PDA

View Full Version : Movement of the black knights with bard



antoniomidnor
09-04-2008, 08:01
A question from Spain.

Finally, which is your opinion. If a Skeletal Steed is given barding does the model suffer a -1 Movement penalty?.

Thank you in advance for answering...:)

loveless
09-04-2008, 08:09
"[Ethereals] are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely (such as the Pit of Shades spell, for example)."
-pg 48, Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts (2007)

"A cavalry mount with barding suffers a -1" move penalty."
-pg 12, Warhammer Rulebook, 7th Edition

Well, as per pg 12, "BARDING" is a heading, not necessarily a special rule or item.

However, as it does inflict a movement penalty (i.e. movement reduction), I would say that Skeletal Steeds are unaffected by the penalty given by Barding.

I'll leave it to other posters to disagree with me.

Nurgling Chieftain
09-04-2008, 09:13
My opinion is the same as loveless, but we definitely argued this one for pages and pages without either side being convinced.

Milgram
09-04-2008, 09:21
disagree, RAW may be questionable, but RAI will tell you, that the barding does reduce the movement.

T10
09-04-2008, 10:04
Or perhaps IMORAL (Inferred Meaning of Rules as Lazilly Read).'

-T10

_Lucian_
09-04-2008, 10:06
I have to agree with loveless, it would also explain the increased 4 points for barding, rather than 2 for most other armies (+ past editions)

Ikhoornix
09-04-2008, 12:23
Actually if they are unaffected by the item giving that would give them the movement penalty, in this case the barding. Then wouldn't they also be unaffected by the bonus gained from that item, i.e. the +1 save?

_Lucian_
09-04-2008, 12:25
On that note why would you buy them armour?

Ikhoornix
09-04-2008, 12:33
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just indicating a way the rule can be read.

_Lucian_
09-04-2008, 12:39
well i suppose the lawyer argument would be:

"[Ethereals] are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely (such as the Pit of Shades spell, for example)."
-pg 48, Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts (2007)

simply: you would ignore the rule which reduces the movement, the rule which increases armour is a seperate rule on the same item. Rather than discounting the item you would discount the negative rule (however thats another mine field as why should you discount 1 rule, not simply the entire item)

Dux Ducis
09-04-2008, 12:56
Not affected by -1 move penalty. Hence why they pay double for barding.

It's pretty clear - they suffer no movement penalties. Simple as that.

Ikhoornix
09-04-2008, 12:56
I agree that they should get the extra armor save from the barding and not suffer the movement penalty. Normally I would always allow this, since it is what is intended in my opinion.

I have only used this interpretation of the rule once against another player. He was trying to argue that not being allowed to march, due to enemies being nearby was a movement penalty.
So I told him that the march blocking rule is not a special rule, not an item and not a spell. So tough luck.
On top off that I informed him that he waisted his points on his barding, since the knights are unaffected by the item. No penalties, but also no bonusses.

T10
09-04-2008, 13:02
I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just indicating a way the rule can be read.

No, you are making things up.

The ethereal movement rule addresses movement penalties. An aspect of barding is that it incurs a movement penalty, so you suggest ignoring the penalty results in ignoring the barding completely.

This is not "a way the rule can be read". It is a way the rule can be disregarded so something else be dreamt up instead.

-T10

ehlijen
09-04-2008, 13:15
I agree with T10 in this one. "..are also never affected by any [...] item that would otherwise reduce their movement..."
Either barding is an item and thus does not affect ethereal creatures, or it is neither of the three listed categories (if you read 'item' to mean 'magic or equivalent item'). Barding is not a spell or special rule. Purebreed horse (bretonia) is a special rule, barding is a core rule. Whether it is an item or not really is the question here. I don't think generic equipment pieces are referred to as items anywhere in the book.
But in any case: barding is either completely ignored (it is an item), though this is obviously silly as the barding costs points, or the barding works as normal and ethereal has no effect on it (means barding would not be an 'item' but rather 'equipment' which isn't in the list of things ignored by ethereal).

edit: The increased price may be the beginning of an attempt to reduce the amount of 2+ or better saves on Heavy cav (I seem to remember a few people claiming that heavy cav was too cheap/powerful). Something similar seems to be happening in 40k. This is pure conjecture though. I'm just offering a possible idea on this.

