PDA

View Full Version : New FAQ's and Erratas!!



Xaskus
25-04-2008, 17:14
Don't know if anyone else has got to this yet, if so my apologies, but there are new FAQ's and errata for Wood Elves, High Elves, Empire and Bretonnians. Enjoy. I found them here http://ca.games-workshop.com/news/news.htm

Arnizipal
25-04-2008, 17:14
Yeah, a link or something might have been helpful...

EDIT: Thanks for that :)

Mozzamanx
25-04-2008, 17:17
What the FAQ?!

Xaskus
25-04-2008, 17:18
sorry was to excited to put in link, it's there now though.

Bloodknight
25-04-2008, 17:26
Interesting, the new FAQ all acknowledge the Direwolf FAQ. That's new.

Eigilb
25-04-2008, 17:35
nice man Good job

SPYDER68
25-04-2008, 17:36
I hate how they update them on one version of thier site, but they dont do it on the others....

EvC
25-04-2008, 17:43
One at a time, Spyder, one at a time :)

Eigilb
25-04-2008, 17:54
I hate how they update them on one version of thier site, but they dont do it on the others....

As much as i love GW... Well... Nevermind

SPYDER68
25-04-2008, 17:55
Does this mean the canada FAQ's only effect people in canada ? :P j/k

logan054
25-04-2008, 18:34
how shocking, the UK website hasnt been updated yet.... On the brightside atleast we have new faq's!

Esco Thomson
25-04-2008, 18:39
I am happy they are up, but sad by the fact that Dragon Armor really makes taking out those Star Dragons harder than it already was for us TK. :(

Gazak Blacktoof
25-04-2008, 19:42
Yes I noticed that too, it goes against the previous FAQ with respect to dragon armour in 6th edition, but there you go.

The chanaged the re-roll interactions as well.

If you're forced to re-roll all successes and failures that's exactly what you do now. Pick up the rolls that succeed and the failures and re-roll all of them, so just roll the dice twice and use the second result... How odd:eyebrows:.

EDIT: Steam tanks don't give away half victory points. Well that sucks.

Ethlorien
25-04-2008, 19:58
Hey, the Great Weapon question has been answered! They do strike last. Fascinating.

Talonz
25-04-2008, 20:00
A more direct link is needed, or are they down again already?

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

Edit: Oh good grief, clicking on various links on the canada page sends you to the uk pages without realizing it, meaning that you find erratta there that is not updated. Only by clicking on white dwarf on canadas top banner can you find canadas shrine of knowledge, which is apparently updated but not dated to let us know which ones were recently updated....!@!@% idiots.

http://ca.games-workshop.com/whitedwarf/download/2006Errata/2006Erratta.htm

logan054
25-04-2008, 20:05
The ones on that page are dated 2006...

ZeroTwentythree
25-04-2008, 20:05
EDIT: Steam tanks don't give away half victory points. Well that sucks.


One of the first things I looked for. I'm disappointed.

2d6
25-04-2008, 20:16
One of the first things I looked for. I'm disappointed.

It also says that moonstone of the hidden way DOES work in your opponents move phase, what a load of crap, it's clearly not the intention.

Malorian
25-04-2008, 20:17
Too bad the vampire on isn't there yet...

That moonstone one is great : )

Talonz
25-04-2008, 20:18
Flagellants get hatred every round possibly 'effectively making that turn the first turn' for them. Which leads into some awkward rules issues with their flails...

Aaaaand they took away the hellblaster/wp/engineer combo. Not that it was great or anything, but its one more nail in the coffin for that useless hero choice.

Wow, I knew the unbreakable WP in flagellant unit answer was coming, as much as I disagree with it, but the banner of the daemonslayer sure took a nerf hit...useless when charging fear causing units now, good fricking grief!

And the grail shield as well...now overcosted. I see way too many of the direwolf answers in here....yeesh.

isidril93
25-04-2008, 20:24
good good
at least the whole asf rules were sorted out

Malorian
25-04-2008, 20:27
No doubt. My ASF ghouls are going to tear up those ASF swordmasters ; )

Gazak Blacktoof
25-04-2008, 20:31
but the banner of the daemonslayer sure took a nerf hit...useless when charging fear causing units now, good fricking grief!

Not sure what the wording on that banner is (can somebody post it?) but I've seen it a couple of times and the intended use seemed obvious when I flicked through the book. Not much use for slaying daemons now I suppose.

EDIT:


good good

at least the whole asf rules were sorted out

Yeah I'm pleased about that. Its how we'd been playing anyway. Makes Waaagh!! A bit more useful against high elves.

MildlyAbrasive
25-04-2008, 20:49
Does the new ASF ruling also mean that ASF'ing Ghouls strike first against High Elf Spearmen when they charge? If two ASF's cancel each other out, then chargers go first, right?

Also, with the rewording of Frenzy clarifications in the FAQ, does this mean that Frenzied units can be properly screened now?

Malorian
25-04-2008, 21:00
Does the new ASF ruling also mean that ASF'ing Ghouls strike first against High Elf Spearmen when they charge? If two ASF's cancel each other out, then chargers go first, right?

Hmmm, ya you would be right. They just simply cancel out now as if they didn't have it so chargers would go first. But then that would also mean that charging swordmasters would also go first...

kylek2235
25-04-2008, 21:22
Not that I value the Casket of Sorcery, but when exactly did Tomb Kings start being regarded as Wizards? Also, Treemen Ancients not being able to take bound spells but Warrior Priests are? There's an inherent contradiction there. I'm not impressed.

Talonz
25-04-2008, 21:37
o m g...so the annoyance of netlings 'hit on a 6' isnt strong enough apparently, they now had to rule that it is on par with autohits items for some reason. Autohits apparently now means 'mostly hits'. If unmodified rolls of 6 always hit as per the brb, what the heck do they think 'automatically hits' meant???

Some answers may be weird or not what you thought, but that one is just plain insane and ignores the basic rules and common english language.

kylek2235
25-04-2008, 21:46
Almost missed that one. Dumb...

SpeedyGoat
25-04-2008, 21:57
Quite happy with the Wood elf ones.

Orion is almost usable now.

360 Stand and shoot strangleroot

2 attack WR horses in 2nd round of combat

Moonstone rocks. You charge me in trees I teleport out of combat to your flank and charge you in my turn.

ehlijen
25-04-2008, 22:10
Sooooooo....Knights errant become ItP before measuring the charge but empire knights with the deamon banner don't? That's a bit double standardly, isn't it?

And of course the Steam tank nonsense...where is it's bloody crew for me to kill then I ask?

But at least something's happening.

Kamenwati
25-04-2008, 22:12
Ummm... wow. I gotta say that someone in GW was clearly not thinking straight when they made some of these rulings. Or more precisely borrowed them from Direwolf.

CarlostheCraven
25-04-2008, 22:23
Hi

Wow, some good answers, some terrible answers, and a definite lack of consistency in the interpretations - I noticed the Errant Knights VS Banner of the Daemonslayer double standard right away.

I had noticed how Direwolf heavy the Ogre FAQ was when it came out... and now this. Why are they being accorded this status? And is it easy to become part of this group? If they are being given power to make rules calls, I would rather be part of the develpoment than be the one dealing with their inconsistent rulings.

Cheers,
Carlos the Craven

Xavier
25-04-2008, 22:27
...I honestly can't believe my eyes.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-04-2008, 22:36
...I honestly can't believe my eyes.

Why? Is it because there are new FAQs or that some of the answers are a bit pants?

+++++

Silly anecdote time...

I showed my brother the steam tank FAQ concerning VPs and the first thing he said was, ah so it always gives up full VPs because it has no crew...:rolleyes:

I think he was joking.

Xavier
25-04-2008, 22:50
...Both actually... I just spent the last 10 minutes reading them and frankly... I'm a bit disheartened at some of the answers, but then again, as long as it is in black and white before the game, I have no problems with it at all.

Now to do my Orion Army ;)

Nah, silly would be, "ah its a war machine with no listed crew, so I can spike it yea?"

Mercules
25-04-2008, 22:54
Hmmm, ya you would be right. They just simply cancel out now as if they didn't have it so chargers would go first. But then that would also mean that charging swordmasters would also go first...

Which might get HEs to worry about if they got the charge or not again, at least against some things.



I showed my brother the steam tank FAQ concerning VPs and the first thing he said was, ah so it always gives up full VPs because it has no crew...:rolleyes:

I think he was joking.

Wouldn't count on it. Warmachine, no crew entry no figures deployed with it. :evilgrin:

ehlijen
25-04-2008, 23:28
In the case of the stank they go brutal raw but in the case of other answers (see HE on Teclis) they say that RAW shouldn't stand in the way of making sense...grow some freaking consistency!

To admit, we (the community) have been demanding more FAQs and repeatedly stated (at least as part of the community) that some fans could do it if the design team is too busy. But they could at least have double checked the answers. And it's not like they haven't added (RAW changing) erratas to some of them to clear some things up...

Anyway, I'm off to fire my scout terminator sergeants combi weapon bolter part an infinite number of times...

EOT
25-04-2008, 23:34
That moonstone one is great : )

To be honest thats the way i have been playing it since the GT ruling last year....and boy does that thing win you alot of games. Being charged by a wardancer noble and 9 wardancers is never fun....less so if its in your first turn.

wizuriel
25-04-2008, 23:57
can anyone else no longer find the chaos dwarf army :(

Draconian77
26-04-2008, 02:04
Does no one else find these FAQ's sub-standard?

They seem to be making so many mistakes...

Talonz
26-04-2008, 02:53
360 Stand and shoot strangleroot

Eh? You still need to have LOS to your target.

IronBrother
26-04-2008, 04:09
Aw yeah my WE's just got so much better. Orion can join units again and all of my horses have two attacks in subsequent rounds of combat. I am going to print the WE one right now.

Greystone
26-04-2008, 05:12
Eh? You still need to have LOS to your target.

Apparently not. It's specifically stated in the FAQ that you do not.

silashand
26-04-2008, 05:18
Some answers may be weird or not what you thought, but that one is just plain insane and ignores the basic rules and common english language.

Of all the answers in the FAQs, that was the one that most confused me too. It's not like the rules were contradictory since to hit penalties applied only when rolling dice and autohits don't roll at all. Ah well...


Ummm... wow. I gotta say that someone in GW was clearly not thinking straight when they made some of these rulings. Or more precisely borrowed them from Direwolf.

Actually, the most confusing answers are the ones they *didn't* use from Direwolf (and also happen to be the ones with the most grammatical errors ;)).

As to the question about how to join Direwolf, we are an annually elected body affilliated with the Direwolf Yahoo! Group. Any Direwolf member is eligible to run for a position on the Council. At present there are 17 members IIRC. Elections happen (I think) every September. In the event multiple individuals contest for the same position, the general Direwolf membership will vote for who they think is the best candidate. As an aside, the allegation has been made that Direwolf is solely an American body. That is not true. We currently have members from all over the world, including the US, Scotland, Australia, Finland, etc.

Cheers, Gary

Kloud13
26-04-2008, 06:05
Does the new ASF ruling also mean that ASF'ing Ghouls strike first against High Elf Spearmen when they charge? If two ASF's cancel each other out, then chargers go first, right?


Actually, if you both have ASF, you proceed directly to Initiative. So, HE with Great Weapons would Strike Last against an opponent with ASF even on the Turn the HE charged. Quite ridiculous if you ask me, but there you have it.

This wouldn't bother me with the White Lions, But the Sword Masters should have also kept their rule about Great Weapons from 6th Edition, and that was that the Strikes Last Rule did not apply to their Great Weapons (In not so many words).

Kloud13
26-04-2008, 06:12
Something that really bothered me, is the High Elf FAQ still did not address the BIG debate about Dragon Armour VS Salamanders. But, perhaps that may be addresses in a Lizardman FAQ if and when it comes out.

There was a ruling made about that matter in the GT Rulespack. Unfortunetly that ruling I felt was really against the Lizardmen Players.

They ruled that the Salamanders "Spout Flames" attack, was NOT a Flaming Attack, BUT Dragon Armour IS still Immune to their attack anyway.

I was Happy that my Dragon Princes are safe, but I think the Lizards could really have used a Flaming attack ability with their Sallies VS the new Vampire Army. No Regeneration for the Vargulf.

Talonz
26-04-2008, 06:33
Apparently not. It's specifically stated in the FAQ that you do not.


Thats screwed up...whats the point of LOS rules if we're not going to use them.

Alathir
26-04-2008, 06:45
I was mostly pleased, especially now that Caradryan has a halberd and that whole dragon armour thing can be put to rest... a few odd ones in there though.

The strangest answer for me was that an auto-hitting weapon rolls off against the Annoyance of Netlings.... yeah right... I always assumed in that event the auto-hitter is assumed to automatically rolled 6's.

Another strange one was the Prayer Icon of Quenelles being able to affect units with the peasants duty... so now I can have Men at Arms with the Blessing of the Lady.. hilarious.

StormCrow
26-04-2008, 06:53
The twilight spear is finally a spear...thank christ

silashand
26-04-2008, 07:02
Something that really bothered me, is the High Elf FAQ still did not address the BIG debate about Dragon Armour VS Salamanders. But, perhaps that may be addresses in a Lizardman FAQ if and when it comes out.

It will not, unfortunately. We spoke to Alessio and his opinion apparently is that one little update such as this is not sufficient to republish the FAQ. He did say he would make sure the clarification re: salamander attacks would, however, be included in the UK GT rules. As far as I know that has happened. They may not be flaming, but they are still considered a breath weapon of sorts and thus dragon armour makes the wearer immune.


Thats screwed up...whats the point of LOS rules if we're not going to use them.

In the case of the treeman's strangleroot attack, it doesn't require LoS for normal shooting either so this is not unexpected.

Cheers, Gary

Kloud13
26-04-2008, 07:24
http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/Tournament_Uploads/WHGTRulespack07.pdf

This is the GT Rulespack , and yes it is stated as you said Silashand.

However, there is a disclaimer at the beginning stating their rules are only house rules, and are NOT official. That throws the Door open to alot of bickering, but as there is nothing else, I'd use these rules until something offical does come along.

Opps sorry, The GT is using the Warhammer Worlds House Rules, This is the link for those

http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/Tournament_Uploads/House_Rules_Docs/WFBHouseRules-10.01.08.pdf

Sylass
26-04-2008, 08:50
WE:
A magic bow (Bow of Loren for example) doesn't have magical attacks? You need another magic item (magical arrows) to harm etheral creatures now? :confused:

Someone please tell me that I read that FAQ wrong?

silashand
26-04-2008, 09:05
WE:
A magic bow (Bow of Loren for example) doesn't have magical attacks? You need another magic item (magical arrows) to harm etheral creatures now? :confused:

Someone please tell me that I read that FAQ wrong?

Unfortunately not. That seems entirely inconsistent with things like Dwarf Engineering Runes making their shots magical. In the latter case, how would you adjudicate such a ruling except rune by rune?

Cheers, Gary

Gazak Blacktoof
26-04-2008, 09:23
It will not, unfortunately. We spoke to Alessio and his opinion apparently is that one little update such as this is not sufficient to republish the FAQ. He did say he would make sure the clarification re: salamander attacks would, however, be included in the UK GT rules. As far as I know that has happened. They may not be flaming, but they are still considered a breath weapon of sorts and thus dragon armour makes the wearer immune.


Not sufficient to "republish"? What does that mean? Its a PDF on an internet site, it takes 5 minutes to write it in and 5 minutes to upload it whilst having a cup of coffee.

Heck, they don't even have to write it if its already in the UK GT pack.

I think our group will continue to go with common sense where it conflicts with these FAQs re: Magic bows, Flaming catapults, etc.

Sir_Glonojad
26-04-2008, 09:28
Well, I actually am pleased to see the Prayer Icon interpretation swing that way - I tried it and it's nice. It's not that M@A become Foot Grail Knights, it just helps to alleviate that poor WS which makes hitting them easier that hitting a barn with a bow from ten feet ;)

Neknoh
26-04-2008, 09:44
STank is officially ruled as a warmachine

It has no list for crew

Life just got one helluva lot better :evilgrin:

NecroNurgle
26-04-2008, 09:49
An FAQ this bad kinda goes to prove what many people have been saying all along. GW isn't that interested in being a game company. They don't really care all that much about how good the game is as long as the miniatures sell. At least, that's how it looks from here.

Urgat
26-04-2008, 10:07
STank is officially ruled as a warmachine

It has no list for crew

Life just got one helluva lot better :evilgrin:


Yeah, if they insist so much on it being a warmachine, spiking works. Are they idiots or what?

Nekrodamus
26-04-2008, 11:50
WD Canada + Direwolf? So much nonsense 'black on white'?

Unless I'll find the same here: http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/ for me this is nothing more than a collection of some opinions.

szlachcic
26-04-2008, 12:23
Yeah, if they insist so much on it being a warmachine, spiking works. Are they idiots or what?

If someone tried to spike my stank I would throw it at their head.

Seriously though, why do people try to bend the rules to say the most ridiculous things. Its not like the stank is overpowered, mine gets routinely decimated, usually by itself lol.

