PDA

View Full Version : Tomb Swarms; Undead & Unbreakable



Star.Scream
17-11-2005, 19:15
>>>>>Alright; in the Tomb King Tactica Thread(Found Here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3472&page=2)) a question has been rased that no one can agree on; I am hoping that buy asking the rules-layers of Warseer that we will be able to put an end to this. I am going to quote the two arguements from that thread.


Arguement #1

kd7svh

The undead rules are you so nicely quoted (thanks, btw, my army book is at home) will actually help my case here.

"Undead cannot be broken, but Undead units beaten in combat suffer one additional wound for every point they lose the combat by."

This rule is not the same as being Unbreakable - the only similarity is that units do not run away. However, Undead are still affected by combat in the form of additional casaulties. Thus they are not Unbreakable, in the terms laid out in the BRB. The general usage of "Unbreakable" by most players when referring to Undead is in fact a misnomer and thus the source of the confusion here.

"All models listed in the Tomb Kings army list are undead."

Indeed. But, as I have said before, when analying rules the specific overrules the general. Thus the GENERAL undead combat resolution rule is overridden by the SPECIFIC Tomb Swarm rule of being classified as Unbreakable.

The reason why characters cannot join swarms it becasue swarms follow a different form of combat resolution than normal units. I.E. that they are Unbreakable. This is a balance issue that the game designers must have foreseen. Wouldn't you put your Saurus Oldblood in a unit of Lizard swarms in order to make him unbreakable?

Your "outsiders" fluff answer to Flagellants and Slayers is weak. The same game balance issue applies to these units as well, as they are, in essence, the Empire and Dwarf versions of swarms. This a rules interpretation not a fluff argument. Fluff has nothing to do with rules

In fact the 2002 Annual goes into some detail about how Unbreakable/ Immune to Psychology/Stubborn Units interact with "standard-psychology" characters. If Tomb Swarms operated in the same fashion as other undead there would be no rules-based need to disallow charcaters from joining them.


Arguement #2

I disagree. Yes, clearly the swarm are listed as Unbreakable. But they are also listed as Undead and the general rules for Undead models includes the additional wounds from combat rule (emphasis mine):

"Undead cannot be broken, but Undead units beaten in combat suffer one additional wound for every point they lose the combat by."

And this line from the very start of the genearl rules for TK (again, emphasis is mine):

"All models listed in the Tomb Kings army list are undead."

While I would like to agree with you on this one (it would sure be nice for the swarms to not crumble), I think the general rules just cannot be overriden by the "Unbreakable" rule.


>>>>>>I always thought Statment #2 was true; however, CarlostheCraven's Idea makes sense; because if statement #2 is true swarms are useless in a Tomb King Army; however, if Statement #1 is true; then Swarms have valid use and place in a Tomb King Army.

Thank you for your time!

kd7svh
17-11-2005, 20:05
Just to clarify, when Star says "no one can agree", he really means me and Craven. :evilgrin: (Oh, and BTW, we aren't actually argueing in the :mad: sense. Just taking different perspectives).

Craven feels that since the Tomb Swarms have "Unbreakable" listed in their special rules that the standard BRB definition takes precedent over the general TK rules that govern "Undead" which is also listed in the Tomb Swarms special rules.

Frankly, I would be real happy to have Craven's opinion be deemed the correct one (especially by the official powers-that-be at GW). It would certainly make Swarms more attractive than they are now. But the rules-lawyering nerd in me can't swallow it just yet.

Atrahasis
17-11-2005, 20:06
While a strict reading of the rules leaves Tomb Swarms unaffected by combat resolution in any way, the intent of the deisgners (as expressed on the GW forum) is that they be affected by the Undead rules like any other Undead unit.

kd7svh
17-11-2005, 20:08
the intent of the deisgners (as expressed on the GW forum) is that they be affected by the Undead rules like any other Undead unit.

Links please?

Festus
17-11-2005, 20:17
Hi

I think that even a strict reading of the rules will yield this result:

An unbreakable unit never needs to take break tests.

This is nice to have, but pretty pointless for undead who don't take Break Tests as well and can never be broken from combat.
Instead they suffer additional Wounds.

Thus the TS has two rules that say the same: Don't take Break Tests. and one rule that adds: lose Wounds instead.

So it is: Don't take Break Tests and lose Wounds instead.

Greetings
FEstus

Griefbringer
17-11-2005, 20:32
Unbreakable and undead special abilites in the same unit? That sounds somewhat redundant to me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-11-2005, 20:46
Tomb Swarms do indeed crumble. Requirests you to duse them differently. But they can still be used.

Atrahasis
17-11-2005, 20:47
An unbreakable unit never needs to take break tests.

Nope. The Unbreakable rules specifically say that an Unbreakable unit will fight on regardless of combat resolution. If the unit suffers casualties, then it is not fighting on regardless.

T10
18-11-2005, 06:29
If I'm not mistaken, the Tomb Swarms do not have the Unbreakble special rule explicitly stated, but "inherit it" through the Swarm special rule. If this is the case there is no cause to assume that it has been overriden or enforced in anyway. Thus it is only a matter of ensuring that the rules are not broken rather than figuring out how to creatively implement them.

So: Even an unbreakable unit can lose combat, allowing the enemy to expand frontage and lap around. The loss of wounds due to combat resolution (Undead) does not not conflict with the Unbreakble rule (Swarm).

