think without doubt, the most annoying thing that happens on this forum is when someone is arguing something (badly) and they say that until the answer is FAQed then we can't truly know the answer... when there's already an FAQ out covering the issue.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/wh/warhammer7.pdf

End of discussion.

Well color me tickled pink. Game over man.

Knighta
24-03-2008, 22:21
Fluff wise, the horse should NOT get the hatred rule, as the priest is talking to the unit, and making them really angrey.

HellRaid
24-03-2008, 23:48
Does it not say specifically under the Frenzy rules that Frenzy is conferred to a mount? I recall a GW staff member pointing in the direction of the Hatred rules (which omit the sentence that the Frenzy rules have) when someone brought up a similar arguement a month or two ago. Something to do with bretonnian horses getting hatred, I think.

I may be wrong, but I don't have the book to hand. Do the Hatred rules specifically say that it's conferred? I'd say not, if not.

Personally, I can't see some horses being angry because some priest said that some enemy said some ambiguous statement about some guy's mother.
Because we all know that that's what the priests say to get people angry.

alextroy
24-03-2008, 23:58
From the 7th Edition FAQ (Emphasis added)

Q. The rules for Frenzy say that frenzied “models” gain +1 Attack. How does this work with models that comprise of different parts, like a frenzied cavalry model or a frenzied Chariot with two steeds and two crew? And how about Hatred?
A. As with characters (see “Mounts' psychology” on page 79), the entire model is affected by the psychology rule. This means that both riders and steeds (in case of cavalry), all crew and creatures (in case of chariots) or both the character and the Monster he's riding, gain one Attack from Frenzy, can re-roll their attacks for Hatred, etc. Note also that if a part of such a “multiple” model causes Fear or Terror, or is affected by Stupidity, the entire model does (for example, only the beasts pulling a chariot may be stupid, but if the model fails its test, taken on the crew's leadership, all of the model is affected by Stupidity, including the crew).

HellRaid
25-03-2008, 00:05
Ah, okay. I'm not as familiar with the FAQs, due to my local GW store manager refusing to acknowledge their clarifications unless you actually print them off individually and slap him about his face with them.
Particularly with Khornate Chosen Knights. I just can't understand why :rolleyes:

EvC
25-03-2008, 00:10
Could someone perhaps record themselves reading that bit of the FAQ out loud and post it here? Then people could put them on their iPods to convince people who can't quite bring themseles to read the rules... or FAQs... or threads :D

Saben
25-03-2008, 00:49
Well using a FAQ is basically the same as using any GW source material. You need a copy with you if you expect to be able to use the rules. I try to ensure I carry all relevant FAQs with me when gaming- much like I carry my Army Book.

HellRaid
25-03-2008, 01:18
Could someone perhaps record themselves reading that bit of the FAQ out loud and post it here? Then people could put them on their iPods to convince people who can't quite bring themseles to read the rules... or FAQs... or threads :D

I realise this is somewhat a dig at me, so...

Reading the rules and remembering them off the top of your head are completely different things. You cannot honestly expect players to know every aspect of an FAQ when posting in their free time on an online forum, especially when GW staff members themselves don't endorse nor recommend them.

Besides that, none of my four armies over 40k and Fantasy have official FAQs, nor are likely to get them, so I consider myself excused for overlooking the small (reasonably well-hidden!) section of the GW site where they're located.


And now after I've typed all that I realise there was a link to the PDF posted earlier in the thread. I must've overlooked it when I read through.

I'd now like to take this moment nominate myself for the WarSeer Grand Idiocy Award.

Caboose123
25-03-2008, 01:57
Going slightly off-topic,

Hellraid, I sympathise, rules are things which i don't really know off the top of my head, but if you're going to post on a somewhat indepth rules conversation, then take 2 secs to locate the relevent book and read the relevent section.

Anyway, yes this is done.

EvC
25-03-2008, 12:35
I realise this is somewhat a dig at me, so...

Actually it started off as a very slight dig at you for missing my post with the FAQ, but then I saw you posting about your manager not accepting the FAQ unless presented to him and any dig is aimed squarely at him. In today's age, who knows, maybe they should put FAQs on iPods, much easier to transport and convince people that way ;)

Though in all seriousness, a Store Manager should have copies of all FAQs printed out and kept with the store rulebooks anyway, though I guess he's jusy following company policy (Basically: "Ewww, FAQs! Can't stand 'em!").