Volapyk
26-04-2008, 12:31
Hmm I assume that the "only hits on a 6" ruling would aply for fx a failed fear test aswell.

Urgat
26-04-2008, 12:34
If someone tried to spike my stank I would throw it at their head.

Seriously though, why do people try to bend the rules to say the most ridiculous things. Its not like the stank is overpowered, mine gets routinely decimated, usually by itself lol.

I don't say I would pull that off (you didn't even try to understand my post, did you?), I say it's idiotic to enforce the no half VP for half wounds gone thing because it's a warmachine, because in that case you can as well enforce other such silly rules. There's nothing saying you can't spike a tank in its rules, right? Hence my comments about them being idiots.
And I'm willing to bet your tank is never "decimated" enough to give a single VP to your opponent, heh?
Pah, what can you expect from a FAQ that gives such a conclusion about salamanders and dragon armour, though? This beats the Stank thing by vertiginous lenghts.

silashand
26-04-2008, 13:36
WD Canada + Direwolf? So much nonsense 'black on white'?

Unless I'll find the same here: http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/ for me this is nothing more than a collection of some opinions.

Whether you like it or not, these are the official FAQs. GW Canada just decided to put them up first is all. There are others that are also apparently done as well, but I don't know when they will be posted.

Cheers, Gary

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 13:47
Anything made by Direwolf is not official.

There are so many issues, inconsistencies and flat out rule breakings that my head hurts reading these horrid FAQs.

But I won't ever honor any FAQ with Direwolf stamped on it.

Where is the Chaos Dwarf FAQ?

EvC
26-04-2008, 13:56
To be honest thats the way i have been playing it since the GT ruling last year....and boy does that thing win you alot of games. Being charged by a wardancer noble and 9 wardancers is never fun....less so if its in your first turn.

The UKGT ruling was the complete opposite, that it can only be used in the controlling player's turn. But regardless, you've been playing it the correct way apparently, and looking at your win record, there's ample evidence that the correct way is horribly broken. As much as I appreciate these FAQs, that's probably the worst ruling they've made.

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 14:04
I dont appreciate these faqs at all.

Aldred casket affecting tombkings/princes? Which body of blind readers messed this one up, direwolf or whatever oaf is in charge over there at the canadian wing of gw?

I'll honor these faqs as toilet paper at best.

silashand
26-04-2008, 14:35
Anything made by Direwolf is not official.

There are so many issues, inconsistencies and flat out rule breakings that my head hurts reading these horrid FAQs.

But I won't ever honor any FAQ with Direwolf stamped on it.

Sorry to break it to you, but you won't have a choice. These aren't published by Direwolf. They are published by GW and are the "official" FAQs for the relevant Warhammer army books. The thanks they gave to Direwolf was for our assistance in collecting and organizing the questions as well as providing references for each to make his job easier. Alessio decided the answers, not us. Do some of his answers mirror those of Direwolf, yes. Others do not. He chose what he felt was the best answer for each. Since he is the authoritative individual re: such issues, you may disagree with his opinions, but not his authority to set the rules the way he wants. You are, of course, free to ignore them in your own gaming group, but in pick up games and events these will become mandatory.

Cheers, Gary

Bretonnian Lord
26-04-2008, 14:57
Can't GW FAQ their own game by themselves, instead of relying on Direwolf? :rolleyes:

theunwantedbeing
26-04-2008, 15:05
Why work when somebody else can do it for you?

scarletsquig
26-04-2008, 15:14
There's nothing saying you can't spike a tank in its rules, right?
The Engineer Commander has a seperate statline underneath the tank's, similar to the crew of chariots. Can't spike machines with crew, can't hurt the crew in this case. Steam Tank can never be spiked.

Really wish they'd have kept the thing under a "you may only take 1 for every 2000 points" limit.

Greyfire
26-04-2008, 15:18
The FAQs have me kind of saddened.

No, not with how long it took (too long) or with the answers (we're all going to disagree, the rules forums shows that well enough).

No, I'm disappointed that it's taken us, the players, about a day to come up with reasons to ignore these FAQs when it was us asking GW for them.

From me, thanks to GW for giving us official answers to some of the questions we've asked, and thanks to the Direwolf Council for helping it to come about. Without their help, I wonder if we would have seen an FAQ before 8th edition. I'm just curious.

Fredmans
26-04-2008, 15:32
I thought the Moonstone was great when I only could use it in my movement phase. This is beyond belief. A non-chargeable unit for 35 pts?

At least it is now official that the Spirit Sword sucks ;)

Unfortunately, there are a few inconsistencies through-out these FAQs, but I guess a double standard is better than no standard. Do not forget that a lot of rulings were long overdue, like the Strangleroot Stand and fire issue, whether the Killing Blow spear was a spear, the GW War Dancers, did Wild Riders still carry bows etc.

At the end of the day, four FAQ:s are much better than none.

/Fredmans

Esco Thomson
26-04-2008, 15:32
I think a big problem is that these FAQ's were created by using literal translations, and interpretations of the rules, as opposed to what necessarily makes sense. I think the Direwolf folks did a great job at basically proofreading, and making educated guesses at situations where intent was not crystal clear. However, I think that we need someone to come in and actually rewrite the rules on some topics, so that it actually makes common sense. Tomb Kings/Princes have never been treated as wizards, so that ruling is pretty pants. Their book even states it is not so much magical, as they are using their sheer force of will to move their forces...There are obviously more, but that is the point I am trying to make.

Prophet of Quetzl
26-04-2008, 15:32
The FAQs have me kind of saddened.

No, not with how long it took (too long) or with the answers (we're all going to disagree, the rules forums shows that well enough).

No, I'm disappointed that it's taken us, the players, about a day to come up with reasons to ignore these FAQs when it was us asking GW for them.

From me, thanks to GW for giving us official answers to some of the questions we've asked, and thanks to the Direwolf Council for helping it to come about. Without their help, I wonder if we would have seen an FAQ before 8th edition. I'm just curious.

I see where you are coming from but most of us knew that we would not all be happy with all the answers when they finally came.

The SkaerKrow
26-04-2008, 15:38
It could be said that no FAQ is better than a bad FAQ. I haven't played using these rules yet (obviously), but some posters here have brought up some valid critiques of their quality and content. Ruling inconsistances are like cancer within a game's ruleset, and can cause incredible damage in the long run (or indeed kill a game outright, but Warhammer's too well established for that to come to pass).

silashand
26-04-2008, 15:51
And I think with some of these rather contradictory ... rules will get ignored quite frequently.

Perhaps, but I think you overestimate such occurrences. The vast majority of people just want answers to their questions and will get on with their games. It's only on the Internet where people get so up in arms that they claim boycott, etc. with regard to such things. From what I can tell from browsing the various forums over the last 36 hours, the vast majority seem to be just happy we have FAQs at all. They may raise eyebrows at some answers (as did I), but in general they seem to be accepting them which is as it should be. Also, as it stands today, in all the events I have been to not one has overruled an "official" GW FAQ answer once published. House rule whatever you want, but I think if you believe you will be able to ignore these then I think you are wishing for something that won't happen.


However, I think that we need someone to come in and actually rewrite the rules on some topics, so that it actually makes common sense.

That requires an errata. I too wish they would do that as it would make for an overall better ruleset, but GW's stated policy is that they will only issue errata for things that are confusing or unusable. If they are stupid, but clear then they stay as is unfortunately.

To be honest, the only things I dislike in these recent FAQs are the instances of inconsistency, of which I have identified I think six. They are in no particular order:

1. dragon armour protecting against cannon balls

2. magic bows not counting as magical missile attacks unless firing
magic arrows

3. the treeman / warrior priest bound spell mismatch answer

4. not re-rolling a die more than once (I actually agree with this
one, but it goes contrary to the existing chaos FAQ re: the armour of
damnation)

5. autohit vs annoyance of netlings now has to roll off. This one
wasn't even unclear in the rules to begin with

6. Knights Errant / Empire banner. The situations are almost identical, yet they received opposite answers.

There may be others, but these are the most problematic.

However, all that said, I am for the most part happy with them, and the fact that we have them at all makes them worthwhile. Claims that inconsistent FAQ answers will damage the game are a bit off the mark I believe since most people will probably just play and have fun now that they know the answers to their questions.


No, I'm disappointed that it's taken us, the players, about a day to come up with reasons to ignore these FAQs when it was us asking GW for them.

Since being elected to the Direwolf FAQ Council over 3 years ago, I have come to understand that people who dislike a particular ruling will always find ways to ignore/reject/denigrate it regardless the source. Even when they claim they won't abide by an authoritative answer from a design team member unless it becomes official, they still find reasons to do so when it actually *does* become official. Personally, I don't understand it. Must be a 'gotta be right at all costs' mentality or something, I dunno.

Cheers, Gary

Jedi152
26-04-2008, 16:11
Can't GW FAQ their own game by themselves, instead of relying on Direwolf? :rolleyes:
The majority of queries are people trying to use RAW to get round the wording of the rules for their advantage.

Many of these answers (except errata obviously) could have been reached by using a modicum of common sense and thinking about how the rules are obviously intended.

GW shouldn't have to spend all their time making every bit of the rules watertight to try and solve every gamer query.

Use common sense, take rules in the spirit of the game, and if any queries come up, fudge it.

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 16:19
Sorry to break it to you, but you won't have a choice. These aren't published by Direwolf. They are published by GW and are the "official" FAQs for the relevant Warhammer army books. The thanks they gave to Direwolf was for our assistance in collecting and organizing the questions as well as providing references for each to make his job easier. Alessio decided the answers, not us. Do some of his answers mirror those of Direwolf, yes. Others do not. He chose what he felt was the best answer for each. Since he is the authoritative individual re: such issues, you may disagree with his opinions, but not his authority to set the rules the way he wants. You are, of course, free to ignore them in your own gaming group, but in pick up games and events these will become mandatory.

Cheers, Gary

Actually I do have a choice, sorry to break it to you.

You make Direwolf, and your little council, seem important somehow. This amuses me very much.

As we know, GTS/any tournaments make up their own rules, regardless of what is official or not. See the Swiss scene for how a tournament body makes up their own rules, or how the US GT scene back in 2006 came up with the Chaos Dwarf FAQ regardless of what GW has.

How about The Necronomicon. This GT even allows models outside the Citadel line to be used.

And if you think for one second these little Direwolf influenced FAQS GW pooped out their **** are going to hold water, maybe you should read some of the other posts in this thread besides mine. Posts here are proof that not all gamers are idiots and they could think for themselves.

I don't know ANY Empire player who will stand by the decision that their tank can be auto destroyed. Official or not.

If anyone attempts to use a empire casket on my TK King/Prince, I simply say no, tournament or not. A wrong Faq doesn't make it a right one.

My displeasure isn't to you personally, it is to whoever was dumb enough to allow these god awful faqs to be published.


The Engineer Commander has a seperate statline underneath the tank's, similar to the crew of chariots. Can't spike machines with crew, can't hurt the crew in this case. Steam Tank can never be spiked.

Really wish they'd have kept the thing under a "you may only take 1 for every 2000 points" limit.

I would search the forums about the steam tank discussion. You will see that it has no crew. I don't want to discuss that here, but we can take it to one of the 50 Stank threads going on. This FAQ actually ENFORCES the idea that a tank can be destroyed after combat.

v
The FAQs have me kind of saddened.

No, not with how long it took (too long) or with the answers (we're all going to disagree, the rules forums shows that well enough).

No, I'm disappointed that it's taken us, the players, about a day to come up with reasons to ignore these FAQs when it was us asking GW for them.

From me, thanks to GW for giving us official answers to some of the questions we've asked, and thanks to the Direwolf Council for helping it to come about. Without their help, I wonder if we would have seen an FAQ before 8th edition. I'm just curious.

No... 'We' have been asking for real proof read FAQs, not this garbage handed to us. You may not understand the rules of the game and probably do not see some of the obviously illegal rulings these FAQs have written down.

So if you ask your mom for cookies for 9 months, and she suddenly craps in your hand, you are telling me you are going to be grateful?

silashand
26-04-2008, 16:20
Actually I do have a choice, sorry to break it to you.

Only in who you choose to play against, as does everyone else in the world :). If you have a group that agrees to play your way, then great. Have fun. No one's trying to tell you that you cannot play how you want in your own little group. If, however, you decide to venture into the world of general gaming, these will be the accepted norm and I have a feeling it will be you who is asked to adjust, not anyone else. You are free to ask though if you like. Just be prepared to be told "No, thanks."


You make Direwolf, and your little council, seem important somehow. This amuses me very much.

I made no such claim. I said the FAQs *not* published by Direwolf and are official whether you like it or not. I also said that the majority of events will use them as is, which is the truth even if you don't wish to acknowledge that.


As we know, GTS/any tournaments make up their own rules, regardless of what is official or not. See the Swiss scene for how a tournament body makes up their own rules, or how the US GT scene back in 2006 came up with the Chaos Dwarf FAQ regardless of what GW has.

How many have you been to recently that ignored the published FAQs? The EuroGT circuit makes up its own rules for composition, but as far as I am aware they use the published rules like everyone else. The Chaos Dwarf don't even have a published book, so an additional FAQ for them to use other options is hardly inappropriate if the organizers want to allow them to compete.


How about The Necronomicon. This GT even allows models outside the Citadel line to be used.

What exactly does that have to do with anything? A lot of independent tournaments allow non-citadel miniatures, but they still use the same rules. That's what being "standard" is all about.


And if you think for one second these little Direwolf influenced FAQS GW pooped out their **** are going to hold water, maybe you should read some of the other posts in this thread besides mine. Posts here are proof that not all gamers are idiots and they could think for themselves.

:rolleyes:


I don't know ANY Empire player who will stand by the decision that their tank can be auto destroyed. Official or not.

As is clear here, you apparently haven't actually read the FAQ. Nothing in it says you can spike the Steam Tank. The answer in the FAQ relates solely to victory points (an answer I happen to disagree with, but oh well, I'll live).


My displeasure isn't to you personally, it is to whoever was dumb enough to allow these god awful faqs to be published.

As I noted earlier, the majority of people *I* have talked to are happy with them, inconsistencies notwithstanding. You are free to dislike them or like them just as they are. I do think you overestimate the support you have for ignoring them though. WarSeer is hardly the largest or only GW site on the web, nor do we as online posters represent a majority of the playing public.

Cheers, Gary

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 16:36
Only in who you choose to play against, as does everyone else in the world :).

You really have this belittling attitude about other gamers and what their rights are it seems.

If a player tries to use an empire casket on my tomb king, I will say no. He can pack up and leave. What are you not understanding? There is no magical force guiding my actions as you make it seem Direwolf can do.


If you have a group that agrees to play your way, then great.

And this is what tournaments do also. Less than 2% of gamers play in GT tournaments anyway. Take pleasure in knowing you may have influence over thos players.


If, however, you decide to venture into the world of general gaming, these will be the accepted norm

Actually no. Out in the world of general gaming includes the majority of casual gamers who aren't hand slaves to the rules.


and I have a feeling it will be you who is asked to adjust, not anyone else.

Ok, then answer me this without trying to be a politician, which you aren't.

What flat out ***** decided an Empire casket can affect a Tomb King when the casket CLEARLY states in plain English it affects wizards, while Tomb Kings/Princes are not Wizards?

I want you to convince me your FAQs are worth the imaginary ink their are published on.

But you can't. So don't bother giving me some 'mightier than thou' answer, which you undoubtedly will attempt to do.

silashand
26-04-2008, 16:52
You really have this belittling attitude about other gamers and what their rights are it seems.

I wasn't trying to belittle you. If you took it that way I'm sorry. However, the point is that you *will* be in the minority.


If a player tries to use an empire casket on my tomb king, I will say no. He can pack up and leave. What are you not understanding? There is no magical force guiding my actions as you make it seem Direwolf can do.

Just because I'm on the Council doesn't mean I think Direwolf is anything other than an unofficial body. You seem to think I am saying Direwolf says you have to do this or that. I'm not. I'm saying GW published official FAQs in response to questions posed. Blaming Direwolf for your pet peeves with their answers is hardly appropriate here.


And this is what tournaments do also. Less than 2% of gamers play in GT tournaments anyway. Take pleasure in knowing you may have influence over thos players.

Who exactly is it that is being condescending and snide here? I forget.


Actually no. Out in the world of general gaming includes the majority of casual gamers who aren't hand slaves to the rules.

You are correct. And as I said if you have a group that plays the way you do then great. I could care less. I will care, however, if you show up at a GT and try to enfore your unofficial views on myself or anyone else. I just don't think you will be able to show up at a random club and tell them they can't use the official FAQs because you don't like them.


What flat out ***** decided an Empire casket can affect a Tomb King when the casket CLEARLY states in plain English it affects wizards, while Tomb Kings/Princes are not Wizards?

The same ***** that placed the following statements in the TK book regarding their incantations:


In all other respects the Incantations are treated as normal spells. (TKAB, page 36)

A Tomb King may cast two Incantations... (TKAB, page 23)

If you think casting has anything to do with something other than spells, which can explicitly be captured by the Casket, then I think you need to re-read the TK rules. Whether Tomb Kings or Princes are wizards is irrelevant anyway. If GW says they are meant to work on Incantations, then they are meant to work on Incantations, regardless whether anyone likes it or not. There's plenty I don't like about the WFB ruleset, but I'm not going to get all huffy about it.