On a similar note: Tomb King Light Cavalry is classed as Fast Cavalry. It's status as Undead serves to render most of the rules options for Fast Cavalry inapplicable: Since it is immune to psychology (Undead) it cannot flee-rally-move- and-shoot (Fast Cavalry). Since it cannot march (Undead) it cannot march-and-shoot (Fast Cavalry).

This, like the Undead vs. Swarms rules, isn't so much a conflict in the rules as much as one set restricts the application of another providing a result that is less than the sum of its parts.

-T10

Griefbringer
18-11-2005, 08:54
There really isn't any generic swarm rule in the 6th edition.

Latro
18-11-2005, 09:44
You could also reason that "unbreakable" is the general rule (from the rulebook) and "undead" is the specific rule (from the armybook) and thereby taking precedence over "unbreakable".

... the same way as it does in the example T10 gave with the undead fast cavalry: certain aspects of being undead (specific rule) take precedence over certain abilities of being fast cavalry (general rule).

:cool:

Zanusiekk
18-11-2005, 10:10
Even though the unit does not break, it still loses combat... The extra wounds on undead are suffered when they lose combat, not when they break, since they don't... can't really see why there would be a problem with the interpretation.
If, on the other hand, the rule had said "...cannot lose combat...", your point would have been valid...

Avian
18-11-2005, 13:08
The whole point of army-specific rules is that they overrule the general game rules. If that was not the case there could be no army-specific rules.

Thus the Tomb King undead rules should trump the general Unbreakable rules whenever there is a conflict.

Morph
18-11-2005, 14:33
It's less a case of one special rule trumping another. Surely they just exist side by side. If a unit has special rules these take prescedence over the usual rules, but if a unit has more than one special rule they don't take prescendence over each other.

So in the this case the Tomb Swarm rules say Undead and Unbreakable.

Which means -
They're unbreakable - they are immune to psychology and do not take break tests

They're undead - They can't march, are immune to psychology and do not take break tests, instead they lose a wound for each point of combat they lost by.

So both apply. Sure, the two abilities overalp (and unbreakable ends up redundant) but still both apply. So they crumble.


As an aside, characters can't join them because character's can't join skirmishing units.

Festus
18-11-2005, 16:02
Hi

As an aside, characters can't join them because character's can't join skirmishing units.
Thsis is not true and you are maybe thinking of a rule from 5th Ed. here.(edit: I checked and even in 5th a character was allowed to join a skirmish formation (p.97 of 5th ed.)

See p.116, last paragraph of the BRB:

A character on foot may join a skirmishing unit. A mounted character may not, though.

Greetings
Festus

Izram
18-11-2005, 17:21
I always thought it was the intent for them to crumble, especially because they "come from below", cause fear and have poison, whilst being less expensive than other swarms.

Star.Scream
18-11-2005, 19:49
>>>>>Thank you for all the feedback; It was my assumption too that the Undead Rule would trump that simple Swarm rule in this case; Thank you for your input.

I'm still not sure Swarms that crumble have a valid place in a TK list; since there are other units that can do the same job just as well; and that dont have to worry about not appearing because of "it came from below," that being said; I have never used theml, but my list is working find without them.

Ganymede
18-11-2005, 21:19
The undead and unbreakable rules are not mutually exclusive. Neither negates each other in any way.

Yes, tomb swarms are unbreakable. Yes, tomb swarms are also undead. The effects of both of these rules do nothing to cancel the other rule out, so apply both effects. It will be easy to do because all of the effects of 'Unbreakable' are redundant with most of the effects of 'Undead'.

Simply put, tomb swarms crumble exactly like any other unit. Does this make tomb swarms a bad unit? Nurglings are a daemonic swarm, and they are an incredible unit. Both nurglings and tomb swarms fufill similar roles. They are both incredible flank sweepers and support units. They are able to bring a high, fear causing US to the table. They are incredibly maneuverable and fast. They shred up most other skirmishers and fast cav with their large amount of attacks. Tomb swarms can even tunnel; that lets them easily seek out wizards and warmachines.

Ganymede
18-11-2005, 21:26
>>>>>Thank you for all the feedback; It was my assumption too that the Undead Rule would trump that simple Swarm rule in this case; Thank you for your input.

I'm still not sure Swarms that crumble have a valid place in a TK list; since there are other units that can do the same job just as well; and that dont have to worry about not appearing because of "it came from below," that being said; I have never used theml, but my list is working find without them.

The bolded part...

That's the most ridiculous thing i've heard today. That's like saying that one ogre bull is better than one leadbelcher because the bull doesn't have to worry about suffering a misfire. It's like saying that having a cannon is worse than not having a cannon, because iwthout a cannon you don't need to worry about it exploding.

Star.Scream
18-11-2005, 21:40
That's the most ridiculous thing i've heard today. That's like saying that one ogre bull is better than one leadbelcher because the bull doesn't have to worry about suffering a misfire. It's like saying that having a cannon is worse than not having a cannon, because iwthout a cannon you don't need to worry about it exploding.



>>>>>Woa Woa Woa there fella. When I said

and that dont have to worry about not appearing because of "it came from below,"

I was referring to other units in the TK list that are able to hunt warmachine crew and wizards; but that do not need to use "it came from below" to do it.

