PDA

View Full Version : Changeling [CLOSED]



Kascade
03-09-2008, 00:22
I couldn't find any thread answering this in the search, so I'll ask.

How does the changeling work? Does he swap his stats (gaining their stat line while giving them his) or does he swap his stats (trading his own statline for his opponents while leaving theirs untouched)? The wording of the ability is frustrating to me a little bit.
Either way, I want to know what this 72 point model does.

Example:
Changeling is in base to base with a chaos warrior.

Heres our two chaos buddies before anything happens.
Changeling . . .WS 3; S3; T3; W1; I3; A1.
Chaos Warrior .WS 5; S4; T4; W1; I5; A1.

Do both parties trade thanks to his ability:
Changeling . . .WS 5; S4; T4, W1; I5; A1.
Chaos Warrior .WS 3; S3; T3, W1; I3; A1.

Or does only the Changeling alter his stats to match theirs:
Changeling . . .WS 5; S4; T4; W1; I5; A1.
Chaos Warrior .WS 5; S4; T4; W1; I5; A1.

The FAQ decided to not elaborate on this, so maybe the answer is obvious to everyone except me.

sulla
03-09-2008, 04:29
To swap is to exchange. The models swap characteristics.

What you are thinking of is copying.

apbevan
03-09-2008, 14:53
My question is how does a Changeling work with Von Horstman's Speculum?
If the Changeling swaps with me can I swap to get my original stats back?

Kascade
03-09-2008, 15:01
My question is how does a Changeling work with Von Horstman's Speculum?
If the Changeling swaps with me can I swap to get my original stats back?

The FAQ addressed this question, basically the Von Horstman's Speculum is applied first, and then the changeling effect can be used to your heart's desire.


To swap is to exchange. The models swap characteristics.

What you are thinking of is copying.

Thank you, maybe next time I'll wise up and add dictionary.com to my list of "Check rulebook, Check FAQ, Check Forums."

Lecai_Lathain
03-09-2008, 18:26
But how does the thing that the changeling becomes, become the Changeling. Surely, like the fluff says, it the changeling becomes the thing so they would have identical stats.

Reinnon
03-09-2008, 18:37
<sighs>

This had popped up before on warseer.

answer: he's a daemon, most likely he curses his enemies to make them weaker.

sulla
07-09-2008, 23:38
But how does the thing that the changeling becomes, become the Changeling. Surely, like the fluff says, it the changeling becomes the thing so they would have identical stats.

You're right, of course... But unfortunately that's not what the rules say... (Also, the changeling would be worth much, much less if this was the way it worked since there are very few models out there who would struggle to wound a model with their own stats).

Ganymede
08-09-2008, 00:20
The Changling uses decidedly different wording than the Speculum, a fact that lends credence to alternate interpretations to the rule. To me, it seems that while the Changling may swap his stats for his opponent's stats, it does nto necessarily mean that the Changling and its opponent trade stats.

Faustburg
08-09-2008, 00:51
Indeed it makes the changeling pretty far from appealing, but what Ganymede says is correct. The Speculum clearly says the opponent will get the users stats, the C only says he gets his opponents.

(And while of course fluff is not rules, if the intention was for the opponents stats to change as well, one would think it would at least have been hinted at him mutating his enemy or something, at some point, wouldn't it? All that is described is him dressing up as different things...)

Reinnon
08-09-2008, 01:13
er...read the changling rules again, it says the opposite.

It quite clearly states that the changling swaps characteristics with his enemy. If the word for was used then yes, the enemy would remain the same.

The wording is clear: the changling would decrease the stats of his target, even though it doesn't agree precisely with the fluff.

Faustburg
08-09-2008, 01:48
It says

"...may choose an enemy model in base contact and ‘swap’ any or all of his [certain stats] values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat phase."

...and then lack the speculum's "the opponent will get his stats" (sic).

Any importance of the distinction between "for" and "with" is merely in your mind, the warhammer rules are not written in legalese waterproof terms.

sulla
08-09-2008, 06:22
The Changling uses decidedly different wording than the Speculum, a fact that lends credence to alternate interpretations to the rule. To me, it seems that while the Changling may swap his stats for his opponent's stats, it does nto necessarily mean that the Changling and its opponent trade stats.

I suggest you do a dictionary search for what 'swap' means then... If you were to swap my television by your definition I'm pretty sure it would be called theft.

Faustburg
08-09-2008, 09:59
Just as with/for above, 'swap' does not automatically imply what you think it does, that is purely your opinion...

Having now, after using the ability, the opponents more manly stats in place of his own measly 3's, fulfills all semantic requirements for a 'swap', without the opponent in addition having changed his.

Valaraukar
08-09-2008, 10:46
Yes it does. Swap means to exchange, if I was to swap coats or meals with you it would mean me having yours and you having mine otherwise I would be borrowing or in the example you seem to be trying to make duplicating or copying it.

DeathlessDraich
08-09-2008, 11:29
Strange.
I thought the word 'swap' is clear enough and has only one meaning - a 2 way substitution.
Maybe it has other meanings across the pond.:p

As far as Changeling rules are concerned, the uncertainty lies with how much more than base characteristics (if any) is substituted i.e. is it the current WS, Strength etc or the base WS, S, etc that is swapped?

Ganymede
08-09-2008, 12:16
Yes it does. Swap means to exchange, if I was to swap coats or meals with you it would mean me having yours and you having mine otherwise I would be borrowing or in the example you seem to be trying to make duplicating or copying it.


Be aware that swap can be used in many contexts, and the example you mentioned is only one of those. Primarily, your example deals with a discrete item, something where only one copy exists. A swap with such discrete items often implies a two-way swap. For instance, if I said that I swapped my derby for your more stylish top hat, the discrete nature of your hat would imply that you also got my derby. After all, you no longer have a hat!

On the other hand, such an implication is not necessarily there when we are dealing with non discrete elements, such as ideas, concepts, and warhammer stats. For instance, if I swapped my runched, squiggly writing style with your looping, pronounced script, it doesn't necessarily mean you have mutually swapped your style with mine. That'd be silly.

