PDA

View Full Version : Warriors of Chaos Rules Questions



Pages : [1] 2

Shamfrit
25-10-2008, 11:14
Just a few things that have cropped up:

Treason of Tzeentch:

What happens when you use this against a Giant? Since it has no attacks, it has to use it's special attack chart against itself?

Pandaemonium:

'Furthermore, all enemy spellcasters will Miscast on any roll of a double, instead of the roll of a double 1.'

Would I be right in thinking this means no miscasts on a double 1, or does the 'any double' override 'instead of?'

Hellcannon:

It's not a warmachine, and a stonethrower can only not move and fire if it's a warmachine; hence, can the Hellcannon move and fire?

Dodgy Ed
25-10-2008, 11:23
Pandaemonium:

'Furthermore, all enemy spellcasters will Miscast on any roll of a double, instead of the roll of a double 1.'

Would I be right in thinking this means no miscasts on a double 1, or does the 'any double' override 'instead of?'


Not sure on the others but I'm fairly sure that it you'd still misscast on a double one; a roll of snake eyes is still a double, so it gets caught by the first part of the rule, 'any double'. I do agree that it could perhaps have been phrased better

Condottiere
25-10-2008, 11:27
Treason of Tzeentch:

What happens when you use this against a Giant? Since it has no attacks, it has to use it's special attack chart against itself?

That sounds like a viable solution ... and hilarious.


Pandaemonium:

'Furthermore, all enemy spellcasters will Miscast on any roll of a double, instead of the roll of a double 1.'

Would I be right in thinking this means no miscasts on a double 1, or does the 'any double' override 'instead of?'

The word only between of and the is missing. I'd say the first part makes it inclusive, and the second part isn't exclusionary.


Hellcannon:

It's not a warmachine, and a stonethrower can only not move and fire if it's a warmachine; hence, can the Hellcannon move and fire?

I think it's supposed to be demon-possessed; dragons can move and breathe.

Shamfrit
25-10-2008, 11:30
Cool, cool and cool - cheers Condi & Ed :D

Now the Hellcannon running down a flank and firing is making it alot better :D

Faustburg
25-10-2008, 15:59
I'd say a clearly No to move and fire; while it is now (sensibly) a monster with a ranged attack instead of a war machine (so no killing the dwarfs and spiking it :p), it still "fires as a stone thrower", and that includes having to remain stationary, and getting it's rate of fire lowered by losing crew, etc.


Compare with the Plaguefather's thrown Nurglings in the Daemon list, which also states that it is fired as a stone thrower, but makes a note that it may still be used if he moves. The Hellcannon has no such caveat.

Shamfrit
25-10-2008, 16:08
I'd say a clearly No to move and fire; while it is now (sensibly) a monster with a ranged attack instead of a war machine (so no killing the dwarfs and spiking it :p), it still "fires as a stone thrower", and that includes having to remain stationary, and getting it's rate of fire lowered by losing crew, etc.

The reason I asked was because a warmachine can't move and fire. The Hellcannon isn't a warmachine, surely, if it fires like a stone thrower then it would have to have the War Machine rule to prevent it from moving and firing?

Since it doesn't, and is a monster with handlers, I can't see anything stopping it moving and firing per say.

EvC
25-10-2008, 16:51
That's logical thinking, but not the way Phil Kelly thinks. As with the Ogre Hunter which has the same style of wording (and is FAQed as being move or fire), if something "shoots like a warmachine", then that means it is move or fire.

Kalec
25-10-2008, 19:27
As the rules stand, the hellcannon can move and shoot, but that probably was not the intention. When the FAQ comes out, expect to see a weak choice get weaker.

Mechanicum Adept
25-10-2008, 19:27
Well, since it fires like a stone thrower, I guess it could simply be a case of asking how does a stone thrower fire if it moves?

The answer of course, is not very well.

Shamfrit
25-10-2008, 19:57
Being a stone thrower does not give you the move or fire rule. It's the War Machine rule that gives you that, and the Hellcannon is NOT a warmachine.

Faustburg
25-10-2008, 20:28
No, but firing as a stone thrower means you fire as a stone thrower, which cannot move or fire, be it that this is said in the start of the war machine chapter rather than under the specific rules for that machine a few pages later....

Technically, if you think you can ignore the passage where move or fire is noted, because it is not under "stone thrower", you will not know how to identify the scatter and artillery dice, as they are explained in the same text, not under stone thrower.

