PDA

View Full Version : Crumbling!



Makaber
04-04-2008, 23:40
THE FOLLOWING STORY NEVER HAPPENED. I WROTE IT THIS WAY BECAUSE IT WOULD HOPEFULLY BE MORE FUN, BUT SARCASM IS OBVIOUSLY LOST TO PEOPLE.

Disclaimer: The following may or may not be fabricated fiction and/or lies.

I was playing my friend Steve down at the Games Workshop store, and I was playing my Vampires and he was playing his Tomb Kings. And then I killed his Hierophant Liche Priest with my totally awesome Bat Swarms, and then he said that I had to do crumble tests as well! Because the Tomb Kings rule book clearly states that all Undead units on the table have to test for crumbling, and my Vampire Counts units are Undead as well, even though it was not my Vampire who got killed by the totally awesome Bat Swarms (but my friend Steve's Hierophant Liche Priest). I packed down my army and left the store.

Well as you say in the internet, "GG Games Workshop!". Now the Vampire Counts totally suck against Tomb Kings and I am going to sell my Vampire Counts army on eBay and play Bretonnia instead.

Is my friend Steve right when he says that Vampire Counts are Undead too and have to test for crumbling when the Tomb Kings Hierophant dies? Because that is what it says in the book.

theunwantedbeing
05-04-2008, 00:02
Just the Tomb king army.
As it says on page 20 of the Tomb Kings armybook.

Which is a damned shame as the tomb king crumbling rule (which the enemy would be forced to follow) doesnt allow any saves instead of just no armour save.
That's of course irrelevant but an interesting event if you can get the VC player to fall for it.

noneshallpass!
05-04-2008, 00:06
It sais so in the old last VC book also... well, it's actually copy and paste between the two books.

I'm not shure if this is a mistake or what:wtf:

Read this earlyer on: All units in the army falls to dust.

in my old Undead book it's not 100% clear either... All the undead units are destroyed.

redrum
05-04-2008, 00:10
I packed down my army and left the store.




Wow, kind of an extreme response to a rules dispute don't you think?

Btw, I think he was completely wrong. Those rules are obviously specific to the Tomb Kings but still, bad show to just walk out.

Lordmonkey
05-04-2008, 00:14
Well as you say in the internet, "GG Games Workshop!". Now the Vampire Counts totally suck against Tomb Kings and I am going to sell my Vampire Counts army on eBay and play Bretonnia instead.


You should sell your friend instead.


Is my friend Steve right when he says that Vampire Counts are Undead too and have to test for crumbling when the Tomb Kings Hierophant dies? Because that is what it says in the book.

This is one of those times when RAW can go screw itself in the ear. There isn't a tourney in the world that would enforce something so obviously stupid as that.

P.S. tell your friend to have a serious think about his gaming attitude.

Jonke
05-04-2008, 04:18
I can't see any reason calling this Steve your friend...

Necronoxz
05-04-2008, 07:13
Uhmz I read here the area from VC when the general is destoyed and as far as I can read here the tomb kings will not crumble when your general is destoyed.

The general
If the general is destroyed, an Undead army will slowly crumble to pieces, dissipate in the winds of magic or slink back to their lairs. To represent this, at the end of the phase when the general is killed, and at the start of each friendly turn thereafter, ALL FRIENDLY UNDEAD UNITS on the battle field must take a leadership test. blablabla

as stated here only FRIENDLY unit's
I think the tomb king army will treated the same ;) and steve only readed the upper 2 lines :P later stated that they must be friendly hehehe but I will read the page today in the shop how stated for tomb kings hehehe.

DarkStarr
05-04-2008, 08:27
That guy isn't a friend but a complete jack hole. Sounds like he's a real rules lawyer and is no fun to play with, I'd say you won that battle since you killed his general and his army started to crumble, good job and don't sell your vc cause of him.

And the key word is "GENERAL" he wasnt your armys general if you want to get technical with him.

Griefbringer
05-04-2008, 09:44
Hierophant is not a general, though. Anyway, to consult the TK army book, pages 20-21 tell us the following about hierophants and their destruction:

"The army must include at least one Liche Priest or High Priest who will be the army's Hierophant... <snip> If the Hierophant is destroyed, the undead in the army will start to slowly crumble to dust."

Which would indicate that the intention would be just for the army that the Hierophant belonged to start crumbling. However, the next sentence is unfortunately a bit problematic:

"To represent this, at the end of the phase when the Hierophant is killed, and at the beginning of every Undead turn thereafter, all Undead units on the battlefield must take a Leadership test."

Which would suggest that it does not affect on which side the unit is on. True rules lawyers could try to start interpreting the meaning of "Undead turn" in various ways (eg. claiming that there are only VC and TK turns, and not Undead turns), though.

However, an earlier section about Undead says that:

"Note that the Undead special rules for Tomb Kings armies are slightly different from those for Vampire Counts"

Which could be interpreted to mean that the reference to Undead in the Hierophant rules might apply only to the units with the TK Undead rule, and not to the units with VC Undead rule (since the later would be a different rule on a different book, even though similarly named).