Chaplainen
08-09-2008, 12:25
I agree with Ganymedes last statement. A swap could imply a swap only of the changelings stats, in that meaning that he simply throws away his own stats and swaps them with someone elses.

This however would to me seen like a meaningless and really worthless rule because, as mentioned above, a 4+ roll to hit and wound something isn't a very good "special" for a 70ish pts model...

Kascade
08-09-2008, 19:10
Yeah, I was thinking about taking him to change things up in my army. A little surprise hidden in the horrors, but if he doesn't manipulate the enemy's stats then he isn't anywhere near worth his 70ish points in one wound, with only a daemon save to keep him around.

Shamfrit
08-09-2008, 19:20
The advantage of the Changeling over the Speculum is that the Changeling's ability switches outside or in challenges, so you can steal a heroes stats before issuing a challenge, leaving you with one hero to twot and then attack the unit with their own stats.

For 70 points? Cool :D

Reinnon
08-09-2008, 19:49
I agree with Ganymedes last statement. A swap could imply a swap only of the changelings stats, in that meaning that he simply throws away his own stats and swaps them with someone elses.

This however would to me seen like a meaningless and really worthless rule because, as mentioned above, a 4+ roll to hit and wound something isn't a very good "special" for a 70ish pts model...

The defintion of swap is to exchange - thats a two way process. Unless theres another definiton of "swap" that i'm not aware of.

You can't have a swap of just the changling stats - where does the changlings original stats go then, to mars?

sulla
08-09-2008, 22:22
On the other hand, such an implication is not necessarily there when we are dealing with non discrete elements, such as ideas, concepts, and warhammer stats. For instance, if I swapped my runched, squiggly writing style with your looping, pronounced script, it doesn't necessarily mean you have mutually swapped your style with mine. That'd be silly.

I don't think you understand what the word swap means... either that or you are surrounded by people using it incorrectly. In your example above, you have not swapped styles with me, you have copied me.

Ganymede
08-09-2008, 23:14
I don't think you understand what the word swap means... either that or you are surrounded by people using it incorrectly. In your example above, you have not swapped styles with me, you have copied me.

I'll assure that I indeed know what the term 'swap' means, and I will stress that I used it correctly in both of my examples. The dictionary defines 'swap' as "An exchange of one thing for another." Occasionally, the use of the word 'swap' implies a mutual, two-way exchange, but such does not need to be the case for every use of the word.

In the case given in the Changeling's rules, no such mutual switcheroo is implied. The Changeling simply exchanges one thing with another: the 'one thing' in this case being his stats, and the 'another' being his foe's stats.


The defintion of swap is to exchange - thats a two way process.

This is not necessarily true. While an exchange can be mutual in certain situations, those sitations generally depend on a specific context. Nothing in the Changeling rules would indicate sich a context.

Reinnon
09-09-2008, 00:02
I can't beleive i'm getting dragged into an arguement about what the word "swap" means, and the problem is that i'm beginning to see your point. However, i still think your wrong.

Lets go through the stages of raw defintions, all defintions provided by dictionary.com because i'm not going to find a oxford dictionary at 1 AM:

Swap:

–verb (used with object) 1. to exchange, barter, or trade, as one thing for another: He swapped his wrist watch for the radio.
–verb (used without object) 2. to make an exchange.
–noun 3. an exchange: He got the radio in a swap.

Exchange:

–verb (used with object) 1. to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.
2. to replace (returned merchandise) with an equivalent or something else: Most stores will allow the purchaser to exchange goods.
3. to give and receive reciprocally; interchange: to exchange blows; to exchange gifts.
4. to part with in return for some equivalent; transfer for a recompense; barter: to exchange goods with foreign countries.
5. Chess. to capture (an enemy piece) in return for a capture by the opponent generally of pieces of equal value.
–verb (used without object) 6. to make an exchange; engage in bartering, replacing, or substituting one thing for another.
7. to pass or be taken in exchange or as an equivalent.
–noun 8. the act, process, or an instance of exchanging: The contesting nations arranged for an exchange of prisoners; money in exchange for services.
9. something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else: The car was a fair exchange.

And now folks - the actual wording of the daemon book from page 56 of the book:

"the changling may choose any model in base to base combat and "swap" any or all of his weapon skill, strength, toughness, initiative and attack values with those of the chosen foe"

I've highlighted the important words.

For further evidence, i point you all to the daemon FAQ concerning the changling, in particular its passages concerning monsters and the VHS.

The definition of swap inferes an exchange. To exchange something, one must give away something and in return, receive another.

Two viewpoints have arisen:

1) that the swap is totally one way, that the changling simply recieves the stats of the chosen foe. The exchange is therefore attained without the enemy losing his or her stats.

2) that to swap is to exchange, and this means that the target of the exchange must lose something. One can not buy sweets without losing money.

Both strike me as equally valid, until one takes a look at the precise wording of the changling rules, and the wording of the daemon FAQ.

"the changling may choose any model in base to base combat and "swap" any or all of his weapon skill, strength, toughness, initiative and attack values with those of the chosen foe"

The changling swaps his stats with those of the chosen foe. It does not say that the changling stats become those of his enemy, it says that the changling swaps his stats with the enemy.

The third defintion of exchange:

3. to give and receive reciprocally; interchange: to exchange blows; to exchange gifts.

to exchange Statistics.

EDIT: whoops, silly me

You say there is nothing in the changling rules that would suggest that there is a two way swap, i say the precise opposite is true. There is more then enough required within the Changling rules to say that the enemy would lose their stats.

Further evidence of GWs intention - the use of the word swapping in the FAQ to descirbe what happens when the changling meets the VHS.

Ganymede
09-09-2008, 00:21
Why are you using the third definition of exchange? That's gnenerally used when there is a shared subject, such as in the phrase "We exchanged contact information." In order to use this definition, we need a pair of subjects; both the demon and the foe need to be a part of the subject. This is not the case. In the Changeling example, we only have a single subject: The daemon.

In this example, the first definition of exchange is more pertinant.

Exchange:

–verb (used with object) 1. to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.

The changeling is giving up something for something else, stats for stats, object for object.




You say there is nothing in the changling rules that would suggest that there is a two way swap, i say the precise opposite is true. There is more then enough required within the Changling rules to say that the enemy would lose their stats.