Or you will no "know" how to wound etc, since it is not under "stone thrower" either...

Silly, of course, but the point is; Fire as a stone thrower means doing so, no creative reading half measures.

It doesn't mean other War machine rules will be in effect, as the Hellcannon is only concerned with those regarding the actual firing.

kramplarv
25-10-2008, 20:38
well, the hellcannon can move and fire since it fires AS a stone thrower.
and the stonethrower fires like this;

1: guess
2: scatter+artilleriy dice
3: apply results.

Mechanicum Adept
25-10-2008, 21:21
The only way I can see that you would get to the conclusion it can move and fire is with some seriously selective reading.

I don't see as it matters where a stone thrower gets the move or fire rule from. It has it. A stone thrower that moves cannot fire. To fire like a stone thrower, unless specified otherwise, you cannot move.

Judging by what others have said so far nowhere does it say fires like a stationary stone thrower", nor does it say "selectively obeys the rules for firing a stone thrower". It does not even say "obeys stone thrower rules for guessing range and template placement/scatter". It says "fires like a stone thrower", or words to that effect. This means it follows all of the rules for a stone thrower firing, except where explicitly stated otherwise.

I also think it does count for something that the author of the Dameon book felt an explicit statement was required to override this, not just some general statement about firing "like" a stone thrower but not being a warmachine..

Gazak Blacktoof
25-10-2008, 22:06
Its all a bit odd. What prevents a stone thrower from moving and firing normally is that it is a warmachine. The hellcannon ins't a warmachine its a monster, it just fires like a stone thrower. To me that would normally indicate you use the rules in the stone thrower section but its not a warmachine.

As EvC pointed out this wasn't the principal that was applied to the ogre hunter though so I wouldn't apply it to the hellcannon and I'd use the ogre FAQ as precedence until there's a specific hellcannon FAQ released.

SolarHammer
25-10-2008, 22:19
Also, Phil Kelly has said that they may not move and fire.

Faustburg
25-10-2008, 22:23
Moving and firing is not doing it as a stone thrower do it, which is exactly what the hell cannons rules tells you to do.

I don't see how anyone, sans deliberate rule bending (and even then, it is not as much bending as breaking...), can see it any other way.

BEEGfrog
26-10-2008, 03:30
Also, Phil Kelly has said that they may not move and fire.

What any designer or GW employee says about the rules is irrelevant unless they say it in a FAQ.

Any time they give a ruling on a question remind them it probably should be going in the FAQ too, as a part of basic customer service.

Bac5665
26-10-2008, 03:51
What any designer or GW employee says about the rules is irrelevant unless they say it in a FAQ.

Any time they give a ruling on a question remind them it probably should be going in the FAQ too, as a part of basic customer service.

QFT

Only the rules are rules, not what might be more fun, not hearsay, not even common sense. These things are all house rules.

Atrahasis
26-10-2008, 11:55
Treason of Tzeentch:

What happens when you use this against a Giant? Since it has no attacks, it has to use it's special attack chart against itself?


The rules of the spell say that the unit makes one attack - there's no requirement for the model(s) to have an attacks characteristic. The Giant has a WS and a S value, and that's all that's needed.

Furthermore, the spell even says to "roll to hit, to wound, and take saves as normal".

nerull1025
26-10-2008, 17:44
"well, the hellcannon can move and fire since it fires AS a stone thrower.
and the stonethrower fires like this;

1: guess
2: scatter+artilleriy dice
3: apply results."

This and the move/fire being a result of the war machine rule leads me to believe that it can move and fire.
But then it would seem somewhat hard for chaos dwarves to be running along side it throwing shovelfuls of skulls at it along the way... but this is warhammer so normal logic doesn't apply.
The Ogre hunter and demon cases obviously suggest it staying still.

I'd suggest, as long as its just a friendly game, to mention it to your opponent and see if he'd allow it, worst case scenario 4+ it. Personally I'd like it to move even if I was against it. It would make it more interesting and it would probably kill about the same pts in combat as from shooting, if your lucky since it would still be pretty avoidable unless you stick it in the middle of an infantry army but even then the above is probably true.