The statement about Bulls and LeadBelchers is a bad example, because the two units fill different rolls in the Ogre army; where as Swarms and Carrion fill the same roll in a Tomb King Army. LeadBelchers are more used to Holding Flanks and staggering the Enemy Line; whereas Bulls are the Core of the Fighting Force; and are better suited for head-on Combat; rather then protecting a flank.

Can Undead Swarms hunt Warmachines? Yes, however they will most likley have to us "ICFB" to do such a thing; Carrior fill this roll just as easilly; and also do not have to worry about not showing up on the board because of a bad roll on the ICFB chart. Carrion are more dependable then Swarms; that can easilly be seen, and that is why I dont use Swarms in my TK army.

Lastly; if you have an opinion state it; but do so without:


That's the most ridiculous thing i've heard today.

Ganymede
19-11-2005, 01:26
You sure did mean and intend a whole lot of stuff that you neglected to write. I think the lesson here is to fully eplain what you are trying to convey when you make a post. Half-assin it just won't work when ther are no body signals or facial expressions to read.

My opinion was that your statement was ridiculous, if I didn't say that, then I would have nothing to say.

Lastly, now that you explain what you meant, you do hae a point. Though, I believe you are neglecting some of the tomb swarms strengths. Sure, carrion and tomb swarms can both hunt warmachines. But remember, that's about all carrion can do. Swarms, on the other hand, have myraid other uses.

While carrion have an incredibly low unit strength, Tomb swarms have quite an impressive unit strength. Three swarms will easily outnumber any fast cav and skirmisher unit out there, and can easily rout them through autobreak. Three swarms also have fifteen poisoned attacks; that'll easily cause 2-3 automati wounds. That's not counting any non poison wounds, which might total one or maybe two. Carrion can not come close to achieving the same results.

Also, remember that tomb swarms high unit strength and attacks can be used to support skeleton blocks. THree tomb swarms in the flank of a unit not only guarantees Outnumber, but you also get flank bonus and a bunch of attacks. Carrion can not support skeleton blocks in the same way.

Lastly, tomb swarms are far superior at wizard sniping. Two tomb swarm bases is practically guaranteed to kill a wizard. You will be hard pressed to kill a wizard in a block of troops with two carrion bases.

In conclusion, and as I said before, tomb swarms fill a very similar role that nurglings fill. They are battlefield support.

*edit* they are also core, yay!

CarlostheCraven
19-11-2005, 04:35
I finally have time to try to elaborate on my argument and I actually have the rules available.

Unbreakable p.113 BRB
These troops never break from close combat and they are also immune to panic,terror fear or any other Psychology rules. If defeated in close combat unbreakable troops continue to fight on regardless of results. They may never, however, declare that they are fleeing as a charge reaction, as they will literally die fighting under any circumstances

Undead p. 21 Tomb Kings Army Book
Undead cannot be broken, but Undead units beaten in combat suffer one additional wound for every point they lose combat by... (and onward with characters taking wounds, and overrunning and such)

Tomb Swarms p. 28 Tomb Kings Army Book
Swarm
Tomb Swarms represent countless numbers of creatures on a single 40mm base.... [skip to final sentence].... Tombs Swarms are Unbreakable and cannot be joined by characters.

Also Small, Skirmishers, Poisoned Attacks, "It came from below..."
They are also Undead

First off, can we all agree that specific rules override general rules? If so, then we can all agree that the Undead rules on pg 21 are the General Rules for the Tomb King Army - meaning all units have to follow those rules unless another rule specific to the unit overrides it.

Unbreakable is a Unit-specific rule that sets it apart from the norm within an army, as are Scouts, Immune to Psychology, Scaly Skin, Killing Blow, and Regeneration - all the rules listed in the BRB p 113. Arguing that Tomb Swarms are not really Unbreakable, is the exact same thing as saying that Shadow Warriors cannot Scout. The general army rules for high elves state that they must set up in the normal fashion. The Scouting rule applied to Shadow Warriors supercedes this restriction. If you want, I could make examples of each of these rules.

I think the problem is that most of you who have been kind enough to respond have not followed through the full Unbreakable Rule.

Lets compare - Unbreakable units never break from close combat (Undead units cannot be broken) - check, the words do not quite mean the same thing, but we will say that they are effectively the same. Lets skip Immune to Psych, I do not think anyone is disagreement over this...

If defeated in close combat unbreakable troops continue to fight on regardless of results. (Undead - but Undead units beaten in combat suffer one additional wound for every point they lose combat by...). To me these two sentences contradict each other. The key word is regardless - "with no heed, careless" - which in my honest opinion means that combat results that are not in favour of Unbreakable units are simply ignored. Simply, if an unbreakable unit loses they ignore any penalties.

Therefore, since Unbreakable is a specific rule being applied to a unit that follows a set of General (Undead) rules, it overrides the penalty of lost combat as per the 2nd sentence of the unbreakable rule.

What the rest of you have been doing is ignoring the implication of the second part of unbreakable, while utilizing the second part of the Undead Break Test rule. This is simply incorrect.

Did I express myself clearly enough? I imagine some would disagree with my Shadow Warrior analogy, but it is in fact the exact same application of the rules as Unbreakable on the Undead Tomb Swarms.

Cheers

Kordos
19-11-2005, 05:36
"If defeated in close combat unbreakable troops continue to fight on regardless of results"

I don't understand how people can take this to mean that tomb swarms do not lose wounds from combat res - it is beyond me ! the rules clearly state

'REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS'

they do not say 'ignor the effect of combat res'

the RESULTS of an undead unit losing combat is that they take a number of wounds equal to how much they lost the combat res by

So if a tomb swarm loses combat it takes a number of wounds equal to what it lost by - then fight on REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS !

And yes i know it is redundant due to the Undead rules, I have a feeling that originaly tomb swarms were NOT going to be undead but then the game designers changed it but left Unbreakable in thier rules

((as a side note this was argued about on the GW boards but I can't find the post - i think it was deleated due to the amount of flaming going on and several of the mods posted saying that tomb swarms do lose wounds from combat res))

Festus
19-11-2005, 10:15
Hi

While carrion have an incredibly low unit strength, Tomb swarms have quite an impressive unit strength. Three swarms will easily outnumber any fast cav and skirmisher unit out there, and can easily rout them through autobreak.

Do we talk about the same Tomb Swarms here?

Tomb Swarms have a US of 3 each, meaning that 3 Bases add up to US 9.
That is the equivalent or less than 5 Light Cavalry, the minimum size for this type of units.

Greetings
Festus

Festus
19-11-2005, 10:21
Hi

First off, can we all agree that specific rules override general rules?
No, we can unfortunately not always agree here. And which is the specific rule, which is the general one?

If so, then we can all agree that the Undead rules on pg 21 are the General Rules for the Tomb King Army - meaning all units have to follow those rules unless another rule specific to the unit overrides it.
No, definitely untrue:

Undead rules apply to a few units in the game, Unbreakable applies to a few units in the game.
Just because *Undead* only applies to units from 3 Army Lists, and two special ones in particular (TK, VC, DoW, while all TK units, most VC units and only one DoW unit follow the Undead set of Rules), there is no ranking of trumps here.
No rule is more valid that the other.

As long as the rules do not contradict each other (or give rules how to handle any contradiction), *all* rules apply.

There is no trump.

So TS do not break from combat, ignore CRs, cannot flee, are immune to Psy, and crumble...

Greetings
Festus

Ganymede
19-11-2005, 13:40
It ain't hard to inflict a wound or two with 15 poisoned attacks. Personally, I never see fast cav in blocks bigger than 6, unless you are using chaos dwarfs.

To be fair though, I was adding up US as if they were 5 a piece; oops. Three is still quite nice though, much better than carrion which would probably never be big enough to get a flank bonus.


Hi


Do we talk about the same Tomb Swarms here?

Tomb Swarms have a US of 3 each, meaning that 3 Bases add up to US 9.
That is the equivalent or less than 5 Light Cavalry, the minimum size for this type of units.

Greetings
Festus

Latro
19-11-2005, 17:38
No, we can unfortunately not always agree here. And which is the specific rule, which is the general one?


A good rule of thumb would be:

Rulebook = general rules
Armybook = specific rules


:cool:

Festus
19-11-2005, 22:52
Hi

A good rule of thumb would be:
Rulebook = general rules
Armybook = specific rules

So the Unbreakable rule would be trumped by the Undead set of rules?
:p

Greetings
Festus

Latro
20-11-2005, 06:58
Hi

So the Unbreakable rule would be trumped by the Undead set of rules?
:p

Greetings
Festus

Ofcourse! :D

WLBjork
20-11-2005, 09:34
Great idea...

Except that the Rulebook includes Magic Items, all of which have special rules, and the "Special Rules" section which includes (shock, horror) Special Rules.

Unfortunately, as a generalisation, it quite clearly fails.

I think Kordos has it most clearly:
I don't understand how people can take this to mean that tomb swarms do not lose wounds from combat res - it is beyond me ! the rules clearly state

'REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS'

they do not say 'ignor the effect of combat res'

the RESULTS of an undead unit losing combat is that they take a number of wounds equal to how much they lost the combat res by

Festus
20-11-2005, 10:27
Hi

Yes, this is the conclusion: They do crumble, indeed.

We were just joking a bit in a friendly way...

Greetings
Festus

CarlostheCraven
20-11-2005, 16:53
The Game of Warhammer cannot function if there is no heirarchy of rules, or if it did then it would be incredibily boring as all units would need to function in the exact same manner.

Here is the heirarchy of Rules of Warhammer
General Game Rules are modified by Army Specific Game Rules, which are in turn modified by Unit Specific Game Rules.

- General Games Rules - pg 39-85 (game mechanics), 88-106 (weapons, Characters, Generals, Battle Standards, Monsters and Flyers) for and 134-154 (Magic) - these are the overarching rules to playing the game of warhammer - movement, magic, shooting, close combat, and psychology. This tier of rules governs general game play unless an army or unit specific rule takes precedence, as it must if the game is to function properly.

- Army Specific Game Rules - these are rules that apply to an entire army, unless modified by a unit specific rule. These rules are printed in a general section of a Army book because they apply, in general, to all units within an army. For example, Orc Choppa, Animosity, Empire Handguns, Full Plate, Dwarven Handgun, Daemonic, Unruly, Strength in Numbers, Lead from the Back, Strength in Numbers, Warpstone Weapons, Hate High Elves, Undead... etc. These rules all modifiy how an army works in relation to the general rules that govern Warhammer.