But you can't. So don't bother giving me some 'mightier than thou' answer, which you undoubtedly will attempt to do.

Whatever.

Cheers, Gary

Ethlorien
26-04-2008, 17:27
I was hopeful that they would address the business with Korhil and his magic weapon/hand weapon. I assume he can wield both, but...

Esco Thomson
26-04-2008, 17:47
@ Silashand, I wanted to say that I think it is nice that you come out and try to shed some light on everything, that is appreciated. I'm glad we see eye to eye on the need for an errata, but sadly yes, I do understand that most likely is not going to happen.

I think that there seems to be some unnecessary tension between you guys though, I mean you shouldn't really shoot the messenger in this instance. After all, regardless of how silly some of the rulings may be, they were in fact decided by GW themselves.

Don't get me wrong Intellectawe, I play Tomb Kings exclusively, and I am more than a bit miffed at this stuff(especially Dragon Armor), there just isn't much you can do inside the tournament circuit/sanctioned events. Casually, yeah, well that's another story entirely. ...

silashand
26-04-2008, 18:15
I think that there seems to be some unnecessary tension between you guys though, I mean you shouldn't really shoot the messenger in this instance. After all, regardless of how silly some of the rulings may be, they were in fact decided by GW themselves.

No worries. Realistically I'm kinda used to it. On the internet there is a cadre of hardcore Direwolf haters who for whatever reason dislike anything we have to do with and who go out of their way to discredit what we do. I don't understand it personally since we are entirely unofficial and folks are free to use or not use our product as they see fit. We've never come out and tried to force anyone to abide by our interpretations. Our only goal is to provide a means of consistent playing for those who want that and we try to create as accurate a product as possible based on all available evidence. Sure, we're just gamers like everyone else and we don't always agree on everything amongst ourselves either. But we can agree to disagree since the end result of having the most fun is more important than any one of our individual egos.

With regards to the official FAQs from GW, all we did was provide as comprehensive a list of questions as we had at the time to Alessio along with what references we could find along with some suggested interpretations. Obviously he agreed with some of our opinions, some he did not. Either way the final decision was his. Not speaking for the Council as a whole obviously, but just for me I am happy we could help stimulate the official process so we actually have an official answer one way or another. Some books have been waiting years for their FAQ and IMO these new ones are clear and usable. Sure, there are inconsistencies, but at this point I just want clear answers to my questions. In that regard I think they are a success. Perhaps next time they will be more consistent, but for now I am happy.

Cheers, Gary

PS. I play TK and Dwarfs. The whole Dragon Armour answer just seems silly to me, but oh well. I can live with it :).

Baragash
26-04-2008, 18:16
*sighs*

Why couldn't someone make the decision either to go pure RAW or pure RAI with the FAQs. Either tell us "it may be silly but that's what it says" or "sorry people, we really meant this". At least that way, whether we agree or not, everyone is in the same boat:

Q: "Is Teclis considered a High Elf Archmage?"
A: "Yes."
Seems sensible to me, would have been disappointed to see it the other way, but I was expecting the Phoenix Blade to remain a non-halberd, so I'd have been "well, silly, but consistent, so fair enough".

Q: "Do White Lion Cloaks protect against Magic Missiles etc?"
A: "No."
Wait.........seriously...............WTalmightyF?! ?!?!?!?

Lardidar
26-04-2008, 18:27
I don't understand why you have such a bad attitude about the FAQ's intellectawe.

Inside a tournament you will be expected to abide by them you can say no all you want but when the judge is called it will be the FAQ's side he takes. Casual gaming in a GW store I would assume that staff will try and enforce the FaQ's but they may not ... I think it will change store to store.

Casual gaming outside of GW and I would think you would have the decency to talk to your opponent before the game ... ask if he is using the casket and then just say you do not want to use the FAQ's ... either that is fine with your opponent and you play on or it is not fine and you can both go find other games, no time wasted at all but stops alot of agro mid way into a game.

I just don't see the use of ragging on Silashand and his group for helping GW put together a FAQ set that we have all been wanting for months .... just because some of the replies are not what we wanted, as long as I have an official ruling then that is fine with me.

EDIT - Who are Direwolf ... this is the first I have heard of them.

Talonz
26-04-2008, 18:34
...the casket CLEARLY states in plain English it affects wizards, while Tomb Kings/Princes are not Wizards?


First line under 'using nehekaran incantations' tells us they are treated as such. TKAB p34
The same page tells us that incantations are cast like bound spells. If they can be cast as spells, they can be captured as spells.

I mean really, as one who plays empire and is looking at taking up TK, I don't see any reasonable way to think otherwise. Its one magic item, whats the big deal?

The SkaerKrow
26-04-2008, 18:46
GW shouldn't have to spend all their time making every bit of the rules watertight to try and solve every gamer query.Yes, actually, they should. Tournament play requires iron-clad rules that are exhaustive in their ability to assure that every game is resolved consistantly and as the game's designers intended. As long as Games Workshop perpetuates tournament play of their games, they should be expected to provide tournament suitable support of their rules.

Coincidentally, this is why I find competitive Warhammer tournaments to be a farce. The game just hasn't been refined to a point where it can handle organized, competitive play credibly. A big first step in rectifying that problem would be creating a FAQ/tournament team that can review the most common grey areas found in the rules and come to an official resolution for them quickly.

Scallat
26-04-2008, 19:05
Thanks for this

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 19:10
First line under 'using nehekaran incantations' tells us they are treated as such. TKAB p34
The same page tells us that incantations are cast like bound spells. If they can be cast as spells, they can be captured as spells.

I mean really, as one who plays empire and is looking at taking up TK, I don't see any reasonable way to think otherwise. Its one magic item, whats the big deal?

The big deal is that the item affects wizards, which you have apparently not understood. Where is it in the TK book that a king or prince is a wizard?

It seems so many of you are so used to GW's less than stellar mediocrity that you'll just accept the same from an outside source.

Oddly enough, the faqs in this very own warseer forum make more sense and are more clear than this mess the canadian site has got brewing.

But the bottom line is this, sure one item is in conflict with my army, woopy doo. But if any of you have been paying attention to OTHER posts besides my own, you will see much harsher rulings that make NO sense, even by GW's standard.

But I guess this is what you get when your own beloved gaming company has basically out sourced their FAQ releasings to a group of people who have an understanding of the game that anyone else outside GW can have. And apparently even less so by the horrid quality of the rulings.

Its tank spiking time!



If you think casting has anything to do with something other than spells, which can explicitly be captured by the Casket, then I think you need to re-read the TK rules. Whether Tomb Kings or Princes are wizards is irrelevant anyway. If GW says they are meant to work on Incantations, then they are meant to work on Incantations, regardless whether anyone likes it or not. There's plenty I don't like about the WFB ruleset, but I'm not going to get all huffy about it.


Oh I need to read the rules? It seems that an entire council of yahoo groupers can't read the rules.

Looking under page 34 in the TK book, we deal specifically with tomb king magic.

"Using Nehekharan Incantaions"

"Liche Priests and ... are treated as WIZARDS."

You will not find this said about Kings or Prices anywhere in this chapter for tomb king magic/incantation. As a matter of fact, if we go to the Tomb King section on page 23..

"Although it is the MAGIC of the Liche Priests ...... it is by WILL and FORCE of personality of the Tomb King.... able to instill their warriors with their own VIGOR"

So fluff wise we are told Priests use magic, Kings use their own powerful force of will. So I have both fluff and the rules going for me here...

A Tomb King does cast incantations, but there is no qualifier in the entire TK book that says Tomb Kings and Princes are Wizards. It Doesn't exist. Sorry.

So yes, Kings/princes do cast spells. This is not in question. But the Empire Casket only effects WIZARDS. So you cant steal spells from an illegal target.

Kaihlik
26-04-2008, 20:04
intellectawe stop ranting at Silashand, it is unseemly. He has simply come here to explain the reason Direwolf were involved and you have jumped on him like he has told everyone that we must do as they say. If you want to play different rules then noone is stopping you but you are obviously alot more concerned about the official nature of these rules than you claim or you would just leave it at that. The right thing to do to prove that you can use your own rules would have been to say "I dont care, my gaming group will just use common sense where we think the FAQ's are wrong."

I agree that most people are going to be using the FAQ's, I don't agree with many of the outcomes but I will still use them. I will also spike any god damn steam tank that crosses my path. I play Dark Elves and that thing is points denial that I cannot do a thing about so it will result to the only way I can do anything in the rules and that is spike it. If they want to disagree then I wont play them. If they want to give me half victory points for a common sense application of the rules then I am fine by that as well.

DjtHeutii
26-04-2008, 20:20
In the case of GW's FAQ's, any answer is better then no anwer.

Knowing the answers now means we can just carry on with our games and not spend hours arguing about it.

intellectawe
26-04-2008, 20:26
....you have jumped on him like he has told everyone that we must do as they say.

Funny you say that... maybe you are not reading the same posts he posted that I am reading?


Whether you like it or not, these are the official FAQs.

Sorry to break it to you, but you won't have a choice.

But in pick up games and events these will become mandatory.

I think if you believe you will be able to ignore these then I think you are wishing for something that won't happen.


it goes on and on and on.... but my eyes are hurting from reading his holier than thou posts....

So yes, he does tell people what they have to do and say and eat and whatever. Maybe if he didn't 'float' around this thread like we all own him a favor, I wouldn't be so opposed to him.


If you want to play different rules then noone is stopping you but you are obviously alot more concerned about the official nature of these rules than you claim or you would just leave it at that.

My problem is that GW cannot even make their own FAQs anymore. They need to outsource themselves to find answers to stuff... that they cant seem to even find answers.

Why pay employees when you can get internet strangers to do your work right? I can throw darts at random names here in Warseer and hit people who can do a better job at writing rules than even GW's own developer monkeys.



The right thing to do to prove that you can use your own rules would have been to say "I dont care, my gaming group will just use common sense where we think the FAQ's are wrong."

False. What about people who bought steam tanks. Do you own one? how about two? Did you spend half a bill on a model that instantly dies because GW can't find their own head when it is clearly up their own arses? You do know that steam tanks can now be OFFICIALLY spiked right? What has been tossed around the forums as a pseudo joke on a loophole for teh past few weeks has actually proven to be true.

So once again, it may seem like I am ranting, which I dont care what I seem like to strangers on the internet, but if YOU happened to be one of the wallets, er, hobbyists that pays GW for their toys and rules, and just nwo found out your Steam Tank dies instantly, I think you'd be mad.

So yes, this FAQ is official, but that doesn't mean it is some magical entity that floats around the planet stuffing itself down people's throats as they play.

Tournaments will always make their OWN rules, everyone knows that. And I can bet you the second steam tanks start getting spiked in GTs, watch the erratas fly up.

vorin
26-04-2008, 20:36
Oh I need to read the rules? It seems that an entire council of yahoo groupers can't read the rules.

Looking under page 34 in the TK book, we deal specifically with tomb king magic.

"Using Nehekharan Incantaions"

"Liche Priests and ... are treated as WIZARDS."

You will not find this said about Kings or Prices anywhere in this chapter for tomb king magic/incantation. As a matter of fact, if we go to the Tomb King section on page 23..

"Although it is the MAGIC of the Liche Priests ...... it is by WILL and FORCE of personality of the Tomb King.... able to instill their warriors with their own VIGOR"

So fluff wise we are told Priests use magic, Kings use their own powerful force of will. So I have both fluff and the rules going for me here...

A Tomb King does cast incantations, but there is no qualifier in the entire TK book that says Tomb Kings and Princes are Wizards. It Doesn't exist. Sorry.

So yes, Kings/princes do cast spells. This is not in question. But the Empire Casket only effects WIZARDS. So you cant steal spells from an illegal target.

Ok lets move beyond the infighting here and look at what he is saying here. His logic and reading of the TK book and Aldred's Casket is spot on. Anyone disagree?

superduperkoopatrooper
26-04-2008, 20:50
Yes, actually, they should. Tournament play requires iron-clad rules that are exhaustive in their ability to assure that every game is resolved consistantly and as the game's designers intended. As long as Games Workshop perpetuates tournament play of their games, they should be expected to provide tournament suitable support of their rules.

Coincidentally, this is why I find competitive Warhammer tournaments to be a farce. The game just hasn't been refined to a point where it can handle organized, competitive play credibly. A big first step in rectifying that problem would be creating a FAQ/tournament team that can review the most common grey areas found in the rules and come to an official resolution for them quickly.

Hmm, I would disagree with you completely. You seem to imply that the GT final trophy is some sort of olympic medal that only the greatest champion of warhammer is worthy of holding... For a tournament that you pay to enter and is very much luck dependent (both in dice and opponent list terms) this just clearly isn't the case. They're fun and that's pretty much the only reason I go and is I think the basis that GW hold them. There's certainly a raised level of competition which I also enjoy but a 100% infallible rules set wouldn't make turn them from what they are into the equivalent of chess world championships.

P.S. Silashand, I've appreciated your posts and what intellectawe is saying just doesn't have any basis.

My opinion of the faqs? - Fine by me, the moonstone's pretty scary but other than that it's nice to have some of these things cleared up (not that in the real world of ACTUALLY PLAYING WARHAMMER theses issues were that big of a deal).

Sorry if this post has been a bit tetchy, I just don't like people knocking GW so much (maybe I shouldn't visit warseer so much :rolleyes:) or other posters with no reason to do so.

Lardidar
26-04-2008, 20:56
Nope but logic means nack all in the face of an official FAQ. EDIT - In official games (Club or Home ... just change the rules)

That said until it is up on the UK/ US site we can't get too annoyed by it ... If it is official then it will be up in the next week or so.

As for the steam tank I don't understand what you mean ... in the Empire book the steam tank has an engineer commander, so it has crew ..... or am I confused?

Talonz
26-04-2008, 21:13
Ok lets move beyond the infighting here and look at what he is saying here. His logic and reading of the TK book and Aldred's Casket is spot on. Anyone disagree?

Yup. His argument hinges on semantics. If he agrees that because it doesnt say TK/Ps cast incantations 'like a wizard' how then do you resolve the fact that the incantations they cast are based on a 12" range from the priest?

You cant have your semantic cake and eat it too.

More importantly, brb p105 tells us that "we commonly refer to a model able to cast spells as a wizard. Some races use different terms...but all of these and others are considered to be types of a wizard."

Thats pretty definitive. The TK/P is a model that casts Incantations (bound spells), which makes the TK/P a wizard by that rule.

Not to mention the fact that the incantation rule itself describes how a seal of destruction would work on it, and uses the text "In all other respects, incantations are treated as spells.".

Talonz
26-04-2008, 21:21
As for the steam tank I don't understand what you mean ... in the Empire book the steam tank has an engineer commander, so it has crew ..... or am I confused?


Ignore them, the tank rules have always been clear; "Except where noted otherwise, the steam tank counts as a war machine in all respects".

In the line where creman would be, it has a profile for the commander. No other crew info is necesary as it is not possible to attack the crew, as per the tank rules. You autohit the tank itself in close combat.

Kaihlik
26-04-2008, 21:30
My problem is that GW cannot even make their own FAQs anymore. They need to outsource themselves to find answers to stuff... that they cant seem to even find answers.As it has been pointed out they didn't outsource answers they outsourced questions. Do you not think that it makes sense to ask players what questions they want answered instead of answering a bunch of questions that everyone knows the answer to. For gods sakes they actually outsourced a bleeding book to players once, DE anyone?. Are you saying that Druchii.net are all arrogant and obnoxious because they had something to do with the Dark Elf book.

Ohh and yes I know about Steam Tanks being spiked as the ENTIRE SECOND HALF of my post was about that bloody subject. Did I pay for one, no. Did I pay for two, no. Do I know what it is like to pay lots of money for crap stuff that does nothing. Well I play Dark Elves so what do you think. The Steam Tank still causes Terror at unit str 10 and if it charges still beasts almost any unit. It is just no longer a point and click unit. If you want to give me a reliable way of killing a steam tank with my Dark Elves that doesn't involve spiking then I will do it. Cant think of one, didn't think so.

So yes, this FAQ is official, but that doesn't mean it is some magical entity that floats around the planet stuffing itself down people's throats as they play.Im sorry but did I say that you had to use the FAQ. I thought I said that you should be fine because you didn't need to use the FAQ. Sorry for that but could you just point to where that exact phrase cropped up in my post because I cant seem to find it.

Silashand has just pointed out that these FAQ's will be the norm very soon which is not arrogant just the truth. When these get released more widly then they will be adopted by most people. How good they are as FAQ's is niether here nor there, the fact is that people will use them and expect you too as well. That is all that he has claimed. Not that you will be forced to use them but simply that everyone will likely be using them.

This is the last I will say about this as I do not want to annoy the mods over a pointless debate. I would suggest you do the same.