Shamfrit
26-10-2008, 18:07
Thanks Atraharsis, I hadn't approached it from that angle and had taken 'chose weapon to attack with' as meaning you could chose the form of attack/rules governing the attack as well - either way, he ended up doing Headbutt which was a single wound anyway, cheers!

The Hellcannon Debate will rage on I fear, I'm in the camp of move and fire (which is still only 6", since it can't march and fire obviously...)

Faustburg
26-10-2008, 20:44
The Hellcannon Debate will rage on I fear, I'm in the camp of move and fire (which is still only 6", since it can't march and fire obviously...)


Ehh... why is that obvious to you, when not moving and firing isn't?

Not marching and shooting is not in the "stone thrower" rules... and if anything, monsters already have an allowance to march and shoot, if they have a Breath Weapon, right?

nerull1025
26-10-2008, 21:41
even if it could march and shoot the dwarves cant keep up, and without them it cant shoot

Mireadur
26-10-2008, 22:56
What any designer or GW employee says about the rules is irrelevant unless they say it in a FAQ.


For me it is not irrelevant at all but where and when has Phill said this Solar?

Mireadur
26-10-2008, 23:03
Stegadon can move and fire while a normal bolt thrower cant.

Salamanders can move and fire (and they are monsters and handlers) while a dwarven organ gun cant.

It is not a breath weapon, its a shooting weapon be it stimation or BS weapon. These weapons dont allow marching and shooting. (can breath weapons be shot after marching anyway? I dunno in truth).

Anyway if Phill kelly says it cannot move and shoot then once FAQ'ed...


EDIT: i got a question myself:

-Do the warshrine Eye of the Gods effects work on the mounts too? I believe it does not but...

Shamfrit
26-10-2008, 23:04
even if it could march and shoot the dwarves cant keep up, and without them it cant shoot

It moves like a monster and handlers, the handlers are treated in much the same way as the Dark Elf Hydra - essentially, more or less ignored.

EvC
26-10-2008, 23:39
Only during charges, Shamfrit.

The Hellcannon shoots as a warmachine, and warmachines cannot move and shoot. No more discussion necessary.

Oh and the Stegadon's giant bow is listed as being a move and fire weapon as well, in case anyone is wondering if that can move and shoot :)

Grimtuff
27-10-2008, 00:35
That's logical thinking, but not the way Phil Kelly thinks. As with the Ogre Hunter which has the same style of wording (and is FAQed as being move or fire), if something "shoots like a warmachine", then that means it is move or fire.

Unless your name is Ku'Gath. He fires exactly like a Stone Thrower and can move and fire (mainly as this spells it out in his rules, so he could be the exception rather than the rule) ;)

EvC
27-10-2008, 00:44
That - is - my - point. If a model fires like a warmachine, and it can move and fire, the rules tell you that it can do that. Where it doesn't (E.g. Hunter, Hellcannon) you can't :)

Mireadur
27-10-2008, 00:52
Only during charges, Shamfrit.

The Hellcannon shoots as a warmachine, and warmachines cannot move and shoot. No more discussion necessary.

I disagree with this sorry. IT doesnt say it shoots as a warmachine. it never mentions the word ''warmachine'' but it says its a monsters with its handlers. it just says it shoots like a rocklobber which could perfectly refer to the estimation and the scatter dice rolling.

Anyway, where does it say monsters and handlers can move at monsters speed rather than handlers (which are normally slower)? i cant even find this on the hydra description (i just noticed DE beastmasters move 6'' instead 5'' just so they can keep up) Grats again gav on cheesy DE ruling...

logan054
27-10-2008, 00:56
That - is - my - point. If a model fires like a warmachine, and it can move and fire, the rules tell you that it can do that. Where it doesn't (E.g. Hunter, Hellcannon) you can't :)

actually it fires as a stonethrower not a warmachine, the monster handlers rule would be rather pointless if it fired as a warmachine then it may as well not been changed.

EvC
27-10-2008, 01:27
It shoots as a stone thrower, which is a warmachine. Same effect ;)

Condottiere
27-10-2008, 05:27
Certain Elven bows act like shortened range bolt-throwers, and if the wielder is on a flying mount, may fire at the end of their movement (-1 to hit).

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:36
As the rules stand, the Hellcannon can move and shoot. There's really no getting around it. Firing like a stone thrower does not burden the Hellcannon with all of the war machine rules.

It's highly unlikely that it will be able to post-FAQ, given Phil Kelly's clarification.