Ikhoornix
09-04-2008, 13:15
The rule for Ethereal Creatures is:
"[Ethereals] are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely (such as the Pit of Shades spell, for example)."
-pg 48, Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts (2007)

"They are never affected by any item that would reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."
I don't see any description stating that they are unaffected by specific rules or parts of the item.

Ikhoornix
09-04-2008, 13:19
I agree with ehlijen. It's either all or nothing in my opinion.

But as I have stated before, I will usually allow my oponents to have the benefits of barding and no penalties. Untill there is a clear ruling or FAQ from GW that is.

EvC
09-04-2008, 13:40
Ah, but does the increased save really affect the Black Knight? It affects attacks against the Black Knight, not the Black Knight itself ;)

Also be weary of playing it that way, as it makes them completely immune to things like the damage from Anvil hits or Earthshaker shells, etc. Which seems even more wrong, to me, as much as I'd like my ghosties immune to anvils ;)

Jack of Blades
09-04-2008, 17:16
Not affected by -1 move penalty. Hence why they pay double for barding.

It's pretty clear - they suffer no movement penalties. Simple as that.

Dux Ducis has got it spot on. It's pretty clear indeed, they simply don't suffer the movement penalty.
I didn't bother to double-check, but I hope no one's actually suggesting that they won't benefit from the improved save if they don't suffer the movement penalty?

loveless
09-04-2008, 18:24
It makes _no_ sense to say that they don't get the improved save.

It says they aren't affected by it in regards to movement - go ahead and check the heading in the Vampire Counts Army book.

There's no reason to work saves into that discussion at all - it addresses Movement only.

Slyde
09-04-2008, 21:44
This is a very simple rule that people are bashing simply because they don't like it. The ethereal rules apply for movement only, so you can indeed ignore the movement penalty yet still get the bonus to your armor save in other phases. The increased cost of barding for BKs speaks to the intention that the designers wanted this to work in such a manner. The rules are clear, and the intention is clear.

Evil-Lite
10-04-2008, 03:30
Anybody that tries to argue that barding is not an item should read page 88 of the Vampire Counts army book under the heading Weapons & Armour.

"Weapons & Armour: Each entry lists the standard weapons and armour for that unit type. The cost of these items is included in the basics point value. (...)"

Now if you want to argue if barding is armour or not...

TheDarkDaff
10-04-2008, 05:02
The increased cost of barding for BKs speaks to the intention that the designers wanted this to work in such a manner. The rules are clear, and the intention is clear.

I think this says it quite nicely. GW realised that barding was too cheap in general so are upping the price in each new Army Book. So BK get -1 M and +1 AS from Barding as is the designers intent.

See what i did there. We don't know the designers intent (unless your real name happens to be Gav Thorpe) so we can never say we know there intent.

I also love the "never affected by any item that reduces movement" which you could twist to mean they are "never affected" by terrain or even other units don't affect them (they all affect the BK's movement in some way or another).

Now i have my sillyness out of the way i have to ask does it really make that much of a difference anyway? They are so effective even playing with the slight nerf to BK movement that it shouldn't really matter.

Gabacho Mk.II
10-04-2008, 05:22
I think this says it quite nicely. GW realised that barding was too cheap in general so are upping the price in each new Army Book. So BK get -1 M and +1 AS from Barding as is the designers intent.

See what i did there. We don't know the designers intent (unless your real name happens to be Gav Thorpe) so we can never say we know there intent.



Agreed.

This is yet another one of those GW moments where a few more words would have certainly made it plain for all those who would (as now) argue that barding does not incur a -1 inch movement for undead cavalry.

Jerrus
10-04-2008, 07:29
[Ethereals] are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely (such as the Pit of Shades spell, for example).

The rule states that they are not affected by special rules, spells or items that reduce or stop movement. It does not state that they only ignore the movement impairing effects of special rules, spell or items. Which by RAW would mean that Barding has no affect at all on Ethereals (since they are not affected by items that reduce movement), neither does Pit of Shades affect them at all (since they are not affected by spells that reduce movement)

WLBjork
10-04-2008, 08:32
The rule states that they are not affected by special rules, spells or items that reduce or stop movement. It does not state that they only ignore the movement impairing effects of special rules, spell or items. Which by RAW would mean that Barding has no affect at all on Ethereals (since they are not affected by items that reduce movement), neither does Pit of Shades affect them at all (since they are not affected by spells that reduce movement)

You're definitley on to a silly RAW case there.