Are you going to merely be contrarian, or are you going to actually detail why you feel the opposite is true?

I really want to see where you are comming from, but you're going to need to be a bit more concise and a bit more convincing.

Condottiere
09-09-2008, 00:31
To summarize, the Changeling either:
1. Replaces
2. Exchanges
any specified stat from those of a chosen enemy model in base to base contact.

Reinnon
09-09-2008, 00:56
I used the third example because there is a second subject as detailed in the description of the changling - the targets statistics and the changlings statistics are both mentioned as being the trading element.

"the changling may choose any model in base to base combat and "swap" any or all of his weapon skill, strength, toughness, initiative and attack values with those of the chosen foe"

The third definition therefore jumps into play, the changling is exchanging his statistics for the chosen foes statistics.

"1. to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another."

I can see why one would apply this defintion to the changling - but its less correct because of the wording of the changling rules. The changling isn't giving up his statistics for the enemies, he is directly swapping, or trading, or exchanging his stats.

<sigh> i hate these kind of debates, as i always feel that i'm on the losing side, even when i know i'm right! Can someone please help me and explain it in a way that makes sense!?

Lode
09-09-2008, 01:29
As I see it, don't worry Reinnon, you're right :) I guess it's just so obvious to most people that swap means "exchange" that they long left the discussion, leaving only the few "copy" people around ;) There's just no more ways to try to explain it than what was said already in the thread...

Ganymede
09-09-2008, 02:29
I used the third example because there is a second subject as detailed in the description of the changling - the targets statistics and the changlings statistics are both mentioned as being the trading element.



Those are not subjects, those are objects.

The subject is the Changeling, the objects are the Changeling's stats and the Foe's stats.

Without that second subject, the third definition is off limits.


I can see why one would apply this defintion to the changling - but its less correct because of the wording of the changling rules. The changling isn't giving up his statistics for the enemies, he is directly swapping, or trading, or exchanging his stats.

You are begging the question here. You are assuming you're right in order to prove you're right. That's not something you want to do.

Holothuria
09-09-2008, 05:23
Because Ganymede is right in

1. there are (at least) two ways to interpret the meaning of swap
2. the rules for the changeling are not precise

it is probably best to decide on an interpretation with your opponent.

There may be a popular way of using the word where you live and the decision will be obvious, but that doesn't mean you have the "right" interpretation, as there isn't one.

p.s. After months of lurking, my first post!

sulla
09-09-2008, 09:22
Why are you using the third definition of exchange? That's gnenerally used when there is a shared subject, such as in the phrase "We exchanged contact information." In order to use this definition, we need a pair of subjects; both the demon and the foe need to be a part of the subject. This is not the case. In the Changeling example, we only have a single subject: The daemon.

In this example, the first definition of exchange is more pertinant.

Exchange:

–verb (used with object) 1. to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.

The changeling is giving up something for something else, stats for stats, object for object.



So now you've accepted that to swap is to exchange right? But you're clinging to the hope that to exchange is a one way deal? You exchange with them but they don't exchange with you? Not common useage at all.

Shamfrit
09-09-2008, 09:37
When you 'swap' seats with somebody at the dinner table what do you do...you exchange places. When you exchange responsibilities, you're usually swapping roles. When you swap shifts, you're exchanging time with another. When you exchange gifts, you're swapping presents, when you swap sweets in the playground, you're exchanging goods.

---

So now a mockery has been made of this pathetic attempt at word mongering, let's look at the Changeling again.

It has a similar if not identical wording to the Speculum, with the exception of triggers, that being 'in a challenge' compared to 'in base contact. What happens when a hero or lord approaches the unit:

Your enemies wonderful hero wades into your weak Horror unit and is surprised to find that the Changeling is there, who switches stats and smacks down the hero, end of...their stats having been swapped, or exchanged, both words can have identical meanings and are interchangeable after all.

Your Changeling gains the same stats for the slots specific as your target. Becoming a weaker mirror. They will obviously challenge or direct, hitting on 4's and wounding on 4's unless there's a Great Weapon involved or the like. Your Changeling dies.

---

The Changeling switches stats, as in implants his onto the target and assimilates the targets to be his own.

End of.

Valaraukar
09-09-2008, 10:12
Well at least something useful has come out of this, I'm sure as hell not going to swap anything with Ganymede :p

Faustburg
09-09-2008, 10:14
It has a similar if not identical wording to the Speculum, with the exception of triggers, that being 'in a challenge' compared to 'in base contact.

...and the part where the speculum says the opponent gets the users stats :rolleyes:

Is it possible that the intention is for it to work like the speculum? Absolutely, but that is not what the text say.

There simply is no universal meaning of the term 'swap' supporting it automatically meaning more than the C exchanging his stats for what the opponent has.

Shamfrit
09-09-2008, 10:40
It says swap WITH, not swap FOR though.

Valaraukar
09-09-2008, 10:43
Yeah the wording for me implies an exchange of BOTH parties stats but it wouldn't be the first poorly worded statement from GW and I wouldn't be at all suprised if they FAQ'd it against this meaning. Worded as it is I am going to continue to play that you swap his stats WITH the opponents stats not FOR them until such a time as it is FAQ'd a different way.

Ganymede
09-09-2008, 15:03
So now you've accepted that to swap is to exchange right? But you're clinging to the hope that to exchange is a one way deal? You exchange with them but they don't exchange with you? Not common useage at all.


I never denied a swap is an exchange.

One thing I'll point out to you though is that definitions in a dictionary are commonly given in order of common usage. The definition I quoted was at the top of the list.



It says swap WITH, not swap FOR though.

This dictinction does not matter. Check out these two examples

I'll swap my attitude for a more cheerful demeanor.

I'll swap my attitude with a more cheerful demeanor.

They both mean the same thing.

Ganymede
09-09-2008, 15:06
When you 'swap' seats with somebody at the dinner table what do you do...you exchange places. When you exchange responsibilities, you're usually swapping roles. When you swap shifts, you're exchanging time with another. When you exchange gifts, you're swapping presents, when you swap sweets in the playground, you're exchanging goods.


We already talked about this particular point. Keep up.