Forbiddenknowledge
26-04-2008, 21:30
Hah, ASF ruling. I was bloody right *grumble*

perrin23860
26-04-2008, 21:38
Gotta say that I for one believe that without direwolf's help, there would probably still be no faq whatsoever. i seriously doubt that anyone who is a proficient reader of the rules actually agrees with everything in them, but at least there is a ruling and we can get on with an actual game, instead of arguing rules.

Thanks to silas hand for the information and to direwolf, for your time and infinite patience you must have to deal with games workshop...

Gumbercules
26-04-2008, 21:45
They are fugging awful and I, for one, am downright DAMN insulted that because they took so damn long they think we should be happy to have these.

If you're happy with these FAQs, you're nothing more than an apologist. We should not be willing to settle for such obviously flawed garbage.

Direwolf or nothing for me from now on.

GW has admitted their mistakes rarely in the past, but they've done so with the 40k Tyranid FAQ.

I say we make them do the same with these abortions of reason.

Mireadur
26-04-2008, 22:06
What does Alessio employs his time at nowadays? Is he writting any army books atm?

In truth it looks like he got somehow lazy about the game ruling.

As much as i dislike Stanks being used in mass, i think we will have to suck this one up, they dont give VP's nor can be spiked...

Rioghan Murchadha
26-04-2008, 22:31
As far as the Stank argument goes.. not to try to devolve this thread any further but.

Pg 84: The crew are based seperately, unlike the model of a chariot or ridden monster, where the crew or riders are likely to be physically glued to the chariot or mount. This is necessary because a war machine's crew can be forced to flee from their machine. These models must be kept within 1" of their machine to count as crewing it.

Shooting Against War Machines:
shots are worked out against the entire unit, and any hits scored are randomised between the crew and war machine.... etc. etc.

The engineer from the Stank fits absolutely NONE of these qualifications, and as such, is not the crew of a warmachine. However, the Stank IS a warmachine according to the Empire book and the FAQ. The engineer merely rides an uncrewed warmachine.

DragonPup
26-04-2008, 22:35
So does the Stank do it's impacts hits before it insta-dies for being in BtB with no crew?[/sarcasm]

Little common sense here, please. :p

Gazak Blacktoof
26-04-2008, 23:18
Little common sense here, please. :p

I don't think you'll get any common sense out of somebody whilst shoving the latest FAQ in their face.*


If you want your opponent to be reasonable then they will expect the same of you.



*This is a general comment not aimed at you DragonPup.

Lardidar
26-04-2008, 23:36
The engineer from the Stank fits absolutely NONE of these qualifications, and as such, is not the crew of a warmachine. However, the Stank IS a warmachine according to the Empire book and the FAQ. The engineer merely rides an uncrewed warmachine.

Arrghh ... confusion has set in. Is a tank not just a big chariot in that th crew can't be killed and you have to take all the wounds or are we saying that chariots die in this way too.

I would never dream of trying to pull this on any opponent be it a friendly game or GT final game table one.

Are people seriously thinking this is what the rule is or are we all just taking the pi*s because we are not impressed by this FAQ.

If I had to pull this then I would feel like such a ****, what would be the point of playing.


EDIT - I think I now see the problem .... it should give half VP's but it should not be wiped out like a cannon. (Can we get a FAQ for these FAQs :))

aenarion67
27-04-2008, 00:34
i love FAQ's now. now caradryan is str 5 due to him wielding a halberd. dragon armour is now even better. immunity to flamming cannon balls and even flamming magical blades. awesome.

Ivan Stupidor
27-04-2008, 00:48
I'm sorry, but is it too much to ask for an actual answer like "the Shard works first" or even "Dice it off"? A response like this is simply defeating to the point of FAQs, which is to clarify things. All that's been done in that response is say "You figure it out" and leave it murky and open to bickering (Hey, I don't play High Elves, I guess I will always force at least a dice off! :eyebrows: ) Great, but as far as tournament rules they will still have to make a ruling on this, even if it is to say "Dice it off" because otherwise it will probably degenerate into bickering.

The Most Important Rule is "Dice if off":


If you encounter a rules problem during one of your games and cannot find the answer in the rulebook or any other Games Workshop resource, dice off to decide on a temporary answer and get on with your game.

silashand
27-04-2008, 08:05
The Most Important Rule is "Dice if off":

BRB, page 3 in point of fact... :)

Cheers, Gary

Urgat
27-04-2008, 08:50
now caradryan is str 5 due to him wielding a halberd.

Yeah, awesome. Thankfully, every HE player already fields him, otherwise, I'm sure we'd see him even more now :p
(disclaimer: this was just a joke, I'm not annoyed by this at all, it obviously made sense and all. I prefer to point out as my comment on the Stank spiking still degenerated into an argument. Wait, I did also stress I wasn't serious with the Stank... I guess the internetz arz hopelez.)

Prophet of Quetzl
27-04-2008, 08:53
*Retracted*

Eigilb
27-04-2008, 10:36
Gotta say that I for one believe that without direwolf's help, there would probably still be no faq whatsoever. i seriously doubt that anyone who is a proficient reader of the rules actually agrees with everything in them, but at least there is a ruling and we can get on with an actual game, instead of arguing rules.

Thanks to silas hand for the information and to direwolf, for your time and infinite patience you must have to deal with games workshop...

Right on - I'll support this statement

superduperkoopatrooper
27-04-2008, 10:50
If an faq tells you to dice it off, that IS an answer (and was the point that willfightforfood was trying to make).

I know what you're trying to say, that we can always decide to dice for unclear things. In this case, there is no uncertainty anymore though, as GW have told you to dice off for it.

I think a lot of people need to bear in mind that a lot of the weird situations in these faqs don't even arise all that much. As for dragon armour - it's a fantasy game, I don't really have a problem imagining that the magical element of the armour disintigrates flaming bolts and cannonballs.

As for errant vs daemonslayer banner - the empire knights don't cause fear until they've plucked up the courage to actually start charging whereas the errant knight's impetuousness makes them more eager to charge any enemy. Makes sense to me.

The armour of damnation rerolls inconsistency is no longer even applicable as HoC book doesn't really officially exist.

The nettlings one is unfortunate as is the steam tank VP one, but I'm sure I'll live through it. The steam tank spiking issue is something that would never have come about without the internet. Nobody in their right mind should consider actually suggesting it's valid. (For dark elves - take a few wounds off with your bolt throwers then ignore it for the rest of the game? Surely druchii.net have some articles about beating it?)

enyoss
27-04-2008, 12:00
I have to admit that I am a little bit worried by some of the responses. For example, I'm not too keen on the "it's perfectly clear, even it isn't the intention" which crops up in the Wood Elf FAQ. Why abide by a semantic error in the original version of the book when the item or rule was balanced, designed and play-tested to work in a different way?

Still, I am grateful for the vast majority of the contributions, particularly on the "re-roll successful/failed dice rolls" debate. Oh, and it's nice to have some kind of idea how the Stone of Rebirth is supposed to work as well :).

Cheers,

enyoss

Avian
27-04-2008, 14:26
I have to admit that I am a little bit worried by some of the responses. For example, I'm not too keen on the "it's perfectly clear, even it isn't the intention" which crops up in the Wood Elf FAQ. Why abide by a semantic error in the original version of the book when the item or rule was balanced, designed and play-tested to work in a different way?
Yeah, especially since other questions are answered with: "Yeah, we know that's not actually what the rule says, but we feel it should be played this way."

If you are willing to answer like that some times, why all these answers that make no kind of sense?

Rioghan Murchadha
27-04-2008, 14:34
Arrghh ... confusion has set in. Is a tank not just a big chariot in that th crew can't be killed and you have to take all the wounds or are we saying that chariots die in this way too.

I would never dream of trying to pull this on any opponent be it a friendly game or GT final game table one.

Are people seriously thinking this is what the rule is or are we all just taking the pi*s because we are not impressed by this FAQ.

If I had to pull this then I would feel like such a ****, what would be the point of playing.


EDIT - I think I now see the problem .... it should give half VP's but it should not be wiped out like a cannon. (Can we get a FAQ for these FAQs :))

I don't play empire myself, and my only empire opponent doesn't run a Stank typically, so it's not a problem that would ever arise, nor is it something I'd actually use. However, it IS what should happen by RAW as put forth by GW. They are the ones that are so adamant about insisting that it's a warmachine in every way except those mentioned. None of the exceptions mentioned involves crew or spiking meaning those rules are technically applicable.

The FAQ says: Q: Does the enemy earn half the VP for the steam tank by reducing it to 5 wounds or less?

A: No. The steam tank is classified as a war machine. The victory points rules clearly state that war machines never surrender half victory points.

As we've already determined that the engineer clearly doesn't fit the definition of war machine crew, the victory point rules also clearly state that an uncrewed war machine yields full vp at the end of the game, and the War Machine rules state that at the end of a round of CC, if a machine has no crew, it is spiked.

See the problem?

Talonz
27-04-2008, 17:31
As for errant vs daemonslayer banner - the empire knights don't cause fear until they've plucked up the courage to actually start charging whereas the errant knight's impetuousness makes them more eager to charge any enemy.

Only due to some unfortunate wording on the deamonslayer banner. Don't you find it odd that this leads to it being useless against fear causing enemies, and daemons in particular??

They had a perfectly good opportunity to just say "The item should read 'the unit causes fear when it charges'" and fixed the wording, rather than wallpaper it.

They already issue erratta, why is the bar so low for some things to not meet the need for it and others do??

EvC
27-04-2008, 18:59
It would have been superior to put such matters in an overall FAQ, e.g:
"Can a character that comes with a bound spell also take a bound magic item?"
"If a unit is said to be immune to fear on the charge, does it still need to take a fear test to declare a charge?"
"Do magic bows provide magical attacks?"

At the moment it looks like different people did the different FAQs, so it's really no better than calling up a mail order troll to settle a rules dispute. Except now of course, it's "official". If another amy gets a magic item making their troops immune to fear on the charge though, which interpretation do we use? Roll a dice, 1-3 Empire, 4-6 Brets? ;)

kylek2235
27-04-2008, 19:12
Possibly my favorite ruling was the Teclis one. The problem arises when it sets a precedence for other Special Characters. Khalida does get normal Tomb King Incantations with that interpretation and Thorgrim counts a Pureblood as well, because we should assume that one is a Tomb King and the other is a Dwarf Lord.

I hate assuming. Because the stores I deal with are tired of this FAQ mess, I now have to create my own set for all of the tournaments I run. Yes, I love more work.

Silas, I hate to say this because I've heard a lot of good things about Direwolf, but the AP pulled out of the BCS rankings because of all of the stupid perpetuated in their name. I might ask the GW webmasters to remove your groups name and let this mess fall rightly on GW's shoulders.

kylek2235
27-04-2008, 19:15
Oh, my friend has come up with an interesting solution to the Stank problem. When traveling to tournaments, he plans on asking his opponent prior to the game whether the Stank gives half points or not. His opponent says no, it gets spiked. He says yes, no spike

silashand
27-04-2008, 19:21
Silas, I hate to say this because I've heard a lot of good things about Direwolf, but the AP pulled out of the BCS rankings because of all of the stupid perpetuated in their name. I might ask the GW webmasters to remove your groups name and let this mess fall rightly on GW's shoulders.

I will ask the rest of the Council if they think it's a good idea. In reality it has its good points and bad and I'm not sure which is more important in this case. Thanks for the suggestion though.

I am unfamiliar with who AP are? At least the acronymn anyway. I may just not recognize it.

Cheers, Gary

PS. Thanks to everyone else here who expressed appreciation for the part we actually did play. Direwolf may not have actually written the FAQs, but I personally like to think we were able to help get GW off their collective rear ends and answer the questions in the first place. I may not like all of what they ruled, but I do like the fact that I now have answers. After literally years of waiting on GW to do *anything*, at this time that is enough for me.

kylek2235
27-04-2008, 19:54
The Associated Press poll. For a season or two, the BCS (Bowl Championship series) used the unofficial AP poll as a major part of their ridiculous ranking formula (up to that point it had only been a small part). The AP started taking heat for not having teams ranked higher in their unofficial poll of sportswriters and they didn't like it, so they sued the BCS to get them to stop using their poll altogether. This was after the USC/LSU co-champion fiasco.

Sorry, it's NFL Draft weekend so I've been using football analogies all week

Talonz
27-04-2008, 23:37
Oh, my friend has come up with an interesting solution to the Stank problem. When traveling to tournaments, he plans on asking his opponent prior to the game whether the Stank gives half points or not. His opponent says no, it gets spiked. He says yes, no spike

He had better be prepared to be spiked himself.

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 00:29
He mine as well just ebay those Steam Tanks... He might get a buck or two out of those paper weights.

IronBrother
28-04-2008, 04:59
This may seem stupid, but what is spiking? It isn't that good anyway. I liked the tank a lot more when it could be "Sigmar's Hammer". Those were the days, now you have to have stupid guns on it.

cttran77
28-04-2008, 09:30
i love FAQ's now. now caradryan is str 5 due to him wielding a halberd. dragon armour is now even better. immunity to flamming cannon balls and even flamming magical blades. awesome.

Is that how we're suppose to interpret the word "halberd" at the beginning of the Phoenix Blade's description?

All that says to me is that the Phoenix Blade is a magical halberd, but the basic rule book says "Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon." It would have been much clearer if they had just said it grants +1 Strength. (E.g., maybe they just specified it's a halberd in case it gets disenchanted.)

What an awful rule that magic weapons don't, in general, have the properties of their mundane counterparts.

The Clairvoyant
28-04-2008, 11:31
Nope but logic means nack all in the face of an official FAQ. EDIT - In official games (Club or Home ... just change the rules)

That said until it is up on the UK/ US site we can't get too annoyed by it ... If it is official then it will be up in the next week or so.



You'll be pleased to note its on the UK site now

OK, everyone get annoyed. Ready...Steady....Go!!!

Gazak Blacktoof
28-04-2008, 11:53
Is that how we're suppose to interpret the word "halberd" at the beginning of the Phoenix Blade's description?


Yes.

Not much else to say really.

Lardidar
28-04-2008, 13:02
Heh I'm happy that they are up on UK site ... may stop the Canadian bashing. (UK web team don't do weekends, thats why it has taken till Monday)

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 14:10
This may seem stupid, but what is spiking? It isn't that good anyway. I liked the tank a lot more when it could be "Sigmar's Hammer". Those were the days, now you have to have stupid guns on it.

After combat with a war machine, if the war machine has no crew, the player attacking the war machine can just remove it form the table for free.

So, a single model can charge a steam tank on the side ( lets say with no steam points ) and then just remove it from the game for free at the end of combat.

It is a slang term, spiking. I think of it as grabbing the steam tank, and like a football, spiking it on the floor.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
28-04-2008, 15:36
the term spiking in relation to cannons ect has been around for centuries

it looks like the new faqs will be upsetting a lot of people and will make the stank a bad investment

IronBrother
28-04-2008, 15:48
Thanks for the clarification, I have been playing a long time and I guess we don't use that term here (until now). Honestly I think that is stupid; it has crew, you just can't attack them, just like a chariot. Rest assured, intellectawe, I will NEVER do that to an opponent.

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 16:04
Thanks for the clarification, I have been playing a long time and I guess we don't use that term here (until now). Honestly I think that is stupid; it has crew, you just can't attack them, just like a chariot. Rest assured, intellectawe, I will NEVER do that to an opponent.

Well, no it doesn't have a crew. You know what is does have? GW's horrid rules interpretation and their lack of common sense to put "This engineer is a crew, even though it is attached to the Tank"

And you are right, you have a choice to not spike it. But if you ever play empire, and buy a tank, get ready to have it spiked.

Mercules
28-04-2008, 16:18
The term "Spiking" comes from the act of spiking captured cannons or cannons that might fall into the hands of your foes. You drive a spike deep into the powder hole of the cannon. You then can not fire it until the spike is removed. With much time and effort you can work the spike out without damaging the cannon too much, but it is out of the battle until you can.

I think they may have also driven spikes into the cannon barrels in a hidden manner so that the sabotaged gun would misfire and blow up due to the weakened state but I am not positive about this use of the word.

EvC
28-04-2008, 17:19
The spiking rules clearly say that the warmachine must have in some way lost its crew. A Steam Tank, if you reckon it doesn't have any crew to begin with, cannot possibly have lost them, therefore it cannot be spiked. If an argument is based on semantics, then at least get them right- the Steam Tank cannot be spiked. But don't let reason get in the way of martyring yourselves fellas :)

The SkaerKrow
28-04-2008, 18:18
The Steam Tank did lose its crew! Somewhere in games development hell :p.

silashand
28-04-2008, 18:25
The spiking rules clearly say that the warmachine must have in some way lost its crew. A Steam Tank, if you reckon it doesn't have any crew to begin with, cannot possibly have lost them, therefore it cannot be spiked. If an argument is based on semantics, then at least get them right- the Steam Tank cannot be spiked. But don't let reason get in the way of martyring yourselves fellas :)

Agreed. The specific rule is:

If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat, or are wiped out) the enemy automatically destroys the machine. (BRB, page 86)

Since:

1. There were no crew to flee from the charge in the first place

2. None of them broke from combat

3. They certainly weren't wiped out

The Steam Tank cannot be automatically destroyed by "spiking." The criteria in the rulebook for doing so is not used in an example sense, i.e. it doesn't use the 'for example' or 'e.g.' prefix to the list of qualifiers, therefore the list of situations in which it can apply are absolute. The Steam Tank fits none of the specified examples in the BRB so they cannot apply in this situation.