In this case though, Black Knights get the +1AS (they can buy the armour in the first place and it's pointless if there is no benefit) but don't suffer the -1M.

Also, have you read Pit of Shades in 7th Edition? It doesn't affect movement...

EvC
10-04-2008, 10:37
You'd have thought with all the furore over Pit of Shades with a certain other army book, that the author would have actually read what it does in 7th edition...

Lingonberry
10-04-2008, 17:07
I think that there is something that hasn't been addressed: The black knight aren't ethereal, there steeds are (for move purposes ONLY) . It isn't the steeds that get +1 AS, its the rider, the steeds get -1 MA. So barding (if it is an item, witch I think it is somewhat), don't affect the steeds, but affects the rider. Hence giving the model -1 MA (witch is ignored), and +1 AS. If you want to argue this I can also say that the black knight might not get +1 AS, but that is ignored because skeleton steeds are treated as ethereal for movement only, not when your calculating AS.

Jerrus
10-04-2008, 17:45
I think that there is something that hasn't been addressed: The black knight aren't ethereal, there steeds are (for move purposes ONLY) . It isn't the steeds that get +1 AS, its the rider, the steeds get -1 MA. So barding (if it is an item, witch I think it is somewhat), don't affect the steeds, but affects the rider. Hence giving the model -1 MA (witch is ignored), and +1 AS. If you want to argue this I can also say that the black knight might not get +1 AS, but that is ignored because skeleton steeds are treated as ethereal for movement only, not when your calculating AS.

I don't have the latest VC book (yet), so I don't know if they are only ethereal for movement purposes only.

I agree that it is silly to argue that something that costs points doesn't have any affect, but really I don't think that barding was what they were referring to when they wrote that rule.

One of the main points of the new book was to emphisize the shambling horde aspect of the undead, and move away from the ultra elite fast army, which doesn't seem to fit with making BK the fastest AND most moblie heavy cavalry in the game.

The Clairvoyant
10-04-2008, 17:49
the terms "special rules, item or spell" i think was meant to be a catch-all. Instead arguments arise (and this isn't the first time) as to whether barding falls into one of these three 'distinct' categories.

The way i see it, as i said, it seems more like a catch-all (but not good enough for the rules lawyers - ho hum) and as such I'll play it as barding with no move penalty.

Oh and i've also followed the Most Important Rule and rolled a D6. It came up as 5 so that means my interpretation is right. I therefore claim the right to ignore any further arguments against :D

Lordmonkey
10-04-2008, 18:43
One of the main points of the new book was to emphisize the shambling horde aspect of the undead

And where did you hear that little gem? Sounds like wishful thinking, because it doesn't even make sense. Limit VC mobility by:

Adding a new cavalry choice.
Adding a monster with an 8" move.
Upgrading cavalry with ethereal movement.
Allowing every undead unit to march within 6" of any vampire.
Reducing the cost of Book of Arkhan.
Allowing Necromancers to always have Vanhel's Danse Macabre.
Making Vanhel's Danse macabre recastable.
Making dire wolves cheaper (albiet without slavering charge).

Sure :p

I think the argument about the increased cost of barding is a good indication of it's probable intention, which is that it does not affect ethereal movement. There is no way I can find to prove this though.

Spirit
11-04-2008, 17:21
Jerrus, how can you say these things without actually owning the book? Most of what you say just sounds silly to people with the book.



And where did you hear that little gem? Sounds like wishful thinking, because it doesn't even make sense. Limit VC mobility by:

Adding a new cavalry choice.
Adding a monster with an 8" move.
Upgrading cavalry with ethereal movement.
Allowing every undead unit to march within 6" of any vampire.
Reducing the cost of Book of Arkhan.
Allowing Necromancers to always have Vanhel's Danse Macabre.
Making Vanhel's Danse macabre recastable.
Making dire wolves cheaper (albiet without slavering charge).

Sure :p

I think the argument about the increased cost of barding is a good indication of it's probable intention, which is that it does not affect ethereal movement. There is no way I can find to prove this though.