Be aware that swap can be used in many contexts, and the example you mentioned is only one of those. Primarily, your example deals with a discrete item, something where only one copy exists. A swap with such discrete items often implies a two-way swap. For instance, if I said that I swapped my derby for your more stylish top hat, the discrete nature of your hat would imply that you also got my derby. After all, you no longer have a hat!

On the other hand, such an implication is not necessarily there when we are dealing with non discrete elements, such as ideas, concepts, and warhammer stats. For instance, if I swapped my runched, squiggly writing style with your looping, pronounced script, it doesn't necessarily mean you have mutually swapped your style with mine. That'd be silly.

FigureFour
09-09-2008, 15:59
A swap with such discrete items often implies a two-way swap. For instance, if I said that I swapped my derby for your more stylish top hat, the discrete nature of your hat would imply that you also got my derby. After all, you no longer have a hat!

On the other hand, such an implication is not necessarily there when we are dealing with non discrete elements, such as ideas, concepts, and warhammer stats.

Unfortunatly for your arguement, Warhammer stats are discrete elements. They only apply to the individual model that posseses those stats and are unrelated to any other stat.

Discrete does not mean unique.

Shamfrit
09-09-2008, 17:11
This distinction does not matter. Check out these two examples

I'll swap my attitude for a more cheerful demeanor.

I'll swap my attitude with a more cheerful demeanor.

They both mean the same thing.

---

They mean entirely different things. The first is ambiguous, you swap it for something else, without stating a specific source, the second states you swap it with something specific and the thing you swapped it with receives your attitude instead.

There is no middle ground here, either the Changeling replaces it's stats with those of a target (in which case, the wording would not have implied a direct exchange, surely graduate employees would grasp this basic English grammar, wouldn't they?) I think to consider the Changeling as a copying moniker is somewhat skewed, the way in which it is worded, and the functionality of similar artefacts points to it being a direct exchange, and thus, the weapon skill and the like of the Changeling are given to the opponent, and the opponent's stats become the Changeling's.

Faustburg
09-09-2008, 17:38
I think to consider the Changeling as a copying moniker is somewhat skewed, the way in which it is worded, and the functionality of similar artefacts points to it being a direct exchange, and thus, the weapon skill and the like of the Changeling are given to the opponent, and the opponent's stats become the Changeling's.

For effs sake, stop ignoring the fact that the Speculum says that the opponent gets his stats, while the Changelings ability does not!

:p

Shamfrit
09-09-2008, 18:11
For effs sake, stop ignoring the fact that the Speculum says that the opponent gets his stats, while the Changelings ability does not!

:p

The exact ability text from pg. 56 of the Daemons of Chaos Army Book:


Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase.

Now, the only way to resolve this is to draw a logical conclusion based upon comparisons to similar effects, in this case, the nearest effect to Formless Horror is that of Van Horstman's Speculum. Which you will also note states that you swap certain statistics with your opponent (with the additional clause that it only occurs during a challenge, which is inconsequential at this moment in time.)

However, as written the Changeling exchanges like the Speculum, but it is perfectly possible for semantics to change the meaning depending on how you read Formless Horror. 'With those of the chosen foe' could mean replace, switch, exchange, whichever word you wish to apply to the possible outcomes.

But based on comparison, and comparison alone, the Changeling acts as the Speculum, except under different circumstances.

This is an absolute case of players reading and twisting the boundaries of definition to alter an army's outcome. In much the same way Daemon players misinterpreted the very ambiguously worded Master of Sorcery.

Reinnon
09-09-2008, 18:18
For effs sake, stop ignoring the fact that the Speculum says that the opponent gets his stats, while the Changelings ability does not!

we are not ignoring it, it just isn't important to the overall debate. If the changling rules did include that sentence then this debate wouldn't be happening. The lack of it however does not prove your point.

Gany, you say that "for" and "with" are not important - i disagree.

The changling swaps his stats with the enemy.

The changling swaps his stats for the enemies.

That means two totally different things. Your example, while correct isn't precisely the same issue as this issue involves the use of two objects: the changling and the enemy. Your example only takes into account one subject, and thus the with and for debate is meaningless.

But in the case of the changling, it is not meaningless. The changling rules details two characters involved: the changling and the target.

Lets say that the statistics are apples, the changling has red apples, the enemy has a green apple.

Now, the changling wants to gain the red apples. If he swaps his apples with the enemy, he gains green apples while the enemy gains red apples. However, if he swaps his apples for the enemies, all he needs to do is swap his red apples for green apples - he doesn't have to get the precise apples that the enemy is holding. All he needs to do is gain green apples.

If it was just the changling in the picture, then the with function would be the same as the for function. But the changling rules adds a second party to the swap - the enemy. Your example doesn't include a source for the demeanor and thus isn't a good example of the changling situation.

sulla
09-09-2008, 22:43
I never denied a swap is an exchange.

One thing I'll point out to you though is that definitions in a dictionary are commonly given in order of common usage. The definition I quoted was at the top of the list.


:D
So Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary says this;
swap (-pp-), UK ALSO swop (-pp-) Show phonetics
verb [I or T]
to give something and be given something else instead; to exchange:


Your dictionary.com says this;
swap (swäp, swôp)

transitive verb, intransitive verb swapped, swap′·ping

to exchange, trade, or barter

And as a synonym, lists the second meaning of exchange ("see exchange 2")
ex·change (eks c̸hānj′, iks-)

transitive verb -·changed′, -·chang′·ing

1.
1. to give, hand over, or transfer (for another thing in return)
2. to receive or give another thing for (something returned)
2. to give and receive (equivalent or similar things); interchange to exchange gifts
3. to give up for a substitute or alternative to exchange honor for wealth

Merriam-Webbster Online Dictionary says;


Swap
transitive verb1 a: to give in trade : barter b: exchange 2

And describes exchange2 as;

2 a: the act or process of substituting one thing for another b: reciprocal giving and receiving

It seems Dictionary.com is the only online resource that references exchange without specifying the precise meaning to which they imply. I think I'll go with the weight of evidence instead of a single online resource.