Sorry to those who got their hopes up over this one, but even according to RAW (which you are plainly spouting), your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.


The Steam Tank did lose its crew! Somewhere in games development hell :p.

Nah, they just fell into the Stank's boiler... ;)

Cheers, Gary

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 18:26
The spiking rules clearly say that the warmachine must have in some way lost its crew. A Steam Tank, if you reckon it doesn't have any crew to begin with, cannot possibly have lost them, therefore it cannot be spiked. If an argument is based on semantics, then at least get them right- the Steam Tank cannot be spiked. But don't let reason get in the way of martyring yourselves fellas :)

Conditions are not set within parenthesis, examples are, sorry. It is this way throughout the book. You are wishfully thinking ways to pardon GW for their idiocy. I would say eBay those tanks, but no one would want to buy them now.

Alright Sillyhands, then you are telling me that you can leave a warmachine to crew another, but since this isn't one of the 'conditions' the warmachine is immune to being destroyed. How cute!

silashand
28-04-2008, 18:29
Conditions are not set within parenthesis, examples are, sorry. It is this way throughout the book. You are wishfully thinking ways to pardon GW for their idiocy. I would say eBay those tanks, but no one would want to buy them now.

Incorrect. Examples are spelled out with the prefixes "for example" or "e.g." as per common English convention. Parentheses are used for clarification. Sorry, the argument stands. You cannot according to RAW "spike" the Tank.

EDIT: according to RAW, your second post would indeed be more supportable than trying to spike the Stank. That's what you get for trying to use RAW to justify an argument you know is silly in the first place.

Note: name-calling does not make your argument more effective. Just thought I would point that out.

Cheers, Gary

Malorian
28-04-2008, 18:37
Can we really just drop the whole spike the stank thing... it's getting REALLY old...

It is completely useless as I can't see anyone actually spiking a stank in an actual game and expect to ever play that opponent again.

Soooo, how about them FAQs...

Akuma
28-04-2008, 18:37
@silashand

Thanks for the Faq - I think you did a good job - to tell the trouth thera are always be some rude , simple people who dont apriciate others work but fail to came up with something of their own - thay can only moan about how everything is broken and so on ... very sad bitter people without any kind of honour and dignyty ... yet you respond to theyr post - and that shows class :)

@intellectawe

Man get a life - Wfb is clearly not for you ... You are making BIG fool out of yourself here and your agressive attitude is not by any means adequat to the problem - the whole spike the steam tank thing has already been coverd in diffrent thread - long time ago ... Thank Silashnad for the FAQ and get on with your life ... you wouldnt do anywhere near as good as he ...

Gazak Blacktoof
28-04-2008, 18:44
Agreed. The specific rule is:

If the machine has no crew left to defend it at the end of a combat (because the crew fled from the charge, have broken from combat, or are wiped out) the enemy automatically destroys the machine. (BRB, page 86)

Since:

1. There were no crew to flee from the charge in the first place

2. None of them broke from combat

3. They certainly weren't wiped out

The Steam Tank cannot be automatically destroyed by "spiking." ...



Cheers, Gary

Now I wouldn't come down on the spiking is okay side of the debate, however if the clause is complete it leads to more awkward situations

Example:

By your definition a canon cannot be spiked if the crew fled in terror from my wyvern and the gun is then subsequently charged by my wolf riders.

Seems a slightly odd position to take (but seems to be the one you're endorsing to manoeuvre around the intellectawe's rules lawyering).


I'd assume that the wording in parenthesis is not an exhaustive list. I'd also assume that you get half VPs for steam tanks...


Silashand, I think you'd be better off distancing yourself from the particulars of the FAQ* instead of trying to justify the answers, you're just digging a big hole at this point.


*EDIT: Especially when some answers are contradictory to prior and current FAQs or even FAQs in the same batch.

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 18:50
Page 86 itself is FULL of parentheses statements which, according to mister hands himself, is there for clarification. You can remove the parentheses and the rule will still hold its full, original intent. Go to any random rule with parentheses in the book, they all seem to me like examples/suggestions, etc...

Fact is, there is no 'rule' stating that comments in parentheses are requirements. They are clarifications.

Plus, the FAQ and the Stank itself breaks the first rule of being a warmachine in the first place, separate crew. Page 84, under MODELS, first sentence. A warmachine MUST have a crew, and crew is defined in the very next sentence. A steam tank does not meat this requirement for being a war machine in the first place.

So its going to be either a steam tank isn't a warmachine, therefore not being able to be spiked NOR denying victory points for it only being wounded, or it IS a warmachine and it can be spiked and it does deny all points unless it is destroyed.

Basically, if steam tank users are going to cry for no victory points unless the tank is fully dead, they are going to cry when their tanks get spiked.

Ergo, Either the main rule book is wrong, or the steam tank is wrong. I get it, People who make rules within GW seem to be getting everything wrong. Proof is right in the FAQs themselves. And I am not the only poster not falling for this crap either.

W0lf
28-04-2008, 18:58
Wicked. community cried out for it and you have to say... they delivered (albeit a bit late).

Congrats.

(now wait for everyone to moan and argue)

Kaihlik
28-04-2008, 19:01
That thing should never have been defined as a warmachine. Simply being a monster with a bunch of special rules like immune to poison would have been much better for the purposes of being clear.

Silashand I have to say that you should always be able to remove parenthisis from a rule and it still make perfect sense. They are there for clarification not as a complete list.

TBH I would leave this discussion to a different thread before this one is shut down for being off topic.

silashand
28-04-2008, 19:04
By your definition a canon cannot be spiked if the crew fled in terror from my wyvern and the gun is then subsequently charged by my wolf riders.

I was only using that to illustrate that using RAW (as in the spiking example) does not support his position. I am not saying to use RAW at all, I was just illustrating that it's just as possible to support a ridiculous interpretation that goes the other way.


I'd assume that the wording in parenthesis is not an exhaustive list. I'd also assume that you get half VPs for steam tanks...

As would I in both cases. As I said, mine was not a serious argument.


Silashand, I think you'd be better off distancing yourself from the particulars of the FAQ* instead of trying to justify the answers, you're just digging a big hole at this point.

Why would I be "digging a hole?" I'm not trying to justify the FAQ at all. I happen to think the Steam Tank VP answer was wrong personally. However, if someone wants to try justify a stupid interpretation like spiking the steam tank, then it's just as possible to justify another stupid interpretation that says you can't. This same argument was just as possible before the FAQ and realistically, all this spiking nonsense is just a way to angrily say to GW and anyone else, "See what you've done, GW? See what you made me do in response to your stupid answer?" Sorry, but almost all of the posts about wanting to spike your opponent's Stank all sound just like that.

By the way, the actual Steam Tank entry in the Empire book does not have a crew statement in its rules. It has the engineer entry, but it also does not say he is *not* crew either. It can be read either way, depending on your point of view. It also says in the rules for engineers that they can count as crew for any machine they join. Since the Steam Tank's engineer commander is permanently "joined" to the Stank, I would think he could count as crew if he so chose to do so. JMO though...

In any event I'm really not interested in this argument because it is so downright idiotic. Anyone tried to do that in an event I have attended would get laughed out of the room. People can get all uppity here if they like, but in the real world I think a little more common sense would be in order. If you're going to be that much of a jerk in real life, be my guest. I certainly wouldn't want to play someone like that. JMO though and if people are serious about this discussion, by all means take it as far as you like. I just don't see it actually happening in practice really.


Silashand I have to say that you should always be able to remove parenthisis from a rule and it still make perfect sense. They are there for clarification not as a complete list.

Oh, I agree completely. I was just using the RAW mentality to show how one can arrive at unintended and/or inappropriate conclusions. From a RAW perspective, as I stated that is the standard English convention for both examples and clarification. However, we all know GW can't write in English to save their lives anyway so the point is moot really ;).

Cheers, Gary

Mercules
28-04-2008, 19:43
You don't have to Spike the stupid tank(or beat the dead horse). If it lacks a crew at the end of the game it gives full VPs no matter what. So basically it always gives full VP even if it is has 10 wounds left.

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 20:25
You don't have to Spike the stupid tank(or beat the dead horse). If it lacks a crew at the end of the game it gives full VPs no matter what. So basically it always gives full VP even if it is has 10 wounds left.

I agree, but...

I can either spike it turn 2 or let it blow me apart for 6 turns....

ZeroTwentythree
28-04-2008, 20:33
By the way, the actual Steam Tank entry in the Empire book does not have a crew statement in its rules. It has the engineer entry, but it also does not say he is *not* crew either. It can be read either way, depending on your point of view.


Although the problem is that this would be an assumption not explicitly stated. If the new FAQs have created any precedent, it's that the rules must be taken exactly and only as written. (Well, except for the all important game wrecking +1 dispel die for Teclis issue which was seemingly the only one worth defying RAW :rolleyes: )



You don't have to Spike the stupid tank(or beat the dead horse). If it lacks a crew at the end of the game it gives full VPs no matter what. So basically it always gives full VP even if it is has 10 wounds left.

Nice. Avoids the topic of the parenthetical statement causing a furor above.



I agree, but...

I can either spike it turn 2 or let it blow me apart for 6 turns....

Tarpit it, then collect VP at the end. Better than any of the alternatives.

Lord Dan
28-04-2008, 20:38
I can't believe this argument is going on in two threads where it's not the topic. It's not even as though the argument makes sense. No tournaments allow it, and I doubt any friendly game with an Empire player would even be played with those rules in effect.

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 20:52
In any event I'm really not interested in this argument because it is so downright idiotic. Anyone tried to do that in an event I have attended would get laughed out of the room. People can get all uppity here if they like, but in the real world I think a little more common sense would be in order. If you're going to be that much of a jerk in real life, be my guest. I certainly wouldn't want to play someone like that. JMO though and if people are serious about this discussion, by all means take it as far as you like. I just don't see it actually happening in practice really.




If my opponent in a tournament told me I would receive half points for doing 5 wounds to it, then I would have no problem with it.

If, however, my opponent decided that I needed to kill it to receive any points for it, then I would be pulling one of the stunts in this thread (either spiking it, or collecting full points for it having no crew at the end of the game) in order to receive the points.

I have no problem with common sense, but if my opponent wants to pull out an idiotic statement, then I will as well.

Lord Dan
28-04-2008, 21:01
I have no problem with common sense, but if my opponent wants to pull out an idiotic statement, then I will as well.

Please tell me someone else sees the futility in this argument.

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 21:03
Please tell me someone else sees the futility in this argument.

Haha... Funny guy. Sad.

Malorian
28-04-2008, 21:08
Soooo...

Those WE unicorns on a large monster base...

Didn't see that coming...

*Trying to steer the run away train back on track...*

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 21:15
Please tell me someone else sees the futility in this argument.

Alright, I've had a few minutes to think rationally now. Sorry if my last post was argumentative, but yours was as well.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my statement in a non-contradictory manner, but I firmly believe that the point behind it is understandable.

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 21:18
I can't believe this argument is going on in two threads where it's not the topic.

The topic is discussing the FAQs. The FAQs are abominations that take the main rule book and various army books, and throw them in the garbage. We are merely stating the conclusions of said FAQs.


It's not even as though the argument makes sense.

Then you don't understand what we are talking about then.


No tournaments allow it

Allow what? Rules? Of course they do!

,
and I doubt any friendly game with an Empire player would even be played with those rules in effect.

AH! Which is the whole point of our discussion!

If an Empire players wants to claim his Stank as a warmachine in respect to denying victory points, then his opponent should point out that includes auto destroying the tank in close combat for said full points trying to be denied.

The Empire FAQ basically made it official for Empire players to get the 'best' out of warmachines... but in return, if they choose to do so, they will also suffer the 'worst' of warmachines as well.

Lord Dan
28-04-2008, 21:23
So basically you're advocating childish retaliations using rules that are, at best, flimsy and based pirmarily on opinion, if you can't beat your opponent?

I think it's wrong that I put in resources to reduce a Steam Tank's wounds and don't get credit if I don't destroy it. But I'm not going to become the person I detest simply to win the game.

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 21:27
So basically you're advocating childish retaliations using rules that are, at best, flimsy and based pirmarily on opinion, if you can't beat your opponent?

I think it's wrong that I put in resources to reduce a Steam Tank's wounds and don't get credit if I don't destroy it. But I'm not going to become the person I detest simply to win the game.

All I want from my opponent is a fair game. Either way he wants to handle things is fine and fair.

Malorian
28-04-2008, 21:30
Well the FAQ says you don't get half points, and you can bet the tournament organizers won't let you spike or claim full VPs at the end of the game due to no crew.

Time to move on...

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 21:34
Well the FAQ says you don't get half points, and you can bet the tournament organizers won't let you spike or claim full VPs at the end of the game due to no crew.

Time to move on...

I need to start an Empire army then.

ZeroTwentythree
28-04-2008, 21:36
I think the rather long-winded statement that is trying to be made is that the FAQ is the place GW could have cleared up the 1/2 VP issue (which is how everyone I know had been playing it), but instead has stuck with the Rules as Written and give us a ridiculous situation.

The way in which intellectawe (and others) is doing this is by pointing out that if GW is going to stick to the RAW is immovable stance, then it can produce other equally stupid results to impact gameplay.

Malorian
28-04-2008, 21:37
I need to start an Empire army then.

Go right ahead.

Did I mention I have never lost against an army with a stank?

Or that just a few days ago I even killed one for the first time?

ZeroTwentythree: That's all well in good but it doesn't matter. Before the half VPs was debatable and it depended on who was running the tournament. Now it's cleared up. But never before, or ever in the future, will tournament organizers allow you to spike a stank or claim full VCs due to no crew.

pcgamer72
28-04-2008, 21:37
Go right ahead.

Did I mention I have never lost against an army with a stank?

Or that just a few days ago I even killed one for the first time?

Can I have your autograph?

ZeroTwentythree
28-04-2008, 21:57
ZeroTwentythree: That's all well in good but it doesn't matter. Before the half VPs was debatable and it depended on who was running the tournament. Now it's cleared up. But never before, or ever in the future, will tournament organizers allow you to spike a stank or claim full VCs due to no crew.



Part of my point is that I'm not sure how many people are seriously insisting on this. I'm playing along (out of spite) mostly because I feel robbed by the FAQ on this (and other points) as far as they could have injected a bit of common sense and balance in a few spots, but instead opted to make some really stupid (IMHO) choices in the FAQ.

Mind you, I've got an Empire army in production, so it affects me from both sides. But I'm disappointed by the multi-stank + dragon/altar armies and where it's taking the game, and feel they really blew it on this decision. I think what has suffered is the good-natured fun side of the game, in favor of strict RAW. Seriously, how hard would it have been to say, "in addition to the 2,342 other war machine rules the steam tank breaks, half victory points are awarded...blah blah blah... in spite of being a war machine." From what I've seen, that's what a whole lot of people were doing anyway.

Like I said, it's not just the STank issue, but after reading these FAQs I'm left thinking, "this is what I've waited for?"

intellectawe
28-04-2008, 22:06
Like I said, it's not just the STank issue, but after reading these FAQs I'm left thinking, "this is what I've waited for?"

Precisely. You nailed this entire issue right on the head.


The way in which intellectawe (and others) is doing this is by pointing out that if GW is going to stick to the RAW is immovable stance, then it can produce other equally stupid results to impact gameplay.

You sir, are a giant among gnats!

If GW and some of its players want to play by 100% strict RAW (which in turns throws the golden rule right out of the window, but players don't seem to notice this) then they need to play by RAW when it is disadvantageous for them as well.

For the 8946th time, you want full victory points by RAW? You also getting spiked by RAW. Simple.

And this wild notion that tournaments won't allow you to spike, bad news for you, I did just that during the first round of 'Ard Boyz. In a tournament where sportsmanship is thrown out the window and winning means everything? Thats right up Spike Alley!

Albrecht Hexenjaeger
28-04-2008, 22:48
Maybe because I've been playing GW games for over 20 years, and my regular opponents have all been playing about as long, but the FAQs made perfect sense to us, and in fact we'd been playing most of the Empire ones that way anyway. GW wording, though vague at times, if often comprehended by simply remaining calm. :angel:

silashand
28-04-2008, 23:36
So basically you're advocating childish retaliations using rules that are, at best, flimsy and based pirmarily on opinion, if you can't beat your opponent?

I think it's wrong that I put in resources to reduce a Steam Tank's wounds and don't get credit if I don't destroy it. But I'm not going to become the person I detest simply to win the game.

This is exactly how I see this "discussion" (if it can be called that anymore). Basically it sounds like "if I can't beat you using the actual rules, then I'll try to bend them so that they make no sense in order to do so. I hate the Steam Tank and/or GW so much that I will stoop to ridiculous levels to prove my point and anyone who disagrees with me deserves to be treated this way."