Not to forget:
scouting M9 vampires.
ghouls that move 16" by turn 1
first turn charge flying vampires
a flying mount for vampires
a squad of ethereal skirmishing M6 wraiths (which can have a vampire in to march up a flank)
a banner that allows them if you cant get ANY of the above near a unit...

yea, slow lol

MalusCalibur
12-04-2008, 00:20
This issue, along with the 'Great Weapons and ASF' has got to be one of the most debated issues I've seen on Warseer in a long time.

My two cents would be that BK's get the +1 armour save AND the -1 Mv penalty, from the way I understand the rules.

This is entirely my opinion. We will not know the true answer until it gets FAQ'd (fat chance) or one of us is a developer who worked on the book.

For now, individual player groups will have to agree on one of the two rulings as they see fit.


MalusCalibur

Lordmonkey
12-04-2008, 01:27
I don't think it would kill VC generals to give their friends the benefit of the doubt and take the -1 penalty until the FAQ comes out - it's not a huge deal to be honest - unless you are trying to charge some enemy cavalry head-on, of course :p

Jerrus
12-04-2008, 03:07
I didn't say that they were trying to limit VC mobility, I said that they are trying to emphsize the shambling horde aspect (which was from a preview article about the VC iirc, but I may be wrong and simply something I interpreted).

The rules I quoted are from this very thread, when other rules were said to be in affect, I admitted to my limited knowledge. I'm sorry if this got you confused.

From what has been posted here, I still don't think that barding penalties were meant to be ignored, as it makes regular nightmares far better than "Greater" nightmares...

superknijn
12-04-2008, 09:57
I didn't say that they were trying to limit VC mobility, I said that they are trying to emphsize the shambling horde aspect (which was from a preview article about the VC iirc, but I may be wrong and simply something I interpreted).

From what has been posted here, I still don't think that barding penalties were meant to be ignored, as it makes regular nightmares far better than "Greater" nightmares...

Uhm, I don't think that the 'every Vampire allows marching' and 'look! more Vampires! Now we get them in Monster and Cavalry flavours!' changes reinforce the shambling horde aspect.

Also, Nightmares aren't ethereal, Skeletal Steeds are. And Skeletal Steeds for Wigt Kings are already much more (almost twice) expensive than a Vampire's Nightmare, even before barding.

woytek
12-04-2008, 10:16
The rule states that they are not affected by special rules, spells or items that reduce or stop movement. It does not state that they only ignore the movement impairing effects of special rules, spell or items. Which by RAW would mean that Barding has no affect at all on Ethereals (since they are not affected by items that reduce movement), neither does Pit of Shades affect them at all (since they are not affected by spells that reduce movement)

I think this covers it all? You can't simply ignore one rule of the barding. It is an item that reduces movement. As per the rule in the VC book, the cavalry is not affected by the item. It does not state you can ignore one (negative) rule of the item.

Lingonberry
12-04-2008, 11:43
I think this covers it all? You can't simply ignore one rule of the barding. It is an item that reduces movement. As per the rule in the VC book, the cavalry is not affected by the item. It does not state you can ignore one (negative) rule of the item.

It clearly says that you do on page 45.

For movement purposes only, a model mounted upon a skeleton steed is treated as Ethereal...

It says on page 48 that Ethereal creatures ignore items that a reduce there movement, and on page 88 it says that armour is "items". Further it is written on page 45 that skeleton steeds are treated as Ethereal for movement purposes only.

The reasoning (for me) is that Skeleton steeds indeed ignore barding. But due to the fact that they is treated as ethereal for movement purposes only, they only ignore barding for movement purposes, not for anything else. So my conclution is that they don't get -1 movement, but get +1 in armour. If they were ethereal (completely), I think that they wouldn't get +1 AS.

If anyone have looked at the rules and come to another conclusion, please tell us how and why. So don't post anymore post with the theme "your wrong, bye" or "the intention of GW is....", please post something to back up your statements (like facts or thoughts around facts).

Tarax
12-04-2008, 15:33
Black Knight with barding get -1 Movement.

Why? Because "They are also never..."
Let me rephrase that: They are also never affected by any special rule, special spell or special item...

Barding is not special, so no special rules and it's no special item (most armies have it).

theunwantedbeing
12-04-2008, 15:53
They dont suffer the -1
They do get the +1 save.