Sirisaacnuton
09-09-2008, 23:16
Unrelated to what the definition of "swap" is, a question was raised about how the Changeling can actually make the opponent weaker by copying it. The fluff for the Changeling describes how he seeds confusion into armies, before or during battle, disguising himself as a leader to give conflicting orders, as a messenger delivering new battle orders, etc. I think weakening the opponents' character is what is represented by this ability. Essentially, he loses his macho character stats because that character is off following some false orders elsewhere. It's not a perfect representation, but from a fluff perspective, there's no reason to think that the copy ability of the Changeling can't actively hinder the enemy as well as helping the Changeling.

Ganymede
09-09-2008, 23:19
---

They mean entirely different things. The first is ambiguous, you swap it for something else, without stating a specific source, the second states you swap it with something specific and the thing you swapped it with receives your attitude instead.


I think you are laboring under some misconceptions about the word 'with'.

You are making a huge assumption by implying that if I exchange my sour attitude with a more cheerful demeanor, that some unnamed subject suddenly becomes sour.


:D

It seems Dictionary.com is the only online resource that references exchange without specifying the precise meaning to which they imply. I think I'll go with the weight of evidence instead of a single online resource.

This just a tangent to the issue; it is not the issue itself. When it was brought up initially, it was tangental. It remains tangental now.




Gany, you say that "for" and "with" are not important - i disagree.

The changling swaps his stats with the enemy.

The changling swaps his stats for the enemies.

That means two totally different things. Your example, while correct isn't precisely the same issue as this issue involves the use of two objects: the changling and the enemy. Your example only takes into account one subject, and thus the with and for debate is meaningless.

My example does not incorporate more than one subject because the Changeling rules do not incorporate more than one subject. The Changeling rule only has a single subject, the Changeling itself. The Changeling is swapping stats with stats. He is exchanging one thing with another thing.

Take a look at what I am talking about.

Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase.

Here is the rule with the unimportant parts removed.

...the Changeling may ... 'swap' any or all of his ... values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase.

The pertinant parts to the rule are that the subject is the Changeling and the objects are his stats and his chosen foe's stats. Those objects are what is being swapped and exchanged. It is important to note that in your "with" example, you are showing a situation that does not parallel the Changeling situation.

sulla
10-09-2008, 04:52
This just a tangent to the issue; it is not the issue itself. When it was brought up initially, it was tangental. It remains tangental now.



My example does not incorporate more than one subject because the Changeling rules do not incorporate more than one subject. The Changeling rule only has a single subject, the Changeling itself. The Changeling is swapping stats with stats. He is exchanging one thing with another thing.

Take a look at what I am talking about.

Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase.

Here is the rule with the unimportant parts removed.

...the Changeling may ... 'swap' any or all of his ... values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase.

The pertinant parts to the rule are that the subject is the Changeling and the objects are his stats and his chosen foe's stats. Those objects are what is being swapped and exchanged. It is important to note that in your "with" example, you are showing a situation that does not parallel the Changeling situation.

The pertinant part is your misunderstanding of willfull twisting of what swapping is. Although I have to admire your persistence. You probably win a lot of arguments that way I guess, by outlasting your adversaries.

Gadhrain
10-09-2008, 09:44
Had the same discussion a couple a weeks ago at our club and sorry guys, but most likely Ganymede is perfectly correct. :)

Just because you want the changeling to work like speculum does not make it so.


The pertinant part is your misunderstanding of willfull twisting of what swapping is. Although I have to admire your persistence. You probably win a lot of arguments that way I guess, by outlasting your adversaries.

And this statement is just simply rude btw...


I'm not sure what part of the argument that goes past people but lets try and relate this to something most people that write in a forum have done (in fact without effecting anyone else...).

Once upon a time there was this computer with Win98. One day the owner of the computer came with a brand new shiny CD containing winXP. The owner put the CD in the drive and installed winXP and thus the opperating system was swapped for winXP. Strangely enough this little swap did not magically cause any other little computers out there in the big wide world to swap winXP to win98 now did it?
:p

Basically I agree that the rule is badly written BUT

1) the fluff tells that the changeling takes on the form of whoever to play tricks on people (which in no way imply that the 'copyed' person gets their characteristics remodelled)

2) as Faustburg said - For effs sake, stop ignoring the fact that the Speculum says that the opponent gets his stats, while the Changelings ability does not!!!

3) If the rules does not clearly state that you can do something then you can not do it.

4) Logically Ganymede is correct.

So the changeling can 'swap' his stats for those of the foe BUT this does not effect the foe in any way.

/Gadhrain

Reinnon
10-09-2008, 12:39
Gadhrain, did you even read the thread? Theres quite a few people who have posted arguments that go against yours, and you haven't even come up with a convincing argument...

your windows has no bearing on the argument - thats not a swap, thats a replacement. As we have detailed - there is more then one definition for "swap", and its not the same as the changling situation.

Gany - the changling rules quite clearly involves two subjects, the changling and the target - how an you read the rules without realising that?

DeathlessDraich
10-09-2008, 13:25
I have a feeling that those who have concocted this unique definition of swap have an ulterior motive and would like to play their games with that interpretation.

Is that true Ganymede?

Ganymede
10-09-2008, 15:41
Gany - the changling rules quite clearly involves two subjects, the changling and the target - how an you read the rules without realising that?

Read the rules again.

"Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase."

There is only a single subject: the Changeling.

Our subject is the Changeling and the objects are the Changeling's stats and the Foe's stats. In order for your interpretation to work, we need for a pair of subjects to do the swapping. In other words, we need a situation akin to the example, "Johnny and Steve swapped partners."

In this rule, we do not have a swap between two subjects; we have a swap of one object with another object. We are swapping stats with different stats. The example, "Johnny swapped anger with understanding," more closely mirrors the Changeling rules.


I have a feeling that those who have concocted this unique definition of swap have an ulterior motive and would like to play their games with that interpretation.

Is that true Ganymede?

I'd reply that accusations of impropriety like this have no place in our discourse. This kind of remark is no more than an assault on someone's chracter and dignity.

To accuse someone of supporting an interpretation solely because they would garner advantage from it is not only baseless, it is also irrelevant. Arguing that a person's interpretation of a rule is wrong because they would benefit from it is just as silly as claiming a person's support for affordable healthcare is tainted by the fact that he would benefit from the lowered prices on medicine.