And here I thought this game we all play was supposed to be about, you know, fun? I guess some people can't have fun unless they get their own way. :rolleyes:

Cheers, Gary

Wordman
29-04-2008, 02:03
Man, the testiness level is rising.

We got an FAQ, for those who don't like it, you and your buddies play however you want. If you play outside your group, others will be expecting you to play by the latest rules--if you don't want to, return to your regular gaming table and play your buddies.

The STank question was answered--no VP until destroyed. Good luck trying to get someone to let you spike a STank.



Well I play Dark Elves so what do you think. The Steam Tank still causes Terror at unit str 10 and if it charges still beasts almost any unit. It is just no longer a point and click unit. If you want to give me a reliable way of killing a steam tank with my Dark Elves that doesn't involve spiking then I will do it. Cant think of one, didn't think so.


While whining isn't usually effective, you might try bolt throwers--I run Dark Elves too and trust me, bolt throwers tear up STanks. You're hitting the STank on 2s at half range because it's a large target (3s at long range) and wounding it on 4s causing D3 wounds with no armor save. 4 bolt throwers means one very nervous Empire player. The minute a STank takes a wound, it's usefulness starts to seriously degrade because if he wants to do anything useful, he needs to put a lot of steam points in it and the greater the likelihood it's gonna blow and take another wound and do nothing that turn. If he takes even only 1 wound and he wants to use 5 points, he's going to fail his boiler check on a roll of a 5 or 6. Hell, use repeating crossbows in conjunction with the bolt throwers--they wound it on 6s and if you shower him with enough, he'll fail a save and like I said, every wound makes it suck that much more.

If you don't like using bolt throwers in your army--well, that's your choice.

One of my other armies is Empire and I rarely use a STank because it's been routinely destroyed or rendered almost useless by wounds and unable to function as a combat piece. Some armies will have a harder time against it, but every army has something it has a hard time handling. Learn to deal with it as best as possible.

AzureDruchii
29-04-2008, 02:15
Ohhh So I missed the part of the warhammer rules where to make a semi-even playing field against a list that shouldn't have even been allowed into the rules I have to drop down to the same level to have a chance to beat them? Did I mention that on top of that you have 3 cannons gunning down my Bolt throwers and a War Altar? Oh ya, and your lvl 2 is spamming rerolling damage magic missiles at my feeble cavalry. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm nearly saying its extremely lame.

Also, at long range 4 bolt throwers over a game will score 16 hits, 8 wounds at d3 wounds will cause 12 wounds all together . Against 2 stanks thats not enough to get the VP for either (unless you focus fire for 6 turns but that would just be silly and counter-productive due to the other stank ripping your army apart) AND thats without the cannon balls taking out my bolters.

Basically, your double stanks are 600 points I'm not going to be able to claim combined with the fact that they can contest table quarters AND the waraltar = about 1100 VP that many many opponents will never see. Theres a reason every GT army has 2 of em... massive points denial and huge potential for damage.

Teran
29-04-2008, 04:08
how shocking, the UK website hasnt been updated yet.... On the brightside atleast we have new faq's!

Honestly I think they rotate around who gets to do the updates first. That has been the case with other international companies.

Talonz
29-04-2008, 05:37
Plus, the FAQ and the Stank itself breaks the first rule of being a warmachine in the first place, separate crew.

Correct. As the stank rules state, "Except where noted otherwise, the steam tank is a warmachine in all respects".

Clearly, the crew of the stank are not modeled, not subject to attack, cannot flee or voluntarily move away from the stank, and are not represented on the profile as a result but for the commanders BS for shooting attacks.

How is this not painfully obvious to you? How can one person spend so much energy and bile on a horribly flawed and ridiculous argument? All because you disagree with the faqs?

You are wasting your time.

Wadders
29-04-2008, 06:34
I have read through this thread and of course have read through all the errata's and have to say i am appalled at the mistakes/inconsistency of the documents provided.

Its going to cause more problems in competitive play than ever before - How many players are going to use the Moonstone "clause" to use other items out of their own phase?

So unless an Item/rule etc has the magic word "YOUR" movement/magic/shooting/combat phase - then it can be used in anyones. I would be interested in how many other items are vaguely written like this.

Magic Bows are not magic weapons? Either though they are listed under the "Magic Weapons section"?

I am shocked and appalled that a third party was used (and not the developers) to write these - and to use Alessio "what the hell is balance?" Calvatore as well! - Beggars Believe.

Looks like the circuit will get very silly.

Huw_Dawson
29-04-2008, 07:08
Big fat Meh. There are nastier armies out there that DON'T use Steam Tanks, like Snarsnik Gobbo hordes, well played Thorek Gunlines, Morgoth Spawn Spam, Brettonian RAF...

What we appear to be bitching about is that Steam Tanks - who once you get down to half wounds are useless - are the current "ZOMG BROKKENNN" unit, following on from several hundred choices for this award before that everyone suddenly forgets about.

If he wants to play with the most powerful list the Empire can make, good on him. With skill and a decent list, any army can beat Steam Tanks - you just have to bite your tounge and out cheese him.

"Lord Mantagett! The human scum have taken many 2 massive metal machines and a chariot!"
"ZOMG! BROKENNN!!!"

- Huw

forthegloryofkazadekrund
29-04-2008, 08:29
erm, in relation to the he magic items, the halberd, dont the rules say that if a weapon is magical all normal rules for that weapon dont apply any more (eg striking last, +1 st ect), why has it been classified that it is a halberd, it clearly is but cant benefit from being so and has to use the magical ability of the weapon

Bloodknight
29-04-2008, 08:46
Because at that moment the rules for that weapon apply again, they are then part of the magic item's rules.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-04-2008, 08:56
erm, in relation to the 2 he magic items, the halberd and the spear, dont the rules say that if a weapon is magical all normal rules for that weapon dont apply any more (eg striking last, +1 st ect), why has it been classified that they are a halberd and a spear

The rule in the book is to prevent weapons that are called spears, etc without the rule "spear" in their rules gaining the +1 strength for being mounted, etc.**

I think the rule is actually a bit redundant now and just creates too much confusion (at least there are several questions each week about it on this board). They could have at least put an example in the rule book.


** EDIT: Though this now means if they don't put it in the weapon's rules they have to FAQ it.

Darth Rubi
29-04-2008, 09:12
Actually I do have a choice, sorry to break it to you.



Of course, you can do what you want within your own group, or pickup games where your opponent agrees with you, hell you can switch to d20 if you really feel like it. But outside of that, you'll have to follow the rules




And if you think for one second these little Direwolf influenced FAQS GW pooped out their **** are going to hold water, maybe you should read some of the other posts in this thread besides mine. Posts here are proof that not all gamers are idiots and they could think for themselves.

I don't know ANY Empire player who will stand by the decision that their tank can be auto destroyed. Official or not.

If anyone attempts to use a empire casket on my TK King/Prince, I simply say no, tournament or not. A wrong Faq doesn't make it a right one.



I think it is you who are mistaken. The majority of people, and the posters on warseer are not the majority, will likely follow whatever is official. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the faqs existence, especially at a tournament, is not exactly a realistic approach. The last quoted line is like me saying, "if my opponent gets first turn, i'll ignore it and go first anyway, tournament or not." You can do it, but you're probably not going much further in the tournament.

DISCLAIMER: Yes I do think many of the FAQ answers suck, not arguing against that

EvC
29-04-2008, 10:41
I don't understand the anger directed at not getting half VP for the steam tank. It is the only monster in the game that gets progressively worse when you damage it.

But that's exactly the same as any other unit out there. If I buy a unit of 10 Knights, and lose 6, the unit is pretty useless now. Does that mean the unit shouldn't give up half victory points either? Of course not. To be honest when most monsters are down to 1 wound, their owners aren't going to be doing much with them either, for fear of losing all their points.

Ixquic
29-04-2008, 14:41
It's not like we needed more proof that Alessio was a total ***** who has no place writing rules.

Now I'm scared. If it was at least consistent it would just be irritating, but you don't know if they are going to be rules nazis and interpret stuff as written like with the War Alter (no rules for unmanned chariots so they just zip around without drivers durr and the horses are unbreakable) and the Steam Tank or by logical fluff like with Caradryan's halberd or Teclis. I'm worried they are going to pull a "sorry the rules don't say you can't raise undead into combat specifically, even though it tells you what to do if for some reason it happens" ruling and screw over my army.

ZeroTwentythree
29-04-2008, 15:50
Big fat Meh. There are nastier armies out there that DON'T use Steam Tanks, like Snarsnik Gobbo hordes, well played Thorek Gunlines, Morgoth Spawn Spam, Brettonian RAF...


I disagree. First off, that's subjective. Second, saying "well A is broken, so we have to accept that B has every right to be broken as well" opens the floodgates.



If he wants to play with the most powerful list the Empire can make, good on him. With skill and a decent list, any army can beat Steam Tanks - you just have to bite your tounge and out cheese him.



But that's the point. Instead of diffusing this tendency, they've escalated it. Also, in order to "out cheese" the common multi-STank lists, you need to tailor your list specifically for that type of list.

Many generalized lists -- the sort many of us show up with at our local game store for a random game -- can't handle completely destroying 2 STanks. Someone else has already gone into the huge effect this has as far as points denial and land grabbing, so I won't repeat that. Personally, I can tarpit a STank, maybe even 2, all day long. But that's about as good as it gets.



I don't understand the anger directed at not getting half VP for the steam tank. It is the only monster in the game that gets progressively worse when you damage it. When you get it to half wounds it's already effectively out of the game.

OK, so you get it down to half points and it's "useless" except for claiming table quarters or objectives.

It's likely done some damage to your army, and you've probably devoted some considerable resources to doing that damage.

And you get no VP for your effort.

...compared to the loss of your resources and loss of casualties. You can't ignore it. The best many armies can do is try to minimize their losses. The way I see it, unless you are very confident you can completely destroy it, it's simply not worth trying.

Ixquic
29-04-2008, 15:57
One can only hope, one an only hope. :angel:

I know you're being facetious, but if they do make that ruling we can expect to see even more ridiculous '3 units of ghouls sitting in corners' armies since there's no way in hell I'm wasting points on core that crappy.

Avian
29-04-2008, 16:33
I don't understand the anger directed at not getting half VP for the steam tank. It is the only monster in the game that gets progressively worse when you damage it. When you get it to half wounds it's already effectively out of the game.
Right. So logically you should get full VPs for taking it to half Wounds, as you have effectively neutralised it. A Dragon reduced to half Wounds is still highly useable so it makes much less sense to get half VPs for that.
:D

EvC
29-04-2008, 16:57
So that unit of knights can no longer move, charge, or hunt warmachines? The knights are reduced in effectiveness, perhaps not exactly proportionally to the loss, but the steam tank is literally dead in the water. Done. Can't begin to move or shoot without a lucky roll. They are two entirely different cases. Same with the monsters. People may be reluctant to put a wounded monster in harm's way, but they can should an opportunity arise that would give them the game. My opponent can expose himself to a steam tank with near impunity when it gets down to 5 or less wounds.

The Steam Tank can still claim a table quarter and cause terror. That's still AT LEAST 100 victory points worth of value- something that no unit of 2 Knights can ever do. Different models, different situations. But that doesn't mean that a semantic oversight on the Steam Tank's rules should be given validity (though it has).

ZeroTwentythree
29-04-2008, 18:44
the fundamental weakness of the steam tank



Did you really type that phrase with a straight face? ;)


Yes, terror and controlling/disputing table quarters is situational. But so is everything else in the game. The thing is still having an affect on the game.

And that doesn't resolve the points denial issue, especially when you are talking about 2 of them in average sized (2000 pt) games. (And even more so when combined with other high point value & hard to kill troops, like the dragon or popemobiles that frequently accompany the dual STanks.)

AzureDruchii
29-04-2008, 19:01
The inherent problem with Stanks is combined with the Waraltar and deploying them in opposite corners of the map its massive points denial combined with a lot of damage dealing.

600 in tanks
300 in AL
100 in General not dying
200 in table quarters being contested.

So, 1200 points, more than half of the base points of the army are not going to be taken and the only way to neutralize them are bringing specific anti STANK items that will not be contesting table quarters and most likely will either get destroyed or brought down to half points. Its just a bad bad bad idea to make them not give half VP when you consider A) Their points denial, B) Their damage potential and C) The fact that to stop them from ruining your army you are forced to bring 400-600 points worth of units that are going to be giving VP to your opponent when you get none.

End rant
-Rex

WillFightForFood
29-04-2008, 19:42
Hey, look, pretty much everything they changed in or added to the Empire book (aside from lowering point costs and new Warrior Priest rules) from 6th to 7th is really problematic. T3 Flagellants. Popemobile of doom. Much worse steam tank rules. Allowing two steam tanks per army. Karl Franz with a dragon that doesn't take a hero choice. New Hellblaster rules. No magic points allowance for Engineers.

I don't like the steam tank any more than you do. The rules are crap. The fundamental weakness is a reference to steam point generation as the place where it is vulnerable, not to it being "weak". The no-half VP is a tradeoff in the same style as animosity.

The FAQs are poorly done, but it clears up at least one minor issue.

Akuma
29-04-2008, 19:54
Guys vote in the pool I've posted ... I want to get statistic from itd thx ahead :)

Gazak Blacktoof
29-04-2008, 20:13
The no-half VP is a tradeoff in the same style as animosity.


You're assuming that's what they intended from the start with the steam tank and it wasn't just an answer pulled out of a hat / their arses, I wouldn't give them that much credit as far as these FAQs go.

EvC
29-04-2008, 20:42
Table quarters and terror are situational. Moreover, at half wounds the steam tank can't move to take a table quarter, so it's likely just going to sit there.

Everything is situational. Also I hate to point out the insultingly obvious, but a Steam Tank is always in one table quarter and so will always be claiming a quarter, getting in the way, scaring off anyone who looks at the metal monster...


The point I'm getting at is that any other unit that costs 300 points when reduced to half wounds is probably still effective. Dragons and treemen what, ~300 points. Even at half wounds (or one wound) they will dish out the pain. You may play them more conservatively, but you still can use them effectively to change the course of the game. The no half-vps is what balances the fundamental weakness of the steam tank out.

Again, your words betray you. 90% of all other units are very poor when reduced to half wounds. What you mean is, other single models that cost 300 points remain effective at half wounds. However, 90% of single models are DEAD when they have taken 5 wounds. THAT is where the Steam Tank has its weaknesses considered and balanced, by the very fact that it has 10 wounds, T6 and a 1+ armour save to begin with, more than anything else in the game. Not by the fact it doesn't give up half points- that was such a curveball that when the game designers were originally asked the question, they insulted the person asking it and said "of course it gives up half points, like a monster".

Incidentally I played one of the dastardly War Altar + Steam Tank armies tonight. Killed the Arch Lector with killing blow on turn 2, Steam Tank did 4 wounds to itself (My opponent fired the cannon, bwhahaha). Wraiths then spent the rest of the game trying to destroy it. That's a 225 point unit, that managed to do 4 wounds to it. That's the best choice to take it on in my army, and it couldn't even manage it after the Tank did itself in as well. Although we did stop on my turn 5 as it was clearly game over for the Empire. But if it had gone to the end, that was going to be 400 points denied to me, despite commiting my best, and one of my most expensive units to killing it. Silly rules? Yeesh!

monstallion
29-04-2008, 21:32
It all it says in the FAQ is that you treat the Stank as a warmachine. As it has no crew at the end of the battle you could argue that it gives up 300 vp's to the opponent;)

Personally most people I play with would tend to treat the Stank as a monster for vp's so giving up half if you wound it enough.

Don't really see that many Stanks where I normally game though have played against two in the same army, made a nice challange though wouldn't want it every day.

Kev

Gabacho Mk.II
29-04-2008, 21:41
In any case, my comment on the FAQs is that they clear up a few things well (Pit of Shades on the Steam Tank) but screw up so much more that I feel we were better off with the house rules we had.


I strongly believe that this is what the FAQ's have precisely done.

Am still shaking my head in disbelief at all of this 'clearing up' that GW has done in regards to their FAQ's.
:o

Pavic
29-04-2008, 22:15
Well, I have to say, reading this thread is rather entertaining. Oddly enough, my biggest gripe with the new FAQs are that magical bow shots are not magical. I guess magical bows shots being magical just doesn't matter that often in the course of a game, but it still seems to be the most blatant problem with all the new FAQs. Not that all of the other issues are not important, but this ruling just seems wrong in every way.

Ixquic
29-04-2008, 22:34
Well, I have to say, reading this thread is rather entertaining. Oddly enough, my biggest gripe with the new FAQs are that magical bow shots are not magical. I guess magical bows shots being magical just doesn't matter that often in the course of a game, but it still seems to be the most blatant problem with all the new FAQs. Not that all of the other issues are not important, but this ruling just seems wrong in every way.

As someone mentioned earlier are they going to go and decided that Dwarven runes on a cannon don't make the cannonballs magical unless it specifically says so when that faq comes out? It's a really stupid ruling.