- Special Rules - these are rules that modify how a unit functions within the General and Army Specific Rules. There are two areas that these Special Rules exist. The first is - pg 112-128 of the BRB - Special rules - which contains modifications to units that act outside the norm as laid down in pg 39-128. This section includes Special Rules (Unbreakable, Scouts, etc), Skirmishers, Fast Cavalry, War machines and Chariots - but are present in many armies and thus placing them in the main rule book is more convienent than reprinting them in every army book. The second area that these rules exist is within the unit entry itself. Often these unit specific rules are simply new and often unique - Aura of Frost, Fall Over, Bad Tempered, Storm Rage, etc. Just as many unit specific rules refer to pg 112-128 ofthe BRB - Skirmishers, Killing Blow, Poisoned Attacks. These rules are they most important rules in the game as they create exceptions to the General and Army specific rules.

I think this "trumping" of rules is pretty obvious.

Lets set of the framework for the Tomb Swarm question.
We are playing warhammer, thus using the general rules that govern the system. I am playing Tomb Kings, thus modifying several aspects of the general rules by applying the Undead rules on pages 20-21 (game mechanics) and 34-35 (magic) of my army book, calling for a General that must be a Tomb Prince or King (rather than any character I want, as long no one else has a higher leadership), a Heirophant that must be a Liche Priest or a High Liche Priest with the highest leadership (entirely new) Break Tests are modified, such that my units cannot be broken but suffer additional wounds, Arrows of the asp (ignore normal modifiers), Battles Standard (1 less would suffered by combat res VS rerolled Break Tests) Immune to Psychology (brb, 112), Cause Fear (BRB 81), Marching (none allowed), Charge reactions (may only hold). As magic is not the issue I won't go into its differences.

One of my Units happens to be a Tomb Swarm. They happen to have a set of specific rules that further alter the manner in which they interact with the army and general game rules. They cannot march (TK restriction) but they can Skirmish (BRB115-116), "trumping" the standard manner in which my units move. Poisoned attacks - 6's to hit auto wound, "Trumping" the standard close combat method for most units. "It came from below..." allowing an alternate means of deployment, "trumping" the standard meas of deployment for the given scenario. And finally, Swarm - Unbreakable, no characters - Unbreakable replaces the Break Tests portion of the general undead rules, as it is a unit specific modification to how they treat break tests. It "Trumps" the standard rule.

Similarly - Undead Constructs "trump" the standard break test rule in a more limited way, by reducing the additional wounds taken by 1. Tomb Swarms simply take that reduction farther, by eliminating it with their explicit Unbreakable rule. It is in black and white, it is not obscure, or an error of omission, or innuendo, or extrapolation, or anything other than a clearly stated Unit Specific modification to the General Undead Rules that modifiy the General Game Rules.

Cheers

Festus
20-11-2005, 17:19
Hi

You are constructing something that is not there:

The rules are not organized in such a manner, and even if they were, why don't you really follow your own system to the end?

In your eyes, rules for skirmishing troops or fast cav are not in the same tier as the rules for monsters and BattleStandards??? :wtf:

To elaborate:
You say that unit's rules supercede army's rules, which in turn supercede game's basic rules?

Sorry, but this is simply not true and even you cannot keep to this system:

So you are telling me, that Tomb Swarms can Skirmish, because the rule *Skirmish* is more specific and thus trumps the usual unit's rules, while the very same *Skirmish* rule - which allows skirmishing units to always march - in turn is trumped by the Army's rule of Undead (cannot march)?

There is neither logic nor systematic in your idea, thus I really cannot follow you there...

As I already said: The only rule concerning trumping of rules is that *all rules apply* and some rules modify or substitute the other rules.
This is why (attention: example coming) models can shoot to their front 90° arc, and the rules for Skirmishers say they always can see and shoot in 360°and Fast Cav tell us that even they can shoot within 360°.

Festus

Morph
21-11-2005, 15:00
It is in black and white, it is not obscure, or an error of omission, or innuendo, or extrapolation, or anything other than a clearly stated Unit Specific modification to the General Undead Rules that modifiy the General Game Rules.

Cheers

For a rule that is totally black & white, only you seem to believe it. You are definitely pushing the rules to illogical conclusions.

And just taking your system into account, the unit specific rules for Swarms say 'undead' as well as 'swarm' (see the unit entry in the army list). So both apply.

The thing is that even with your system, Unbreakable doesn't trump crumbling. I really can't see where that comes from.

I can tell you're not going to be convinced, but I think most others aren't convinced by you... I'll certainly continue playing with swarms my way.

Atrahasis
21-11-2005, 15:15
For a rule that is totally black & white, only you seem to believe it. You are definitely pushing the rules to illogical conclusions.

I also believe it (though I suspect/"know" it was not the intent).

The argument for crumbling relies on ignoring "regardless of results". Those who argue for crumbling choose to see this as "they take wounds from combat resolution, but don't run away". However, it doesn't fit. A unit of 5 skeletons that loses combat by 5, and thus disappears has not "[fought] on regardless of results". The result has caused them to crumble, and they therefore have not fought on.

I use skeletons as an example, I know they are not Unbreakable. Swarms, however, ARE.

CarlostheCraven
21-11-2005, 18:52
In my eyes, rules for skirmishing troops or fast cav are definately not in the same tier as the rules for Monsters and Battle Standards. Monsters and Battle Standards are integral units within the game, Skirmishers and Fast Cavalry are not integral units as such, but are "rules packets" that are applied to to standard units described earlier in the BRB. For example "skirmishers" applies to both infantry and flyers, as well as any fleeing unit. Fast Cavalry is a "rules packet" that can be lost. For example, Goblin Wolf riders lose their fast cavalry advantages if the take light armour and shields.