It is also important to remember that such acusations are ultimately fruitless; every single rules interpretation out there has to benefit someone, whether it is the player fielding the Changeling or fighting the Changeling. I'd rather not participate in a discourse where such baseless claims of impropriety were tossed back and forth.

sulla
10-09-2008, 18:17
And this statement is just simply rude btw...

I make no apologies for being rude to people who mislead.





Once upon a time there was this computer with Win98. One day the owner of the computer came with a brand new shiny CD containing winXP. The owner put the CD in the drive and installed winXP and thus the opperating system was swapped for winXP. Strangely enough this little swap did not magically cause any other little computers out there in the big wide world to swap winXP to win98 now did it?
:p

Basically I agree that the rule is badly written BUT


'Replace' is the more accurate and useage here. Notice how GW didn't use replace in the changeling's rules?

Just because you use a looser definition of swap than most people does not make it work that way. A swap is an exchange. An exchange is a two way deal. Any other interpretation is just wishful thinking.

Reinnon
10-09-2008, 18:43
"Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase."

I've underlined the important part. The rule states two (not one, two) subjects, the changling and "the chosen foe". The Changling swaps his stats with the chosen foe, seems painfully obvious to me.

Your previous example of demenour never included a second subject, and thus isn't the best example of the situation.

Ganymede
10-09-2008, 18:57
"Formless Horror: At the start of each Combat Phase, the Changeling may choose an enemy model in base contact and 'swap' any or all of his Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of the chosen foe until the end of that Combat Phase."

I've underlined the important part. The rule states two (not one, two) subjects, the changling and "the chosen foe". The Changling swaps his stats with the chosen foe, seems painfully obvious to me.

Your previous example of demenour never included a second subject, and thus isn't the best example of the situation.


The "enemy model" is not a subject, it is an object. The "chosen foe" is just part of a prepositional phrase describing the stats. Being a person (or elf, dwarf, ratman, etc.) does not automatically make them a subject in a sentence.

I think I've identified the root of your misunderstanding here. Take a look at this quote of yours.

"The Changling swaps his stats with the chosen foe"

You are missing one important component to the rule. The chageling is not swapping his stats with his opponent. Instead, he is swapping his stats with those stats of his opponent. He is swapping a thing with a different thing. He is not swapping a thing with another subject.

Your quote should look closer to this...

"The Changeling swaps his stats with the stats of his chosen foe."

Shamfrit
10-09-2008, 19:29
A simple question; do you play Daemons of Chaos, Ganymede?

Reinnon
10-09-2008, 19:49
I really don't know what else i have to say to convince you, but here goes:

What is the difference between an object, and a subject? Why is the Changling a subject, while the chosen foe is an object?

Both are given an equal footing in the rules, the only difference being that the changling has direct control over what is being swapped, not replaced, swapped.

The Changling rules creates a situation where an exchange is possible. It gives us two sides for the exchange:

1) the Changling
2) the Chosen Foe.

Your previous example of "i swap my demenour" only has one source within it. The changling has two, if it didn't it would be meaningless as the changling could only swap within his own statline.

In order for there to be an exchange, two objects/subjects need to be involved.

Now we get to the "with" and "for" debate again, which i have already detailed there is a difference between swapping with, and swapping for. The difference lies in the direction of the swap.

The changling rules state that the changling swaps his stats with the enemies stats. If it said the changling swaps his stats for the enemies stats then you would be right - but it doesn't. It says with the enemies stats, therefore the exchange is a two way process.

"Now, the changling wants to gain the red apples. If he swaps his apples with the enemy, he gains green apples while the enemy gains red apples. However, if he swaps his apples for the enemies, all he needs to do is swap his red apples for green apples - he doesn't have to get the precise apples that the enemy is holding. All he needs to do is gain green apples."

A crude example i admit, but still important. There was a reason why GW used "with" instead of "for".

I admit that the precise nature of the english language is not my specialist subject, but I always thought the notion of "swapping" would be easy to explain.

Gadhrain
10-09-2008, 21:16
Man, this thread is actually really funny :)

Let say that I after reading this thread I may chose a person writing in this thread (as close as I can get to base to base) and 'swap' my ways of writing to other people (my "stats") with the ways of the chosen person (his stats)?

I would consider that a 'swap' of writing style for me, going from my current style to the other persons style and that would hardly change the way the chosen person writes would it? :p

Instead the chosen person would just define the style I'm swaping to.

Anyway, there is really no way of knowing what GW really intended (especially since they didn't FAQ it in the FAQ :rolleyes:) but we have the fluff and the (bad) wording to go by untill that happens and Ganymedes last post pretty much nailed the later part.

/ Gadhrain

Ganymede
10-09-2008, 21:31
I really don't know what else i have to say to convince you, but here goes:

What is the difference between an object, and a subject? Why is the Changling a subject, while the chosen foe is an object?


This part is the key element of your previous post. The reason why some elements in a sentence are subjects and other elements are objects is due to the rules of grammar. There's no tricks or anything to it.

Also remember that there is absolutely no difference between swapping an object with an object and swapping an object for an object. They both mean the same thing. Swapping apples with oranges is the same thing as swapping apples for oranges. The only time it would matter is if "oranges" was the nickname of your local apple merchant.


A simple question; do you play Daemons of Chaos, Ganymede?

You're right, this is a simple question. How is it relevant again?

Shamfrit
10-09-2008, 21:50
You'd be surprised, I guarantee the people who think 'swap' means 'copy' don't play Daemons. In much the same way that 'ORCS ARE TEH UBERZ!' typically comes from the mouths of people that...well, don't, actually, play green skins.

FigureFour
10-09-2008, 23:09
Man, this thread is actually really funny :)

Let say that I after reading this thread I may chose a person writing in this thread (as close as I can get to base to base) and 'swap' my ways of writing to other people (my "stats") with the ways of the chosen person (his stats)?

I would consider that a 'swap' of writing style for me, going from my current style to the other persons style and that would hardly change the way the chosen person writes would it? :p

Instead the chosen person would just define the style I'm swaping to.