ReveredChaplainDrake
29-04-2008, 23:02
This is the Synapse Creature eratta all over again, only multiplied by about 10-20 instances of rulings! (I still remember the first erattas on the issue faintly. Strength "exactly" double the target's toughness, pschhh...)

kylek2235
30-04-2008, 02:23
There are lots of silly rules in warhammer fantasy and whether we like them or not, they're still the rules. I think the Steam Tank can be spiked under the FAQ, but I don't agree that it should be. I don't think offering, prior to your game, to treat it as a monster (ie half points, no spike) is a threat and, to you Empire players, if your opponent is nice enough to discuss it with you prior to the game, I urge you to take them up on it. If you don't think there are plenty of tournaments with judges that will allow it to be spiked, think again. As I said earlier, I have to write a new FAQ for the tournaments I run to avoid the unpleasantness of this FAQ.


Other Observations about the FAQ:
The Aldred's Casket of Sorcery is also directly contradicted by the Tomb King FAQ which quiet emphatically lists the Tomb King/Prince as not a wizard ie he can't be targeted by the Casket.

A Simple "Yes" for the Teclis ruling would have been acceptable. Why put up a line of reasoning that has no basis other than common sense? Common sense tells me that Handguns trump knights every day of the week and twice on tuesdays, do they autokill bretonnians now? Common sense also tells me that midgets aren't incredibly powerful nor do they have a very long reach, should Ogres have a new "punt Dwarf" special rule?

If you were to have an autohit weapon and your opponent has an always hit on 6s item, then the only way to reconcile both would be to assume you rolled all 6s on your to hit roll. There's no contradiction there. This reminds me of the idiocy of GW's previous ruling on hatred vs. the armor of damnation. It took them a couple of tries to get that one right.

Also, can a Liche Priest take the Staff of Ravening under the new FAQ? If you read the Wood Elf one, no, the priest casts bound spells. If you read the Empire one, yes, the priest casts bound spells. It made my head hurt.

Why answer a question with "dice off?" I do that already if I have a problem, that's why we have FAQs.

Alright, everyone have a nice night!

alextroy
30-04-2008, 04:05
Also, can a Liche Priest take the Staff of Ravening under the new FAQ? If you read the Wood Elf one, no, the priest casts bound spells. If you read the Empire one, yes, the priest casts bound spells. It made my head hurt.

I can answer this one. Yes, the Liche Priest can take the Staff of Ravening and be consist with both the Empire and Wood Elf FAQs. Why?

Empire Priest have Prayers, that operate like Bound Spells, but are not Bound Spells. They therefore may take a Bound Spell item.

Treeman have a Bound Spell. They therefore may not take a Bound Spell item, I mean Sprite.

Liche Priest cast Incantations, that operate like Bound Spells, but are not Bound Spells. They may therefore take Bound Spell items.

Bob the Butcher
30-04-2008, 06:57
Killing Blow the Stanks with virtue of Heroism nice!!!!

The magical Bow shots not being magical is to prevent the bows peppering and killing Ethereals, etc...I guess.

Nkari
30-04-2008, 08:33
Killing Blow the Stanks with virtue of Heroism nice!!!!

The magical Bow shots not being magical is to prevent the bows peppering and killing Ethereals, etc...I guess.

Atleast it only affects the Wood elves, every other army is unaffected since it is in a FAQ concerning wood elves issues.. =)

Ixquic
30-04-2008, 09:54
Killing Blow the Stanks with virtue of Heroism nice!!!!

The magical Bow shots not being magical is to prevent the bows peppering and killing Ethereals, etc...I guess.

It's really not much of on issue. Other than the bow of loren, you're only going to be firing one strength 3 shot a turn from magical bows and all ethereal stuff has at least 2 wounds. Hail of Doom which is what ethereal is really afraid of was and still is magical so it doesn't really change much. It's just a stupid ruling that uses a logical thought process, i.e "well the bow is magical but the shots HITTING you aren't so you don't take magical damage" instead of rules as written, i.e "it's a magical weapon and thus magical attacks."

WillFightForFood
30-04-2008, 15:33
I think the Steam Tank can be spiked under the FAQ, but I don't agree that it should be. I don't think offering, prior to your game, to treat it as a monster (ie half points, no spike) is a threat and, to you Empire players, if your opponent is nice enough to discuss it with you prior to the game, I urge you to take them up on it. If you don't think there are plenty of tournaments with judges that will allow it to be spiked, think again.


Bad idea to try to force that. The FAQ makes it not give half VPs explicitly. The FAQ also states dice off when there's a rules disagreement. Some people have made a RAW argument against spiking. Therefore when you don't get your opponent to agree with something that specifically contravenes the rules, and try to spike the tank, the best you'll get is a dice off. The Most Important Rule and all.


Killing Blow the Stanks with virtue of Heroism nice!!!!

The magical Bow shots not being magical is to prevent the bows peppering and killing Ethereals, etc...I guess.

Don't forget Throt the Unclean, with his KB on everything.

The bows ruling really reduces their utility.


Atleast it only affects the Wood elves, every other army is unaffected since it is in a FAQ concerning wood elves issues.. =)

Still though, parallelism. It provides an argument for other types of magical shooting weapons not actually having magical projectiles. Of course this FAQ shows how much regard GW has for applying rules consistently.

Faustburg
30-04-2008, 16:06
Spiking of a steam tank was actually never an issue, even if only rhetorically claimed possible to counter the lack of half VP's, since spiking falls under close combat with war machines, and the Steam tank has it's own rules for that, so it never was something "unless otherwise stated"...

And the Bretonnian Killing blow skill? Did anyone really object to that, and if so on what grounds? The stank don't have any specific immunity to things of that nature, other than being bigger than US2, and the virtue do not specify it as going for "Monsters" or such.

The SkaerKrow
30-04-2008, 16:28
Unfortunately, the inconsistencies in these FAQs makes it impossible to extrapolate the potential rulings on other, identical issues in different army books. Ergo, if your army book has not been FAQed in this most recent release, don't try to answer your questions using the contents of these FAQs.

ElvenGravy
30-04-2008, 16:59
who are theses direwolf people anyway? and why do they influence gw so much? how can gw listen to them when they dont go by the main rulebook!?! (ie. great weapons and ASF). seems like they are making things up to befit their style of gameplay. having an answer to a question be "just refer to the most important rule" is just laughable.
however, in direwolf's defence. all this would not happen if GW would proofread their army books/ codex's and maybe have outside groups playtest their products. anyone ever notice how long an army book takes to come out and how fast the gaming community finds errors?

Direwolf=Grimma Wormtounge.

Malorian
30-04-2008, 17:28
Direwolf is just a group of gamers that talk about these problems and work out the best possible answer. Kind of a unofficial FAQ done by gamers for gamers.

In GWs defence, when they make an army book it's done more by the people that have a cool idea. More of a "Wouldn't this be fun?" "That would be cool!" attitude. They do play test, but as we all know from the battle reports in WD they aren't WAAC games, but more of a fun game. The actually writter also doesn't know the exact wording of every rule of every army. They just write it with best intent.

That's why when it comes to the rule-lawyers it's torn to shreds.

They mean well... they really do...

silashand
30-04-2008, 19:28
who are theses direwolf people anyway? and why do they influence gw so much? how can gw listen to them when they dont go by the main rulebook!?! (ie. great weapons and ASF). seems like they are making things up to befit their style of gameplay. having an answer to a question be "just refer to the most important rule" is just laughable.
however, in direwolf's defence. all this would not happen if GW would proofread their army books/ codex's and maybe have outside groups playtest their products. anyone ever notice how long an army book takes to come out and how fast the gaming community finds errors?

Direwolf=Grimma Wormtounge.

First, before commenting on something, please be certain you know what it is you are talking about in the first place.

1. The ASF answer is GW's, not Direwolf's. When we asked about it we were told it got asked too late to add to the Main Rules FAQ so it was added to the HE one to make sure it was actually answered in this round of updates. Direwolf did not write the question, nor did we write the answer. Regardless whether you like the answer or not, there is considerable evidence in the rulebook to support both interpretations. Alessio chose the one he did for his own reasons. IYAM I think he chose correctly simply because it fits within the 'who strikes first' process better than the other option of just using initiative. In any event, he has the authority to rule the way he wants it to work and he did.

2. If you do a Google search on Direwolf FAQ Council, you will find that the first link is to a description of the FAQs along with toward the bottom a link to the actual Direwolf discussion group on Yahoo! That is the group the Council is primarily affiliated with. Like most Yahoo! groups, it is open to anyone who wishes to join (though I believe approval is necessary to prevent spambots and the like).

3. If you read back through this thread you'll notice I posted earlier about who Direwolf is as well as the extent of our involvement.

As for "influencing GW so much," if you actually read the current Direwolf FAQs (though they are in the process of being updated to reflect the new official guidance now) you will see that in a number of cases GW ruled opposite the way we did. Alessio answered each question as he saw fit. Direwolf just happened to be the ones to provide the bulk (I am told roughly 95%) of all the questions to him in these FAQs.


As someone mentioned earlier are they going to go and decided that Dwarven runes on a cannon don't make the cannonballs magical unless it specifically says so when that faq comes out? It's a really stupid ruling.

Actually, that cannot happen. The current Dwarf book specifically states that war machines inscribed with engineering runes generate magical attacks.

Cheers, Gary

Rioghan Murchadha
01-05-2008, 03:51
Bad idea to try to force that. The FAQ makes it not give half VPs explicitly. The FAQ also states dice off when there's a rules disagreement. Some people have made a RAW argument against spiking. Therefore when you don't get your opponent to agree with something that specifically contravenes the rules, and try to spike the tank, the best you'll get is a dice off. The Most Important Rule and all.


While it's possible to argue RAW against spiking it, as it never had a crew in the first place, according to the FAQ which tells us to use the warmachine rules for VPs, it definitely coughs up full VPs at the end of the game, as any other uncrewed warmachine does.

If you dispute that, then we're going to dice off for everything in the whole game, since apparently you'll be ok with disputing any rule regardless of clarity.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 12:49
While it's possible to argue RAW against spiking it, as it never had a crew in the first place, according to the FAQ which tells us to use the warmachine rules for VPs, it definitely coughs up full VPs at the end of the game, as any other uncrewed warmachine does.

No, since to fulfill the "crew not in position at the end of the game" clause in the box on p.102, the crew need to have, and I quote, "...have fled, been killed or moved away".

"Not been there to start with" is not an option...

If you try to claim RAW, you need to read the rules...

Forbiddenknowledge
01-05-2008, 13:12
Surely, if it is a war machine with crew as defined by the rulebook, can it not do anything? As war machines need to have "crew on separate bases" to function?

I'm not a RAW nut, nor do I use WM, but it sounds like it might be possible to argue that way.

Mercules
01-05-2008, 13:27
The stupid Steam Tank rulings have been RAWed until everyone's feelings are raw. Let's drop it. I don't think the ruling was dumb, I think the ruling with a lack of explaining anything else, such as what being a war machine means in regards to everything else, was dumb.

intellectawe
01-05-2008, 13:32
Yeah, if people want to go that route, you just tell them that the Stank isnt even a warmachine because is flat out doesn't fill the requirement for being a warmachine in the very first sentence, page 84, under MODEL.

There is nothing to dice off, the rule flatly tells yous either 1) the Stank isn't a warmachine or 2) The Stank is a warmachine, and it can spiked and it always gives up its points at the end of the game.

Thank that idiot Alessio for this guys. Wow, GW's quality control is the worst I have ever seen in a table top game. Its a damned shame.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 13:58
Ok let take it one more time:

The rules doesn't say that the Steam Tank is a War Machine. It says:

"Exept where noted otherwise, a steamtank is a war machine in all respects" p. 50 of the Empire book.

Spiking? No, you can't spike it, not becaue it lacks crew defending it, but because spiking is part of how war machines are handled in close combat (p.86 BRB), but the stank has it's own close combat rules on p.51 of the Empire book, so this is "noted otherwise".

"No crew left at the end of the game, and you get the VP"? Sure, but as I pointed out above, to get the points you need to have had the crew Killed, fled or moved away. There is no catch-all "not there" clause.

Spells affecting War machines (eg. Rain Lord)? Nope, the Stank is "otherwise noted" there.

Movement and shooting? Got it's own rules, so... "otherwise noted".



Bottom line is that there is simply no RAW loopholes to exploit, sorry...

The dumb thing is that the entirety of the "...steamtank is a war machine in all respects" comes down to the no half VP issue for half wounds, everything else is covered.

And it really should have been answered different, for fairness sake not going with RAW, IMO.

Rioghan Murchadha
01-05-2008, 15:32
Ok let take it one more time:

The rules doesn't say that the Steam Tank is a War Machine. It says:

"Exept where noted otherwise, a steamtank is a war machine in all respects" p. 50 of the Empire book.

Spiking? No, you can't spike it, not becaue it lacks crew defending it, but because spiking is part of how war machines are handled in close combat (p.86 BRB), but the stank has it's own close combat rules on p.51 of the Empire book, so this is "noted otherwise".

"No crew left at the end of the game, and you get the VP"? Sure, but as I pointed out above, to get the points you need to have had the crew Killed, fled or moved away. There is no catch-all "not there" clause.

Spells affecting War machines (eg. Rain Lord)? Nope, the Stank is "otherwise noted" there.

Movement and shooting? Got it's own rules, so... "otherwise noted".



Bottom line is that there is simply no RAW loopholes to exploit, sorry...

The dumb thing is that the entirety of the "...steamtank is a war machine in all respects" comes down to the no half VP issue for half wounds, everything else is covered.

And it really should have been answered different, for fairness sake not going with RAW, IMO.

All I have to say to this is, if you decide to treat every example or open clause in the rule book as a concrete, and definitive list, you're going to be in for some very interesting games.

For example, the only hard cover you can claim is building corners, trenches, and pits. (It says that a large rock, walls, and pallisades are types of hard cover, but it only says that models in the first 3 are actually protected by hard cover.) Stupid yes, but this is what you're doing with the Stank crew thing. Treating an example as a closed statement.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 16:04
By your logic you could add "have blue hats" to the list of criteria (Killed, fled or having moved away ) if it was "open"...

It is not,of course but most importantly, the point is that you cannot claim a RAW resolution if you are not following what the rules actually say.

Your Hard cover "issue" is not the same thing. It will be few items that will not fit under one of the listed (walls, big rock, wooden palisade, trench, pit), and if they do, say if you place an abandoned mule cart model on the table, it falls under the p.16 BRB assumption that players will discuss and define terrain before the battle... in this case, is the wagon large enough to have an impact, or is it to be counted as a "decorative item" (noted under the Impassable terrain bit...)

Lardidar
01-05-2008, 16:06
When is the first GT of the season?

I think the time we are going to find out if you can or can't is when someone tries it at a GT.

I think it has all got a little silly here you have one or two arguing that it can and one or two arguing it can't and a bunch of people who just want to know.

I think at the end of the day the stank just should have been treated as a monster with some extra rules. or better yet as a special character ... the fact we are seeing Walter, Stankx2 lists show it is just too easy to abuse it.

intellectawe
01-05-2008, 17:49
"Exept where noted otherwise, a steamtank is a war machine in all respects" p. 50 of the Empire book.

Yes. so if there isn't an exception in the Steam Tank rules overriding the basic warmachine rules, the basic war machine rules are still in effect.


Spiking? No, you can't spike it, not becaue it lacks crew defending it

You don't need a crew for spiking. The examples in the parenthesis are just clarifications and examples, same as every other parentheses in the book.

Also, since you admit it doesn't have crew, which it doesn't anyway, it isn't even a warmachine as per page 84, first sentence under MODEL.


, but because spiking is part of how war machines are handled in close combat (p.86 BRB), but the stank has it's own close combat rules

Oh! So it has its own combat rules right? Where are its damage charts, its chance to hit, its artillery rules? If its own combat rules were all inclusive, the steam tank couldn't even do anything in combat because it lacks all the combat rules from the rest of the book.


"No crew left at the end of the game, and you get the VP"? Sure, but as I pointed out above, to get the points you need to have had the crew Killed, fled or moved away.

I mean, you are being hypocritical. You say the steam tank has no crew, so it cannot be a war machine in the first place due the above mentioned rule right? Glad we agree.


There is no catch-all "not there" clause.

Spells affecting War machines (eg. Rain Lord)? Nope, the Stank is "otherwise noted" there.

Movement and shooting? Got it's own rules, so... "otherwise noted".

You seem to think the otherwise noted works the wrong way. Otherwise noted is not the base war machine rules erasing the empire rules, it is the empire rules erasing the basic war machine rules. you need the steam tank rules to say "This is a warmachine besides it not having a crew... It cannot be destroyed at the end of combat for not having a crew" Because unless otherwise noted, the steam tank follows all war machine rules clearly, as Alessio himself wrote in the FAQ.


Bottom line is, if you want all the advantages of a war machine, unless you have rules stating that the warmachine cannot be spiked in its combat rules, which it doesn't, it must follow all warmachines rules unless otherwise noted.

Sorry GW screwed your tank. Not my fault.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 18:33
So... you one of those people... sigh..

I will waste no more time arguing with you. I am right, both from a RAW and "intention" viewpoint, simple as that.