As for war machines and chariots, the argument could be made that they are integral units, but the counter-argument that they behave as already defined unit types with some bonuses and restrictions could hold as well. One could run around in circles trying to nail these two down.

Obviously, the rules stack unless they are in conflict, I never said that they did not. Perhaps I should have prefaced everything with "augment or replace if in conflict." If specific rules can integrate seemlessly with general rules then that is what occurs. Thus Tomb Swarms cannot march but can skirmish as there is no conflict between the two rules.

Where we differ is whether the statement "regardless of the results" has meaning. If it does, then Unbreakable and "Undead BreaK Tests" are in conflict and the specific rule for Tomb Swarms takes precedence over the General Rule for undead, and I am correct. If it has no meaning, which I believe is the basis for your argument, then you are completely correct.

Please explain to me why I should not regard that portion of the unbreakable rules. If you can (and no one has done so sufficiently yet) I would be willing to conceed.

Cheers

Ganymede
21-11-2005, 18:54
The argument for crumbling relies on ignoring "regardless of results". Those who argue for crumbling choose to see this as "they take wounds from combat resolution, but don't run away". However, it doesn't fit. A unit of 5 skeletons that loses combat by 5, and thus disappears has not "[fought] on regardless of results". The result has caused them to crumble, and they therefore have not fought on.

The same could be said for any living unbreakable unit. A unit of slayers that has been slain to the man certainly isn't fighting on regardless of the results. They'e dead.


"regardless of results" is quite an amorphic term, why base an arguement around it?

Ganymede
21-11-2005, 18:58
Where we differ is whether the statement "regardless of the results" has meaning. If it does, then Unbreakable and "Undead BreaK Tests" are in conflict and the specific rule for Tomb Swarms takes precedence over the General Rule for undead, and I am correct. If it has no meaning, which I believe is the basis for your argument, then you are completely correct.

Remember, he is also talking about the order of hierarchy between rules. Is the Swarms rule really more specific than the undead rule? Despite your earlier post, there is only one distinction within the rules: rules that come from the BRB, and rules that don't.

You may be willing to accept that the swarms rule is more specific than the undead rule on faith alone, but not everyone has such unwavering conviction.

Izram
21-11-2005, 19:23
THERE UNDEAD! Do they not have the undead rule? Are they creatures brought back from the dead and held together by magic? What makes them not crumble exactly? The fact that they are small and in greater number?
The "fight on regardless of combat resolution" is such a weak argument I am baffled why it is even being entertained here. Maybe if you could find where the rules define what 'fight on' means, but i don't think it means 'ignore any effects that would hamper their fighting ability'. So if the swarms had 4 wounds left and lost 2 to combat resolution, would they not be fighting on anymore?
I think this is a case of wishful thinking; being unbreakable does not change the fact that they are magically animated creatures: should the heirophant die, would they not take wounds? Can they march freely because they are unbreakable? No manner of extra rules thrown on top of them is going to change the fact that they are undead and suffer the penalties and gain the benifits of said rule.

they are swarms that have poison, cause fear and for all intensive purposes, deep strike! All that for a lower cost than other swarms would indicate to me that the intent of their rules is for them to be undead, if not made obvious by the fact that they have the undead rule.

Atrahasis
21-11-2005, 19:48
The same could be said for any living unbreakable unit. A unit of slayers that has been slain to the man certainly isn't fighting on regardless of the results. They'e dead.

It is not the combat result that has caused them to cease fighting, but the combat itself.

NakedFisherman
21-11-2005, 20:10
While a strict reading of the rules leaves Tomb Swarms unaffected by combat resolution in any way, the intent of the deisgners (as expressed on the GW forum) is that they be affected by the Undead rules like any other Undead unit.

We've been through this before, and I think Joe Sleboda set everyone straight.

First off, 'Unbreakable' is a misprint. Second of all, the rules for Unbreakable are in the summary at the back of the BRB -- an Unbreakable unit is Immune to Psychology and automatically passes all break tests.

'Fight on regardless of results' is flavoring text with no rules contained within the phrase. If you want the rules for Unbreakable (and all special rules for that matter, as well as some that aren't in the main section of the BRB) you need to look at the summary.

Atrahasis
21-11-2005, 20:39
First off, 'Unbreakable' is a misprint.

And yet it has not been rectified 3 years after publication.


Second of all, the rules for Unbreakable are in the summary at the back of the BRB -- an Unbreakable unit is Immune to Psychology and automatically passes all break tests.
Where the summary and the main text disagree, the main text takes precedence. If we start using summaries as the letter, then the Enchanted Shield can't be taken with other magical armours.


'Fight on regardless of results' is flavoring text with no rules contained within the phrase. If you want the rules for Unbreakable (and all special rules for that matter, as well as some that aren't in the main section of the BRB) you need to look at the summary.

Translation : "I don't like what the rules say, so I'm going to pick and choose which bits I include in my interpretation".

Ganymede
21-11-2005, 21:29
It is not the combat result that has caused them to cease fighting, but the combat itself.

Well when my tomb swarms lose combat by a few points, they continue fighting as if nothing happened. They do so despite any psycological effect that losing some of your own number would have.

NakedFisherman
21-11-2005, 22:43
And yet it has not been rectified 3 years after publication.