You're funny. You seem to think that incorrectly using a word constitutes an argument.

Edit: Also, how is it tangental to the discussion that EVERY source (even dictionary.com) says that a "swap" is the act of giving something and recieving something in turn.

Is there any arguement that supports ganymede's claim and uses the correct definition of swap?

Reinnon
11-09-2008, 00:48
Ok ok ok, last try:

Subjects = changling and target foe

Object = statistics

Why? Because the changling needs to get the stats from somewhere, and the rules tells us that this comes from the chosen foe. The chosen foe isn't being traded, and thus isn't an object.

The rules then tell us that the changling swaps (and to swap is to exchange) his stats with those of the chosen foe. Both the changling and the chosen foe are subjects, and thus both must exchange, or else it is not a swap.

The stats (the objects) then get exchanged.

There, i've tried to explain it with minimal fuss. I would never have thought i would be having a 2 day debate about what the word swap means, but there we go.

Ganymede
11-09-2008, 01:16
Ok ok ok, last try:

Subjects = changling and target foe

Object = statistics

Why? Because the changling needs to get the stats from somewhere, and the rules tells us that this comes from the chosen foe. The chosen foe isn't being traded, and thus isn't an object.

Those are not the rules for the english language though. I think you just made those above rules up.


You'd be surprised, I guarantee the people who think 'swap' means 'copy' don't play Daemons. In much the same way that 'ORCS ARE TEH UBERZ!' typically comes from the mouths of people that...well, don't, actually, play green skins.

I already addressed this point earlier.


I'd reply that accusations of impropriety like this have no place in our discourse. This kind of remark is no more than an assault on someone's character and dignity.

To accuse someone of supporting an interpretation solely because they would garner advantage from it is not only baseless, it is also irrelevant. Arguing that a person's interpretation of a rule is wrong because they would benefit from it is just as silly as claiming a person's support for affordable healthcare is tainted by the fact that he would benefit from the lowered prices on medicine.

It is also important to remember that such acusations are ultimately fruitless; every single rules interpretation out there has to benefit someone, whether it is the player fielding the Changeling or fighting the Changeling. I'd rather not participate in a discourse where such baseless claims of impropriety were tossed back and forth.

sulla
11-09-2008, 06:05
Those are not the rules for the english language though. I think you just made those above rules up.



I have already posted the rules for how to apply the definition of a 'swap' in the english language (from multiple sources). You have chosen to ignore them. It's a bit rich to complain about other people not following the rules of the english language.

Ganymede
11-09-2008, 07:05
I have already posted the rules for how to apply the definition of a 'swap' in the english language (from multiple sources). You have chosen to ignore them. It's a bit rich to complain about other people not following the rules of the english language.

I know you are trying to facilitate the conversation here, but I am forced to let you know that you are not helping. Your previous flurry of Dictionary.com posts were incomplete and poorly organized. You cherry picked definitions that did not fit the situation's context and called that proof. That's not constructive.

Brimstone
11-09-2008, 08:09
Is there any actual rules discussion going on here or are you swapping dictionary definitions?
Please try and have constructive discussion and try not to get too agressive about it. :)

The Warseer Inquisition

sulla
11-09-2008, 09:34
Is there any actual rules discussion going on here or are you swapping dictionary definitions?
Please try and have constructive discussion and try not to get too agressive about it. :)

The Warseer Inquisition

I'm at a loss what else to do. If someone disagrees what swap means, all I can do is point to what it's definition is. To me, that is constructive. It highlights where the mistake is. If they still disagree... What would you do?

Gazak Blacktoof
11-09-2008, 10:48
I think you'll just have to wait for another FAQ to see if they really meant "acquires the characteristics of" or "exchanges his characteristics with". Just dice off for it before the game or else discuss it with your opponent- I know that's not a real solution but its the only one you're likely to get.

Reinnon
11-09-2008, 12:29
Gany - you must have been taught different laws of grammar to me when the word "swap" is used, and no doubt you are a english professor or something. I really am at a loss on what else to say beyond digging up an oxford dictionary and listing every single definition of swap, exchange and with.

I've tried everything, and its clear that no matter what i do you will never agree with me. Play the changling the wrong way then, i'm going to leave this thread before i lose my sanity.

Faustburg
11-09-2008, 12:39
It's not that the word 'swap' can't mean what you believe it to be, it's that it does not have to, either in everyday use or in the context of Warhammer (or any other game for that matter)...

Changing the C's stats for/with (also not an important difference) what the enemy model in contact happen to have, without changing that models for/with what the C have, also fulfills the criteria for being a 'swap'.

Shamfrit
11-09-2008, 13:45
The rest of my group has agreed that the Changeling does switch stats exactly like Van Horstmann's, and that's with me being the only Daemon player of the group - so it's not a 'shock horror weaken Daemon' reaction for people to arrive at the simplest, most logical conclusion with what is written, and how it is written.

Ask as many people as you know, without influencing them beforehand, just plonk the book down and give them an A) option and a B) option (one exchange, one copy) and see what there natural reaction is without saying a word. It's the only way to come to a decision without this thread continuing ad infinitum , in the age old tradition of Warseer.

And on that note, I'm unsubscribing - (no pun intended) as the issues been resolved in our group - so good look to the rest of you.

Gadhrain
11-09-2008, 15:53
It's not that the word 'swap' can't mean what you believe it to be, it's that it does not have to, either in everyday use or in the context of Warhammer (or any other game for that matter)...

Changing the C's stats for/with (also not an important difference) what the enemy model in contact happen to have, without changing that models for/with what the C have, also fulfills the criteria for being a 'swap'.

Good way of explaining it. Should have been written a couple of pages back! ;)

Irregardless of the rules interpretation they fluff text clearly says that the changeling is a shapshifter and nowhere does it say that he by changing makes a greater damon of Khorne into a little pet by doing so. So with that in mind it seems unreasonable with an interpretation where he "steals" the stats of the opponent.

/ Gadhrain

SolarHammer
12-09-2008, 07:59
Irregardless
I hate that non-word.

Condottiere
12-09-2008, 08:26
Regardless

Gadhrain
12-09-2008, 11:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

:)

/Gadhrain

BattleofLund
12-09-2008, 17:55
Have all the big boys left now? Only nuclear waste left in the battlefield of wit?