Why?
For movement purposes they ignore things that incur them a movement penalty. Is armour save based on movement? no.
So they get the save and arent suffering from the movement penalty.

SuperBeast
12-04-2008, 15:59
Let me rephrase that:
Likewise, let me rephrase your post...

"If I add words that aren't there, then my argument is correct."

Lingonberry
12-04-2008, 16:38
Why? Because "They are also never..."
Let me rephrase that: They are also never affected by any special rule, special spell or special item...

Barding is not special, so no special rules and it's no special item (most armies have it).

If you miss quote the rulebook, then base a theory on the errors in your quote, your theory will most likely become invalid.

And the meaning of the word "special" isn't really a black and white. So I might argue that because most units don't have barding, its a "special" item. If your theory holds, it would mean that only special characters and there special items don't affect ethereal's movement, and I don't think that there are that many "special" spells out there that affect movement.

Tarax
14-04-2008, 10:25
In Noah's Ark, did you get 2 Lions, 2 Tigers, 2 Bears, 2 Ducks, 2 Geese, ...
Or did you get 2 Lions, Tigers, Bears, Ducks, Geese, ... ?

DarkSpawnie
14-04-2008, 12:46
Don't know if its been mentioned but browsing over the thread I think not, the skeletal steed counts as ethereal only for movement phases not combat phases so therefore they gain the armour save and aren't affected by the -1".

Pac
14-04-2008, 14:31
So the dwarf anvil doesn't affect the movement of them?

SuperBeast
14-04-2008, 15:02
So the dwarf anvil doesn't affect the movement of them?
That is correct.

Clegane
26-04-2008, 09:41
Just a brief note:

For anyone who uses the Direwolf FAQs, they recently added a 7th Ed VC FAQ to their compilation and ruled that units with ethereal steeds do indeed suffer the -1 movement penalty for barding.

Obviously not everyone will choose to apply these interpretations in their individual games, but for those of you who tend to use the DW FAQs, the issue has now been clarified.

http://www.geocities.com/mi_whplayers/7th_faqs/vc_faq.txt

EvC
26-04-2008, 14:38
Although I think it's clear they don't suffer the penalty I'm happy to play it the Dire Wolf way... besides, new VC are so powerful they can stand to take a few nerfs. I'm not going to whine about it like a sissy High Elf ;)

Wickerman71
26-04-2008, 15:03
May as well because the WE, HE, Brets & Empire FAQs released the other day where all ports from Direwolf. The shame is Direwolf used to be allot better at getting the ruling directly from the developer, it now seem that "Direwolf FAQ Council Interpretation" is sufficient. The only thing I got to say on this matter is thats expensive barding those Black Knights have.

Xirathnix
26-04-2008, 15:10
Just a brief note:

For anyone who uses the Direwolf FAQs, they recently added a 7th Ed VC FAQ to their compilation and ruled that units with ethereal steeds do indeed suffer the -1 movement penalty for barding.

Obviously not everyone will choose to apply these interpretations in their individual games, but for those of you who tend to use the DW FAQs, the issue has now been clarified.

http://www.geocities.com/mi_whplayers/7th_faqs/vc_faq.txt

This FAQ is just plain Awful.

The Skeletal steeds clearly remove movement penalties and whats more even pay for the ability under barding.

Clegane
16-05-2008, 13:51
Just a brief update on this topic:

GW has finally released an OFFICIAL Errata/FAQ for 7th Ed VC and....

have ruled that the -1 movement penalty for barding DOES apply to Black Knights.

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

Lordmonkey
16-05-2008, 15:34
Wont download for me :(

WLBjork
16-05-2008, 15:35
Just a brief update on this topic:

GW has finally released an OFFICIAL Errata/FAQ for 7th Ed VC and....

have ruled that the -1 movement penalty for barding DOES apply to Black Knights.

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/vampirecounts.pdf

And then completely contradicted themselves with the next Q&A :rolleyes:

Forbiddenknowledge
16-05-2008, 15:45
Its pretty hard to take a ruling seriously when the next one says the complete opposite :rolleyes:

Clegane
16-05-2008, 15:55
Wont download for me :(

Yeah...errr...they seem to have completed re-designed the entire website about an hour after I posted that link. And, for whatever reason, the VC FAQ that was up there is now no longer present.