Where the summary and the main text disagree, the main text takes precedence. If we start using summaries as the letter, then the Enchanted Shield can't be taken with other magical armours.



Translation : "I don't like what the rules say, so I'm going to pick and choose which bits I include in my interpretation".

Joe Sleboda has his credits in the Tomb King army book. Basically, you don't want to admit you're wrong after arguing vehemently for about a week that Tomb Swarms don't crumble.

But here's the thing -- you're injecting your interpretation of 'fight on regardless of results' into your own perceived rules. That text means nothing and such text is explanatory and found in nearly every section of the BRB.

The main rules do not always take precedence, anyway -- you simply made that up. The summary includes rules as well, some of which are not found in the main section of the BRB. Are we to just not include those rules because they're part of the reference sheet and summary (and most of all, because you said so)?

Atrahasis
21-11-2005, 23:53
Joe Sleboda has his credits in the Tomb King army book. Basically, you don't want to admit you're wrong after arguing vehemently for about a week that Tomb Swarms don't crumble.

If you look at the start of the thread (the second post) I explicitly stated that the intent was for crumbling to take place. That's not what the rules say though. Joe can tell us what was meant as much as he likes, the rules don't change for it. Players are free to play however they choose, but this is a rules discussion forum, and the text oif the rule says Unbreakable units fight on regardless of results.

I'm quite happy to admit that the Unbreakable property of Tomb Swarms is a result of sloppy cut-n-pasting by members of the Design Team, but as it stands Tomb Swarms are Unbreakable, and Unbreakable units fight on regardless of combat results.


But here's the thing -- you're injecting your interpretation of 'fight on regardless of results' into your own perceived rules. That text means nothing and such text is explanatory and found in nearly every section of the BRB.

"Regardless" is a very strong word; it is absolute. The combat result can have no affect on the unit, as it fights on in spite of the result. If the combat result has any affect on the unit, it has not fought on without regard to that combat result.


The main rules do not always take precedence, anyway -- you simply made that up. The summary includes rules as well, some of which are not found in the main section of the BRB. Are we to just not include those rules because they're part of the reference sheet and summary (and most of all, because you said so)?

Quote me one rule that is found in a summary that is not in the main rules. Note that the appendices are not summaries. A summary by definition can contain no more information than the text summarised.

Ganymede
22-11-2005, 00:13
Players are free to play however they choose, but this is a rules discussion forum, and the text oif the rule says Unbreakable units fight on regardless of results.

To be fair, what you are discussing is less a rule problem and more a self-admitted, wild hypothetical. The actual rule question was resolved three pages ago. Though to be fair, since there is no wild hypothetical forum, this forum will have to do.




"Regardless" is a very strong word; it is absolute. The combat result can have no affect on the unit, as it fights on in spite of the result. If the combat result has any affect on the unit, it has not fought on without regard to that combat result.

To do something 'regardless' means to do something 'without regard' Regard is purely a mental action. It is perfectly plausable for undead swarms to fight on with no regard to what is happenning, whether it is lowered morale or weakening necromantic glue. It is completely probable for an undead swarm to crumble from CR while simultaneously not paying any regard to the crumbling.

I ask you, why are you basing your entire arguement around a word with such a subtle context? Comming from someone reading your posts, it comes off as unconvicing.

If you really want to convince me of your position, lets see some citation of a definite, wahammer-contextual meaning of 'regardless'. Give me some examples when the authors of the rulebook use the word 'regardless', and when it is used in the context you are using it in. Otherwise, you are just trying to divine the will of the author, and that belongs in the psychic medium forum, not the rules forum.


To conclude... What do I take from these rules as they are written? They look sloppily written, and feel is is not unreasonable for someone reading them to get mixed signals as to whether or not the swarms crumble. On the other hand, I feel it is patently ridiculous to state that 'no crumbling' is the only credible way to take the rules, and that taking them any other way is obviously wrong.

NakedFisherman
22-11-2005, 00:21
Though to be fair, since there is no wild hypothetical forum, this forum will have to do.

Awesome. I'll have to use that in the future. :p

T10
22-11-2005, 05:58
Just checking:

You guys DO agree that Tomb Swarms crumble, right?

-T10

Festus
22-11-2005, 08:27
Hi

Just checking:

You guys DO agree that Tomb Swarms crumble, right?

-T10

With the notable exception of *CarlostheCraven* we basically do from the first page onwards.
So: Yes!

Greetings
Festus

thecuckoo
22-11-2005, 09:50
Yeah, they crumble.

But they're skirmishers too. Which means they should get the free double-move thingy that skirmishers get.

But they don't.

That's a misprint too, and that hasn't been corrected for three years either.

All in all, the little beetle guys are mostly pants, and are overpriced for what they do.