Is it safe to say that none of those participating in this discussion have been sufficiently convinced by their opponents' arguments to change their opinions? I think so, anyway. :)

For what it's worth, I agree with the position that exchanging 'a value' with 'another value' doesn't prevent another person, who originally championed 'another value', from still retaining that value.

But shouldn't the discussion be about what the rule should be to be playable?
If in the upcoming WoC book, and contrary to the rumoured cost, Warriors of Chaos (with the rumoured stats and rules) should turn out to be 2pts a piece... and the book's author fiercely refuses to admit it is a mistake... should we allow Warriors to dominate our WFB game for the next five years, or until enough new Army Books are released to balance WoC?

Not that the Changeling will do that, with either interpretation. Or that it's cost easily explains either interpretation (in my opinion). Ah well, there are jiggly boobs on the TV. Damn I'm easily distracted. :D

sulla
12-09-2008, 20:19
For what it's worth, I agree with the position that exchanging 'a value' with 'another value' doesn't prevent another person, who originally championed 'another value', from still retaining that value.


Nor does it rule it out. In most cases, it is neccessary. If we exchange cars, I get your car but you don't get to keep your car. If we swap clothes, we can't both be wearing the same jersey. So on and so forth.

Look, I have some sympathy with players who want to make rules work in ways more in line with the fluff of the game, but I think it's too much of a stretch in this case to use swap like others in this post want to.

If anybody needs to closer marry fluff to rules, why not think of the Changeling like the Parasite from the Superman comics; he gains the powers of supes by syphoning them off when he touches him. He gets stronger, faster etc while Superman gets weaker and slower.

Condottiere
12-09-2008, 20:28
When I first read the entry for Changeling, I interpreted it as that he cloned the chosen model's stats. While I'm not 100% sure that was the intent, it's certainly a legitimate reading.

Another issue that needs to be FAQed.

Lijacote
12-09-2008, 21:05
Swaps his own stats with those of his opponent's. It's still an equal exchange because nobody loses anything!

Faustburg
13-09-2008, 08:00
Look, I have some sympathy with players who want to make rules work in ways more in line with the fluff of the game, but I think it's too much of a stretch in this case to use swap like others in this post want to.

You have to realise it is "your side" that is doing the stretching...

The much lamented 'swap' can be interpretated both ways, but "opponent gets his stats as well" side are then assuming it works like the speculum, when that extra effect is not in the rules. That is a stretch.




If anybody needs to closer marry fluff to rules, why not think of the Changeling like the Parasite from the Superman comics; he gains the powers of supes by syphoning them off when he touches him. He gets stronger, faster etc while Superman gets weaker and slower.

...but if that was the case, again, it would have been expected to be at least hinted in the color text that this is what he does. Which isn't.

But fluff isn't rules anyway...

sulla
13-09-2008, 17:52
You have to realise it is "your side" that is doing the stretching...

In what way? Do you think a swap should not be a two way exchange? If so, you'll have to offer proof because that is the commonly accepted useage.

Faustburg
13-09-2008, 17:55
As I said; by adding the "opponent get his stats" (sic), as per the speculum, when it is not there.

sulla
14-09-2008, 03:31
As I said; by adding the "opponent get his stats" (sic), as per the speculum, when it is not there.

But the speculum's first sentence is "When the wearer fights a challenge he can 'swap' his base Weapon Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative and Attacks values with those of his enemy." The sentence you refer to comes later (and looks very much like an explanation, not an extra rule). Are you telling me that if the final sentence of the VHS was omitted, you would not swap stats with each other?

Ganymede
14-09-2008, 03:45
In what way? Do you think a swap should not be a two way exchange? If so, you'll have to offer proof because that is the commonly accepted useage.

Definitions of the word "swap" which do not entail a two-way exchange have already been posted earlier in the thread. You can also access them at either MeriamWebster.com or Dictionary.com.

sulla
14-09-2008, 07:02
Definitions of the word "swap" which do not entail a two-way exchange have already been posted earlier in the thread. You can also access them at either MeriamWebster.com or Dictionary.com.

Yes, cambridge online too, and they are demonstrably not the most common useage in any. How do you come to the conclusion that a less common version of the word should be the accepted norm in this case?

Gadhrain
14-09-2008, 13:40
Yes, cambridge online too, and they are demonstrably not the most common useage in any. How do you come to the conclusion that a less common version of the word should be the accepted norm in this case?

Well... maybe because that makes more sense when taking the fluff into account? :p


/Gadhrain

Ganymede
14-09-2008, 16:00
Yes, cambridge online too, and they are demonstrably not the most common useage in any. How do you come to the conclusion that a less common version of the word should be the accepted norm in this case?

Is this really the argument you want to run with? That your definition would be more probable based on a random sample? Additionally, I'm going to have to call you out here for being factually inaccurate. The Meriam Webster site labels the definition I've called for as more common than yours.

Remember, each definition of the word is used in certain contexts. In this particular context, we are kinda boxed in to using a very specific definition. Otherwise, the rule and definition make no sense.

blurred
16-09-2008, 08:26
Hi,

I pondered this question for a while and couldn't come to a conclusion (both sides had good arguments) so I went and showed it to a professor of English philology here at the University.

He said that "swap with" has a definite bi-directional relation between the objects whereas "swap for" could mean that one of the subjects has the advantage.

His actual words were: "these [umm] monsters have to make an equal exchange of stats."

I still think this should be FAQ'd, but this is what it means from a linguistic point of view. :)

TheBeardKing
09-09-2011, 13:42
I originally disagreed with Ganymede but now I have "swapped" my opinions for those of his.

That doesn't imply that Ganymede has changed his mind does it?

I'm a Daemons player and I would love the uber-powerful version of the Changeling to be true but it really doesn't feel right. It's extremely poorly worded but the fluff really makes me think the lesser version is the true one.

warplock
09-09-2011, 14:12
I'm a Daemons player

And a Necromancer :p

That said, I just read this whole thread and it was most amusing.

philbrad2
09-09-2011, 17:58
Please dont open threads long since laid to rest. Staking this one...

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)