Effed if I know.

Avian
16-05-2008, 16:13
Unsurprisingly, the questions of barding give the exact same answers I have given. :p


http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/

Gabacho Mk.II
16-05-2008, 16:27
And then completely contradicted themselves with the next Q&A :rolleyes:


Am sorry, but I dont read it that way.

The two questions and given answers refer to two separate situations, as one is describing barding and its effects upon movement, and the other is describing ethereal movement.

The two questions are quite clear in my mind, and I can easily describe their intentions to my VC players.



Just a thought.

WLBjork
17-05-2008, 00:04
Say what?

Ahh, so in other words:

The Black Knights suffer a movement penalty from taking Barding, which they then ignore due to the Etheral Movement rules.

Gotcha.

Clegane
17-05-2008, 01:22
And then completely contradicted themselves with the next Q&A :rolleyes:

What are you trying to convey here, man?

The FAQ is absolutely clear:

Q:If a skeletal steed is given barding does it suffer the -1 movement penalty?
A: Yes, it does. It gets the bonus to its armor save, but also the movement penalty.


The purpose of the question that follows that one has nothing to do with barding or ethereal movement. It is a question regarding whether ethereal models take damage from movement-inhibiting effects with a damage component. I don't even see the contradiction, really.

But even if there is one, the barding issue is quite clearly meant to be an EXCEPTION to the normal rules for ethereal movement. Much like how IoN is an EXCEPTION to the normal no-spam-casting rule.

WLBjork
17-05-2008, 07:36
Let me quote the answer given with regards to Etheral Movement, Clegane.


As is stated under 'Ethereal Movement', only the movement penalty is ignored and other effects (like damage) are ignored.

Notice that part I've highlighted? It says like damage. It doesn't state that the answer is only relevent for damage.

So, let's look at the Barding shall we?

Does it have a movement effect and a none movement effect?

Yes.

Thus, by the FAQ, Black Knights are both affected and not affected by the Barding movement penalty at the same time.

Way to go GW.

Yehoshua
17-05-2008, 08:08
There's no contradiction if GW doesn't think that barding is an item or special rule.

Clegane
17-05-2008, 10:36
Let me quote the answer given with regards to Etheral Movement, Clegane.



Notice that part I've highlighted? It says like damage. It doesn't state that the answer is only relevent for damage.

So, let's look at the Barding shall we?

Does it have a movement effect and a none movement effect?

Yes.

Thus, by the FAQ, Black Knights are both affected and not affected by the Barding movement penalty at the same time.

Way to go GW.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Their meaning in this case is ABUNDANTLY clear, even if some people feel the need to continue nitpicking at the rules. You can snarkily interpret things however you like, man, but most of us can pretty clearly see that Black Knights with barding move at 7.

SuperBeast
17-05-2008, 11:24
You're being deliberately obtuse. Their meaning in this case is ABUNDANTLY clear, even if some people feel the need to continue nitpicking at the rules. You can snarkily interpret things however you like, man, but most of us can pretty clearly see that Black Knights with barding move at 7.
You're being deliberately blind, then. Not to mention massively arrogant and self assured.

In the same FAQ GW (well, not really GW, is it? Cheers Direwolf:rolleyes:).
They set two clear examples of intent. Dual effects do, and don't, affect Black Knight movement.
The problem is that it is not a consisent ruling, because there is no clear precedent to be taken from it.

The FAQ is out now, so we have the rules as Dire - sorry, GW want them.

'Snarky nit picking' can be argued on both sides, but the fact is that on this particular issue we have a contradictory line of reasoning to follow. I'm more concerned about that than what the actual ruling is.

Clegane
17-05-2008, 12:02
You're being deliberately blind, then. Not to mention massively arrogant and self assured.

In the same FAQ GW (well, not really GW, is it? Cheers Direwolf:rolleyes:).
They set two clear examples of intent. Dual effects do, and don't, affect Black Knight movement.
The problem is that it is not a consisent ruling, because there is no clear precedent to be taken from it.

The FAQ is out now, so we have the rules as Dire - sorry, GW want them.

'Snarky nit picking' can be argued on both sides, but the fact is that on this particular issue we have a contradictory line of reasoning to follow. I'm more concerned about that than what the actual ruling is.