You are just angrily grasping at straws, making up things, picking and choosing parts of rules and sentences, and generally not understanding what you are reading...

Sorry you are like that, not my fault. :rolleyes:

Ethlorien
01-05-2008, 18:40
So... you one of those people... sigh..

Awesome line; sums a lot of this thread up nicely.

Rioghan Murchadha
01-05-2008, 18:40
By your logic you could add "have blue hats" to the list of criteria (Killed, fled or having moved away ) if it was "open"...

It is not,of course but most importantly, the point is that you cannot claim a RAW resolution if you are not following what the rules actually say.

Your Hard cover "issue" is not the same thing. It will be few items that will not fit under one of the listed (walls, big rock, wooden palisade, trench, pit), and if they do, say if you place an abandoned mule cart model on the table, it falls under the p.16 BRB assumption that players will discuss and define terrain before the battle... in this case, is the wagon large enough to have an impact, or is it to be counted as a "decorative item" (noted under the Impassable terrain bit...)

Err, no actually, because having blue hats doesn't have anything to do with where the crew is in relation to the machine, which is in fact, what the paragraph is about.

The Hard cover issue is exactly the same thing. While there are about 5 or 6 things listed as BEING hard cover, the book explicitly says that a model only counts as being IN or PROTECTED by hard cover from 3 of those things. It's exactly the same as you claiming that only the explicitly listed 3 ways of having crew removed from a warmachine count.

What I'm saying is, by the precedent you're trying to set with the warmachine rules, it doesn't matter what type of terrain you classify as hard cover, the book only allows you to actually claim hard cover from building corners, trenches, or pits.

Never mind what Intellectawe pointed out about the fact that the spiking section has fled,killed, or moved off in parenthesis which very clearly makes it an example, rather than a rule statement.

edit: Regardless of whether or not I'd actually try to spike a Stank, and regardless of your personal feelings on the issue, why is it that people feel the need to defend GW for an absolute ************* of an FAQ? It's ****-poorly written, breaks the rules in various areas, and causes more confusion than there was without it.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 19:05
Heh.. of course color of headwear have no bearing on the the crews ability to defend their machine from being plugged, but the point was that there is nothing automatically "open" or "included but not restricted to" about the rules given, parantesises or not. It says "Fleeing, broken or wiped out" (sic), there is no "or otherwise not there".



I see your point with the hard cover now, and how it can be read a bit bizarre it you take it literally, but it is not the same thing as the three criteria for being allowed to spike a war machine.

But are you arguing (rethorically of course...) that it should be a diffeence because it uses "protected by", "in" and then on the next page where we learn that the penalty is -2 to hit, "behind", interchangably without explicitly saying they are? Or just that something that is not listed as "wall, rock, pallisade, trench or pit" but is otherwise obviously hard and covering, is not "hard cover"?

Mercules
01-05-2008, 19:25
Heh.. of course color of headwear have no bearing on the the crews ability to defend their machine from being plugged, but the point was that there is nothing automatically "open" or "included but not restricted to" about the rules given, parantesises or not. It says "Fleeing, broken or wiped out" (sic), there is no "or otherwise not there".

Here is an example.

My unit shoots at a Cannon and manages to kill one of the crew. The crew flees 10" after failing it's panic check. On my opponent's turn they rally and move 8" back towards the Cannon but fail to get within the 1" operating distance. I move up to the cannon but don't have the distance to charge the crew. The "Crew" is not Fleeing, Broken, or Wiped Out so am I allowed to spike the cannon?

The book doesn't specify. We could assume I could declare a charge on an uncrewed war machine. Then what? At the end of combat the crew is missing. What happens? The war machine is destroyed.

Faustburg
01-05-2008, 19:44
Not by RAW... ;) I was going to put this situation in here, but decided to avoid further muddying the waters...

(although I seem to remember a FAQ on the situation, might just have been a tourny-specific thing though)

My whole point is that people are trying to claim RAW for obviously non-intended situations, and I am merely pointing out that RAW does not support them. Not defending or attacking RAW in general.

Wadders
01-05-2008, 20:42
Here is an example.

My unit shoots at a Cannon and manages to kill one of the crew. The crew flees 10" after failing it's panic check.\

Cannon crew do not panic to shooting or magic....

Rioghan Murchadha
01-05-2008, 22:42
Heh.. of course color of headwear have no bearing on the the crews ability to defend their machine from being plugged, but the point was that there is nothing automatically "open" or "included but not restricted to" about the rules given, parantesises or not. It says "Fleeing, broken or wiped out" (sic), there is no "or otherwise not there".



I see your point with the hard cover now, and how it can be read a bit bizarre it you take it literally, but it is not the same thing as the three criteria for being allowed to spike a war machine.

But are you arguing (rethorically of course...) that it should be a diffeence because it uses "protected by", "in" and then on the next page where we learn that the penalty is -2 to hit, "behind", interchangably without explicitly saying they are? Or just that something that is not listed as "wall, rock, pallisade, trench or pit" but is otherwise obviously hard and covering, is not "hard cover"?

I just pulled up cover as it was the first example of something that is ridiculous if interpreted as a closed function. The next page makes it even worse. It uses the term 'behind', but doesn't specify how far behind. (Now we run into situations where I'm technically behind a fence relative to your shooters, but I'm 23" away from it. Can I claim cover?

In the main cover paragraph, a unit is considered to be in cover if at least half of its models are in cover, or half its body for single models. However, the hard cover paragraph I mentioned only provides for actually being 'in or protected by' 3 types of hard cover.

As I said, just the first example of retarded RAW I could find. I don't honestly know what the hell they were intending with the Stank, and I don't care, as nobody in my group plays empire and uses one, but it's still a sore point in an entirely stupid FAQ.

Mercules
01-05-2008, 22:46
Cannon crew do not panic to shooting or magic....

Fine... I cast Braingobbler on them and they fail their panic check! Shees.. The situation can come up. How do you resolve it?

Wadders
02-05-2008, 01:25
An unmanned cannon gets over-run as it is not crewed. Simple as that, then you over run into the crew...

as a side note they also cannot rally and move in the same turn.... unless by magic (unseen lurker etc)

anarnii
02-05-2008, 02:45
i cant take sides in this, the fact that the stank rules are so poorly or unclearly written shows what should have been made clear in a very poor FAQ.

Also i understand what direwolf are trying to do, but isnt this the kind of question/situation which would have been useful to add as question to your list? also why was the question about magic bows being magic attacks on the list? why even bring it up it seemed pretty clear, if your going to go the extra mile and give this type of community support to rules as least do the right thing.

Talonz
02-05-2008, 06:43
Faustberg, there are some people that are interested in reading and discussing the rules with an open mind, and there are some that are not. I leave it to you to determine which you want to spend time with.

Wadders
02-05-2008, 07:17
As much as RAW the Stank over-run is, I would never ever play that... its stupid and on the whole unfair

I understand why people hate it, i have played against it a hundred times, and no matter how much i shoot it, hit it or blast it with magic, most of the time it is left useless but with a quarter contested and full points....

Faustburg
02-05-2008, 07:34
Faustberg, there are some people that are interested in reading and discussing the rules with an open mind, and there are some that are not. I leave it to you to determine which you want to spend time with.

Care to elaborate?

Really, do you honestly find it reasonable that the intention is for it to be spike-able?

All I am saying is that people think they can use RAW to claim it is, when RAW says it's not... It's nothing openminded or closed about it. It is merely down to the ability to read, and not put ones predispositions and wishes in the way of a rational deduction.

Urgat
02-05-2008, 08:27
An unmanned cannon gets over-run as it is not crewed. Simple as that, then you over run into the crew...


Don't think so, you just have to be in contact, you don't need to charge the canon (that's quite a fine abera.. exception, heh?). Since you haven't charged, you cannot overrun (you're not fighting or anything). Besides, spiking occurs only at the end of the combat phase, so even if you did, -you could still not overrun.

WillFightForFood
02-05-2008, 11:49
While it's possible to argue RAW against spiking it, as it never had a crew in the first place, according to the FAQ which tells us to use the warmachine rules for VPs, it definitely coughs up full VPs at the end of the game, as any other uncrewed warmachine does.

If you dispute that, then we're going to dice off for everything in the whole game, since apparently you'll be ok with disputing any rule regardless of clarity.

But that's precisely the point. You're willing to try to enforce what you believe to be a strict RAW argument because you don't like the rules for the model, not because any reasonable person believes that was the intention of how the rules should operate. If you want to be that pedantic about it, then expect me to challenge you with the most important rule and get a dice off. Go ahead and return with endless dice off challenges. Expect me to challenge every rule you try to use with a dice off too. You see where we are with that? We're in no-game land. We're not even playing the game at that point all because you want to engage in a little pedantic brinksmanship.

People act as if every Empire army is composed of two steam tanks and a war altar, and couch their RAW-spiking in terms of it being necessary for survival. That's just silly. Most armies aren't so cheesy. Moreover, every army has an achilles heel.

In any case this is what is important:
You're playing a game.
Fun is the object
Enjoy the process.
Let go of the outcome


Most people agree that the FAQs open up a can of worms, but honestly, of all issues to make about the FAQ, the steam tank should not be it.

Mercules
02-05-2008, 12:22
Don't think so, you just have to be in contact, you don't need to charge the canon (that's quite a fine abera.. exception, heh?). Since you haven't charged, you cannot overrun (you're not fighting or anything). Besides, spiking occurs only at the end of the combat phase, so even if you did, -you could still not overrun.

Well, they do give stats for war machines in CC stating they are Init 0 and so you auto hit them. They also have toughness and wounds. So it appears you could charge a crew less war machine, destroy it in combat, and then overrun. If you don't destroy it in combat then it would be auto destroyed at the end of turn, but you wouldn't get an overrun? Does that sound correct?

Rioghan Murchadha
03-05-2008, 02:26
But that's precisely the point. You're willing to try to enforce what you believe to be a strict RAW argument because you don't like the rules for the model, not because any reasonable person believes that was the intention of how the rules should operate. If you want to be that pedantic about it, then expect me to challenge you with the most important rule and get a dice off. Go ahead and return with endless dice off challenges. Expect me to challenge every rule you try to use with a dice off too. You see where we are with that? We're in no-game land. We're not even playing the game at that point all because you want to engage in a little pedantic brinksmanship.

People act as if every Empire army is composed of two steam tanks and a war altar, and couch their RAW-spiking in terms of it being necessary for survival. That's just silly. Most armies aren't so cheesy. Moreover, every army has an achilles heel.

In any case this is what is important:
You're playing a game.
Fun is the object
Enjoy the process.
Let go of the outcome


Most people agree that the FAQs open up a can of worms, but honestly, of all issues to make about the FAQ, the steam tank should not be it.

Either you're replying to the wrong person, or you haven't read my posts in their entirety.

Again. I don't have any personal investment, as I don't play against empire much, and the odd time I do, it doesn't involve a steam tank.

I've never forced a stupid RAW issue on anyone, though I do enjoy finding, and pointing them out.

Point is, if you're playing in a tournament, and you claim that parenthetical examples are concrete, closed-ended rules clauses, you're going to have a pretty crappy game. GW had the opportunity to actually clear up some stuff with the FAQs, and failed miserably. THAT is my entire point. You can run 5 Stanks against me for all I care, and I won't even mention the term spike. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQs are crap.

You want to see a well maintained, internally consistent, regularly updated erratta/faq document? Visit the Privateer forums.

Urgat
03-05-2008, 08:29
Well, they do give stats for war machines in CC stating they are Init 0 and so you auto hit them. They also have toughness and wounds. So it appears you could charge a crew less war machine, destroy it in combat, and then overrun. If you don't destroy it in combat then it would be auto destroyed at the end of turn, but you wouldn't get an overrun? Does that sound correct?

Well I always figured wounds and T were there for "shooting at them" purposes. Anyway, I don't need to check the brb to bet that this case is not covered, so yeah, you have me convinced.

ElvenGravy
06-05-2008, 21:55
First, before commenting on something, please be certain you know what it is you are talking about in the first place.

1. The ASF answer is GW's, not Direwolf's. When we asked about it we were told it got asked too late to add to the Main Rules FAQ so it was added to the HE one to make sure it was actually answered in this round of updates. Direwolf did not write the question, nor did we write the answer. Regardless whether you like the answer or not, there is considerable evidence in the rulebook to support both interpretations. Alessio chose the one he did for his own reasons. IYAM I think he chose correctly simply because it fits within the 'who strikes first' process better than the other option of just using initiative. In any event, he has the authority to rule the way he wants it to work and he did.

2. If you do a Google search on Direwolf FAQ Council, you will find that the first link is to a description of the FAQs along with toward the bottom a link to the actual Direwolf discussion group on Yahoo! That is the group the Council is primarily affiliated with. Like most Yahoo! groups, it is open to anyone who wishes to join (though I believe approval is necessary to prevent spambots and the like).

3. If you read back through this thread you'll notice I posted earlier about who Direwolf is as well as the extent of our involvement.

As for "influencing GW so much," if you actually read the current Direwolf FAQs (though they are in the process of being updated to reflect the new official guidance now) you will see that in a number of cases GW ruled opposite the way we did. Alessio answered each question as he saw fit. Direwolf just happened to be the ones to provide the bulk (I am told roughly 95%) of all the questions to him in these FAQs.



Actually, that cannot happen. The current Dwarf book specifically states that war machines inscribed with engineering runes generate magical attacks.

Cheers, Gary


Whatever.... thanks for the direwolf "house-rules". Aside from what you say is straight from gw, some things in thedirewolf faq goes against the rulebook. so instead of making things up, why doesnt direwolf (or the whole gaming community for that matter) focus all their energy into pressuring the writers of these books to clarify the rules. i know i've personally sent emails asking for an errata on army books/codexs, but i think you know how that went. what can we, as a gaming community do?
Gw letting the direwolf faq become official is just plain laziness from my viewpoint. how hard is it for gw to update their own rulebook faq(the whole ASF v great weapons come to mind)? we need answers straight from the source or these "house-rule" faqs will continue to puzzle("Moonstone of hidden ways"allowing you to move in the opponents move phase..wrong! Knight's vow only immune to peasant panic...wrong! ) , aggravate (spiking the steam tank debate will go on forever it seems), and multiply and become "official" to point that there will be so many more contradictions than there already are.
Soon Dakka will have theirs, then bell of lost souls will have theirs, and Warseer will....wait....http://warseer.com/site_news/the_warseer_unofficial_40k_faq_project_presents_th e_codex_orks_faq

AAARGH!!!

Roneth
06-05-2008, 23:16
One of the first things I looked for. I'm disappointed.

damnit, mee to :(

adreal
07-05-2008, 03:59
I nkow that this wont really hlep in tournies and such, but couldn't you ask people nicely not to use thier steam tanks due to the frustrations caused by the FaQ's, I'm sure if they follow these internet discussions they might be inclined to comply, and if not (provided you asked nicely) it wont take anything from the game will it?

Gazak Blacktoof
07-05-2008, 16:55
Soon Dakka will have theirs, then bell of lost souls will have theirs, and Warseer will....wait....http://warseer.com/site_news/the_warseer_unofficial_40k_faq_project_presents_th e_codex_orks_faq

AAARGH!!!


This is what people should be doing. Good gaming groups always have their own conventions for rules disputes. When we're all done with exams and stuff we intend to grab the latest FAQs from the net and change the answers where we seee fit and adapt them to suit our own needs.

We want a set of documents that we can refer to mid game that fits with our perception of the way the game should be played.

WhiteZombie
07-05-2008, 17:21
Does no one else find these FAQ's sub-standard?

They seem to be making so many mistakes...

its so they can release FAQs for FAQs and makes everyone think theyre actually doing some work

Arcadian
08-05-2008, 15:31
Yes I noticed that too, it goes against the previous FAQ with respect to dragon armour in 6th edition, but there you go.

The chanaged the re-roll interactions as well.

If you're forced to re-roll all successes and failures that's exactly what you do now. Pick up the rolls that succeed and the failures and re-roll all of them, so just roll the dice twice and use the second result... How odd:eyebrows:.



I'm confused.. Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that on re-rolls (Such as Hatred) one now has to reroll the successful dice along with the ones that failed? IF so, can one choose not to re-roll or must they?

Sorry if this seems like a silly question, but given the new DE rumors, AWH may be something that isnt as attractive an option should this prove to be the case.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-05-2008, 17:03
Nope it only happens in the odd situations when you have two opposing re-roll abilites ie re-roll all successful hits and re-roll all misses acting on the same unit. To resolve it you abide by both rules and just re-roll all of the dice.

I do think the ruling makes sense but its counter to an earlier FAQ regarding a chaos magic item and hatred.

Essentially the new stance is "rules as written" from the rulebook, which states that no dice can be re-rolled more than once so if you have two opposing re-roll forces you just re-roll all the dice its odd but fulfills the rules.

Arcadian
08-05-2008, 18:04
Okay, rereading things with that in mind it makes a heck of a lot more sense now.. and is less worrisome.
Thank you for the response, it is appreciated.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-05-2008, 18:23
No problem, seems only right seeing I was the one that confused you in the first place ;).