CarlostheCraven
22-11-2005, 13:48
Yup, I still disagree, and I do not think I will make any headway here. If the second half of the Unbreakable rule is extranious, so be it. Maybe I will start to argue that the second half of of Undead break tests (that they crumble) is extranious as well... but that would obviously be wrong. :rolleyes:

If a conflict in rules occurs, then let the most general rule apply. So the next time a unit with the fast cavalry rules tries to move after rallying, I will have to tell my opponent, "No, you can't the most general rules in the game say you can't to that. Your special rule cannot overrule the general rules." But that would be silly. :rolleyes:

The next time I am playing my ghouls I will cast Van Hel's Dance on them. When my opponent objects saying - Hey, man, aren't they "Alive!" therefore you cannot dance them." My response will be "Sure i can, "Alive!" doesn't overrule all my units being undead, despite what the actual entry may say." But that would be incredibly stupid. :rolleyes:

So the next time combat resolution for my tomb swarms come up I will say, "Well, their entry says they are unbreakable, thus I treat combat results without regard. Instead I will take additional wounds because the Undead rules say so." But that is just plain stup... oh, wait that is exactly how its supposed to work. :wtf:

For the record, I never said that Tomb Swarms were not Undead, merely that Unbreakable conflicts with Undead Break Tests, in which case Unbreakable as a unit specific rule takes precedence over the army rules.

The only thing that this discussion has confirmed for me is that Tomb Swarms will not be in my tournament army for TK. The potential for a huge blow to sportsmanship is at too high a risk with this unit. I enjoy a good argument now and then but not in the middle of a tournament.

Cheers

NakedFisherman
22-11-2005, 17:41
Quote me one rule that is found in a summary that is not in the main rules. Note that the appendices are not summaries. A summary by definition can contain no more information than the text summarised.

Flyers ignore defended obstacles.



For the record, I never said that Tomb Swarms were not Undead, merely that Unbreakable conflicts with Undead Break Tests, in which case Unbreakable as a unit specific rule takes precedence over the army rules.

It doesn't conflict. You just want it to so that you can claim your Tomb Swarms don't crumble. We can't convince you otherwise -- your mind was made up well before you made this thread.

In the future, simply don't make a post since all you really want out of it is a few people agreeing with you to satiate the uncertainty of yourself or your opponents.

CarlostheCraven
22-11-2005, 17:50
I did not start this thread, but I do feel the need to defend myself when it got exported here. I merely interpreted a rule differently in the Tomb Kings Tactica, and it got exported here by Star Scream.

Cheers

NakedFisherman
22-11-2005, 18:57
I did not start this thread, but I do feel the need to defend myself when it got exported here. I merely interpreted a rule differently in the Tomb Kings Tactica, and it got exported here by Star Scream.

Cheers

And by 'differently' you mean 'contrary to what everyone is telling you' and most likely 'to your advantage'.

CarlostheCraven
22-11-2005, 20:14
Actually, locally, there is no one that disagrees with me. The ruling is not to "my advantage", as I own four other fantasy armies of which Tomb Kings is the newest and has not seen real competitive play. The last tournament I went too I won Overall, and the one previous to that I won Best General in a doubles with my girlfriend, and the one previous to that I won Best Sportsman. Only Best Painted eludes me, but that is my next goal. I hardly need to cheat to win, which it seems you are accusing me of... :mad:

But the rules are to the advantage of Tomb Swarms as a unit and to all Tomb King players who utilize them.

Lets see - the main counter-arguments are that Joe Sleboda said it was a mistake somewhere and that Unbreakable is a typo. This could entirely be true. But why was it not addressed in the FAQ? :confused: It really would not take up much space...

Q: Are Tomb Swarms, in fact, Unbreakable, as their entry currently states?
A: No, they crumble just like every other undead. It was a typo. Our mistake.

As it has not been addressed in any OFFICIAL capacity these arguments are groundless, and thus null.

I have already gone over why Unbreakable and Undead break tests are in conflict ("regardless of results" does not equal "take extra wound(s) because of results") and if you do not get that by now, I cannot help you.

If "regardless of results" is fluff then it should not be included in the rule. If unbreakable merely stated "do not take break tests" then the addition of the Undead crumbling would be correct. However "regardless of results" is included in the rule, and it is in conflict with the Undead break test rule. Which takes precedence should be obvious - the unit specific rule. It is obvious with every other example I have cited, so why the exception here?

I am not picking and choosing which portions of the rules to adhere to in an arbitrary manner, but in the only logical manner that they can be applied.

Cheers

Festus
22-11-2005, 20:19
Hi


But they're skirmishers too. Which means they should get the free double-move thingy that skirmishers get.
But they don't.

That's a misprint too, and that hasn't been corrected for three years either.

That is no misprint, because there is no *free double-move thingy that skirmishers get* anymore.
The skirmishers rules are errataed that skirmishers get a march move that cannot be marchblocked.

As TK units generally cannot march, TK skirmishers are not able to march as well.

Greetings
Festus

Festus
22-11-2005, 20:21
Hi

I am not picking and choosing which portions of the rules to adhere to in an arbitrary manner, but in the only logical manner that they can be applied.

So you choose which portions of a rule to apply.
And what is and what isn't a logical or arbitrary manner respectively is decided by you?
How nice... :(

Greetings
Festus

Star.Scream
22-11-2005, 20:38
I did not start this thread, but I do feel the need to defend myself when it got exported here. I merely interpreted a rule differently in the Tomb Kings Tactica, and it got exported here by Star Scream.

Cheers


>>>>>Hey there; I just wanted to know what the majority of opionon was concerning the issue, I didnt post his year to single you out; there were two arguements; and I quoted you becuase you explained your arguement in the Tomb King Tactica Thread.

This was no personal attack; if you interpret it in that way then you are sadly mistaken. Secondly; you did not have to defend your point of view in this thread; you could have easilly ignored it; that was your own choice to ring in on the discussion here.

I think its time to Lock this thread; since it is not getting anything done anymore.