Again, the contradictory reasoning is there because barding is meant as an EXCEPTION to the ethereal movement rules. Exceptions do generally tend to contradict the normal flow of rules. That's why they are exceptions. Why else would they bother including the question/answer in the FAQ at all? They included it to tell us that BK's with barding move at 7.

Read whatever you want into the next question in the FAQ, but the fact remains that that question is regarding the DAMAGE COMPONENT of effects that otherwise hamper movement. Yes, it mentions ethereal movement in the preamble of the question, but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that the question prior already clearly established that BARDING IS AN EXCEPTION.

Like I said, read it however you want, chief. But I can already tell you what the accepted 'legal' interpretation for events is going to be.

Edit: In regard to your concern that Direwolf has made a secret corporate takeover at GW and is now governing all of their rulings with an iron fist, I'll note that GW made a contradictory ruling to the DW FAQ on at least four issues, if not more. And I personally feel that their choices there (making the Helm of Commandment and Red Fury even more powerful) are considerably more impacting than giving the BKs a 14 inch charge instead of a 16. Their rulings regarding flying vamps on Nightmares and Dread Knights are somewhat less impacting overall, but were still contradictory to DW for the purposes of this argument.

SuperBeast
17-05-2008, 15:24
Yawn.
Tell you what, try reading my post again?

Point out to me exactly where I stated or disagreed with their ruling, rather than stating about my concerns over the dual precedent they created.

Creating exceptions is fine, but creating an exception where it contradicts an already determined precedent exists is just lazy.

Like I said, we have it in black and white now. But the method concerns me.

As for (again) misreading what I put regarding Direwolf, the VC faq was far, far too quick. Needed, but I believe rushed and only cursorily examined from its' DW counterpart.

Instead of putting words in my mouth, try putting an objective tongue in yours?

Clegane
17-05-2008, 15:35
Yawn.
Tell you what, try reading my post again?

Point out to me exactly where I stated or disagreed with their ruling, rather than stating about my concerns over the dual precedent they created.

Creating exceptions is fine, but creating an exception where it contradicts an already determined precedent exists is just lazy.

Like I said, we have it in black and white now. But the method concerns me.

As for (again) misreading what I put regarding Direwolf, the VC faq was far, far too quick. Needed, but I believe rushed and only cursorily examined from its' DW counterpart.

Instead of putting words in my mouth, try putting an objective tongue in yours?

I still don't think we're managing to see eye to eye on this point, possibly because I don't understand what you're saying. I guess I can see how you'd regard the exception as 'lazy', but I'm not really sure what else you were expecting them to do. But obviously it isn't worth arguing about. We both agree on the interpretation of the rule, if not the methodology of conveying it. I apologize if I mistook your point (which I obviously did). I suppose I'm just irritated that people have been whining and crying for an FAQ since 12 hours after the codex was released...and as soon as the DW FAQ arrived, more people were complaining about the FAQ not being 'official'...and now that the official FAQ is here, people are complaining that its too much like DW's and STILL not good enough. *shrug*

As for the Direwolf stuff, I'm sorry, but I really don't think I misread your intention at all. You've made both veiled and blatant bashes about Direwolf in this thread as well as others. I'm not sure what it is about the DW guys that sticks so uncomfortably in your craw, but I generally appreciate their efforts and will admit to being more bristly than I needed to be in regard to your (perceived) denigration of their work. Again, if I misread you there, I apologize. But your general tone and the rather snide way you keep alluding to the fact that GW did nothing more than cut&paste the DW FAQ seemed fairly clear to me. But you're right in that I'm not being wholly objective. I'm not really sure what it is about your style of communication that's prompting me to respond defensively, but that's how its working out. Nonetheless, your point on that matter is taken and I'll endeavor to be more mature in my responses in the future.

Zoolander
17-05-2008, 17:58
Nicely put Clegane.

As for the ruling, I really don't see a problem. It is stated in black and white: baridng does affect movement of skeletal steeds. They don't contradict this later on, so what's the problem? Who cares if DW gathered and answered the FAQ or not. GW has read and sanctioned it. We really have no idea how this came about, so why argue about it?