Makaber
05-04-2008, 12:35
I don't have a friend named Steve. Read the disclaimer. I tried to hide behind a sarcastic joke story since I personally can't take RAW (cringe) debates seriously, personally.

Griefbringer has spotted the main issue at hand: If you want to be a pedantic ******** and alienate your gaming friends, the Tomb Kings crumbling rules actually makes to clear cut distinction between Undead armies, yours or the opponents.

Luckily, the new Vampire Counts book refers to all friendly Undead units (which might be a whole other bag of weasles if you're playing a 2 vs. 2 match, but that's another story).

Griefbringer
05-04-2008, 13:40
Friendly undead? Hmmm, I can just see a bunch of skeletons offering tea for passers by and helping old ladies to cross a street.

ehlijen
05-04-2008, 14:25
If in doubt, things only affect the owners army. While I don't know if this is actually RAW, it prevents a lot of illogical things. I'm strong proponent of common sense btw.

theunwantedbeing
05-04-2008, 15:27
The tomb kings book does quite clearly specify that the rules for "undead" are referring tomb kings only and not vampire counts.
So it doesnt matter what you may want to think it simply will never affect a vampire counts army.

Page 20, undead the title of UNDEAD, the last of the 3 short paragraphs


You can of course argue that an opposing tomb kings army will crumble when your heirophant has been killed. This of course works both ways as killing your opponents heirphant will cause your own units to crumble as well.
But then....that makes for a more interesting battle, plus you dont have to hide your heirophant away at all!
No way your going to try to kill something that will cause your own army to crumble is there?

T10
05-04-2008, 16:09
You can of course argue that an opposing tomb kings army will crumble when your heirophant has been killed. This of course works both ways as killing your opponents heirphant will cause your own units to crumble as well.

Of course, why bring up something as anally-retentive as this if you're WINNING?

-T10

Lord_Squinty
05-04-2008, 20:20
Oh dear god....
Another fine example of why RAW lawyers should never be allowed to play this GAME.
:eek:

theunwantedbeing
05-04-2008, 20:25
RAW lawyers should be employed to read the rules and pick out all the abusive wordings in to be honest, that way we wouldnt have these discussions on the rules.

They'de all be crystal clear and nobody woudl ever get confused, not even stupid people.

EvC
05-04-2008, 20:59
So, basically, the tale in the opening post never happened, and everyone agrees that the Tomb King hierophant dying has no effect on its opponent's armies. Thread over, surely?

MrFishhat
06-04-2008, 06:40
To the Op: I'm surprised that was even an arguable topic amongst your gaming group. I don't think that even GW would make such a foul hole in the rules. I play VC and I would have just ignored him and kept going EVEN IF GW HAD INTENDED THIS no one i know would enforce that rule.

Lordmonkey
06-04-2008, 08:12
RAW lawyers should be employed to read the rules and pick out all the abusive wordings in to be honest

They should indeed. They should, in fact, be employed by GW.


that way we wouldnt have these discussions on the rules.

Yeah, but, then we'd have nothing to do while bored at work :evilgrin:

Delmont
06-04-2008, 08:32
That and all the rule books would look like law books. I've studied law, those books are horrible to read. I'd rather have some rule inconsistencies than have every rule book and army book written like law and every FAQ written like case decisions. Well, when we do get FAQ's that is...

Makaber
06-04-2008, 14:20
To the Op: I'm surprised that was even an arguable topic amongst your gaming group. I don't think that even GW would make such a foul hole in the rules. I play VC and I would have just ignored him and kept going EVEN IF GW HAD INTENDED THIS no one i know would enforce that rule.

I'm pretty amazed that a post blatantly stating it's a complete falsification in its very first sentence is still taken at face value by so many. Just to clear things up: I do not have a friend named Steve. It was never an arguable topic in my gaming group. What really happened was something like this:

Me: "Hey, guess what, the Tomb Kings crumbling rules actually makes no clear cut distinction between opposing Undead armies when it comes to crumbling."
T10: "Hah! You're right! This is silly."
Me: "Very silly, indeed. I'm totally gonna kick up a rucus on the internet about it. So, back to the game, then. Were was we? I was losing horribly, right?"

I don't like RAW (cringe). I think the initial idea was good ("Let's just say the rules are as they are so we can avoid all the tons of erratas, okay? It's just a game after all"), but has since been corrupted by pedantic ********s everywhere ("Guess what, GW said their rules are exactly as written, let's make a silly acronym for it, trawl the rulebooks after clerical errors, and be pendantic ********s about it on the internet!").

Griefbringer
06-04-2008, 15:10
I("Guess what, GW said their rules are exactly as written, let's make a silly acronym for it, trawl the rulebooks after clerical errors, and be pendantic ********s about it on the internet!").

I would grab this for my sig, If I already did not have a superb one.

woytek
06-04-2008, 15:17
This reminds me of O&G armies with a giant. As the rule 'size matters' states that giants only take panic tests caused by other giants. Same goes for trolls, they only test for panic if it is caused by other trolls.