SuperBeast
17-05-2008, 19:01
Clegane, I don't have a problem with direwolf per se, but theirs is a slightly bizarre situation insofar as they attempt to clarify rules as a 'single source' before GW get around to it.
They are no more official than any point of view expressed on these forums, however the fact they are a 'single hymn sheet' for WFB players as an intermediate step is both laudably useful yet (sadly) somewhat futile at the same time.

My concern is that the speed of the GW FAQ's appearance was more to appease people complaining of its' absence, rather than to fix any issues.

I'm happy to accept that the barding issue is an exception, but the problem is that there was never any indication it was intended as so.
This problem is made even worse when you look at the 'structure' of the rule in comparison to the damage+movement effect of an enemy attack. They aren't congruent, and as such it almost seems like an arbitrary decision based on merit, rather than a consideration of the factors and rules involved.

FAQ's are most useful as determining intent in a particular rules conflict.
Already, the Red Fury/frostblade clarification has been used as evidence in a discussion involving KB and challenges.

If the FAQ's don't follow a stringent logical process, then such extrapolations are worthless.

I apologise for my language earlier, but I am suddenly very concerned about the actual process of rule construction in GT's aftermath.

wolfbyte2586
17-05-2008, 20:01
i really dont see how the Q&A right after changes anything, as it specifically applies to "spells, items, and so on, which have both a damage and a movement-negating component." Barding has a movement-negating component, but not a damage component. Therefore the second question does not apply.

Especially when the first question clearly states that BKs DO suffer the movement penalty as well as gain the armor save.

SuperBeast
17-05-2008, 23:00
i really dont see how the Q&A right after changes anything, as it specifically applies to "spells, items, and so on, which have both a damage and a movement-negating component." Barding has a movement-negating component, but not a damage component. Therefore the second question does not apply.

Especially when the first question clearly states that BKs DO suffer the movement penalty as well as gain the armor save.
This is exactly what I'm talking about; sloppy analysis.
You quote the question, not the answer.
The answer given is:
"As this statement is under 'Ethereal Movement' , only the movement penalty is ignored and any other effects (like damage) still apply."
That's the intent.
The opening sentence, in conjunction with the wording of the question, only reinforces the ethereal rules.

Now apply the answer - exactly as worded - to the barding question.
So why did they give a completely different answer to that specific instance?

I really can't see why so many people seem to have overlooked this obvious dichotomy in what is supposed to be a document of clarifications?

explorator
17-05-2008, 23:32
In the same FAQ GW (well, not really GW, is it? Cheers Direwolf:rolleyes:).

The FAQ is out now, so we have the rules as Dire - sorry, GW want them.

If you compare the Direwolf VC FAQ to the GW VC FAQ, you will see that GW 'agreed' with Direwolf's answers about 50% of the time. The FAQ's are GW and they are official.

Loopstah
17-05-2008, 23:43
I really can't see why so many people seem to have overlooked this obvious dichotomy in what is supposed to be a document of clarifications?

Because it doesn't matter?

Barding gives -1M when used on Ethereal steeds.

Spells, items etc.. with movement and damage components still get the damage component but lose the movement component.

Perfectly clear and clarified.

The fact they might not agree with each other doesn't matter in the slightest unless they either:
a) invent a spell/ item/ etc... that magically adds barding to ethereal steeds or
b) make barding damage ethereal steeds when they wear it.

Since neither of those is likely to happen then the two answers will never need to be used together.

SuperBeast
18-05-2008, 00:08
Except, as pointed out by others than me, it isn't just 'damage'.

It says 'any other effects (like damage)'.

For example the precedent is set for beast cowers. It doesn't affect them, other than preventing them being able to strike in CC.

The internal logic in both cases is inconsistent.

We have the clarification, but I'm concerned for future rule releases etc., when they can go in opposite directions with no clear indicator as to why.

Xirathnix
18-05-2008, 07:22
I said it before and Ill say it again. I think this was a nerf after the fact. The barding costs 4pts which is double the normal cost, its clearly an item, the wording is definitely there to make them immune to the penalty. GW in the end changed their mind and are now ruling it for balance. After watching us play the armies, they think a 16" moving mount that ignores terrain is a bit much. (especially with a rider with str4 T4 and killing blow)

Forbiddenknowledge
18-05-2008, 09:24
Then they should have decided that in playtesting.

I'm not too fussed myself, as I run a character with them with stops them being able to use it, but otherwise, I think I'll just stick to the rulebook.