Latro
27-10-2008, 10:51
Moving and firing is not doing it as a stone thrower do it, which is exactly what the hell cannons rules tells you to do.

I don't see how anyone, sans deliberate rule bending (and even then, it is not as much bending as breaking...), can see it any other way.

Ah yes, step two in a rule debate:

2. When arguments fail, use ridicule and insults.


:cool:

(PS I'll wait for the FAQ)

Latro
27-10-2008, 10:56
It's highly unlikely that it will be able to post-FAQ, given Phil Kelly's clarification.

A shame that they've begun releasing FAQ's at such a fast pace then ... I kinda liked the idea of an advancing Hellcannon shooting at the enemy. I don't think much people would dare claim it's overpowered anyway.


:cool:

Faustburg
27-10-2008, 11:25
As the rules stand, the Hellcannon can move and shoot. There's really no getting around it. Firing like a stone thrower does not burden the Hellcannon with all of the war machine rules.

It's highly unlikely that it will be able to post-FAQ, given Phil Kelly's clarification.


Or by any reasonable person understanding that you cannot fire as a stone thrower if you don't fire as a stone thrower.... how dense are the people who cannot read this? It says it right there, in black and white! There simply is no way to read it differently!

"Fires as a stone thrower"!!! Can a stone thrower move and fire? No, it damn well cannot! It has nothing to do with "moving and firing" being under "stone thrower" or anywhere else in the book!

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 11:26
Move-or-shoot is not part of the rules for firing stone throwers, it is part of the rules for the interaction of movement and shooting of war machines.

The Hellcannon is not a war machine, and its rules do not include any prohibition on moving and shooting.

Faustburg
27-10-2008, 11:51
Itīs not about being a war machine, itīs not "look at the rules under stone throwers", it's "fires as a stone thrower".

A stone thrower cannot move and fire, so how can anyone claim something that fires as it can?

Briohmar
27-10-2008, 11:54
A Scrap Launcher fires as a "stone thrower" but can move and shoot. A stegadon fires like a bolt thrower but can move and fire. The Seafarers bow fires like a bolt thrower but can move and fire, and a Steam Tank fires as a cannon but can move and fire. Since these are the closest examples to the Hell Cannon, I would suggest that it can, in fact, move and fire. A trebuchet specifies it may not move,Dwarf Grudge thrower follows the rules for a stone thrower, as do the Orc and Goblin Rock Lobba and Doom Diver. There is a difference between firing as, and follows the rules for.

Jerrus
27-10-2008, 12:12
Itīs not about being a war machine, itīs not "look at the rules under stone throwers", it's "fires as a stone thrower".

A stone thrower cannot move and fire, so how can anyone claim something that fires as it can?

The reason a stone thrower cannot move and fire isn't because it is a stone thrower, a stone thrower cannot move and fire because it is a war machine.

The rules for firing a stone thrower (p.92 BRB) do not mention anything about moving or shooting, that limitation is applied to warmachines (p.84 BRB)

EvC
27-10-2008, 12:14
For the third or fourth times, those examples of ranged attacks that are similar to certain warmachines that can move and shoot can only do so because their rules explicitly give them an allowance to do so. Even the Bow of the Seafarer (which says resolved hits like a Bolt Thrower, rather than that it fires as one). The closest resemblance to a Hellcannon is the Ogre Hunter, which fires his bow as a certain warmachine, but may not move and shoot because he does not have the option in his rules to do it. I agree that saying it shoots like a stone thrower isn't a good enough way to say it can't move and shoot- but that's how Phil Kelly writes his army books.

Incidentally, if the Hellcannon can move and shoot, then it can also stand and shoot. Anyone want to argue that? :)

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 12:17
Hell, I would, purely because personal preference doesn't change the rules :)

But as I say, the fact that the current rules allow it to move and shoot has more to do with Mr Kelly's competence than his intent.

BEEGfrog
27-10-2008, 12:20
A Scrap Launcher fires as a "stone thrower" but can move and shoot. A stegadon fires like a bolt thrower but can move and fire. The Seafarers bow fires like a bolt thrower but can move and fire, and a Steam Tank fires as a cannon but can move and fire. Since these are the closest examples to the Hell Cannon, I would suggest that it can, in fact, move and fire. A trebuchet specifies it may not move,Dwarf Grudge thrower follows the rules for a stone thrower, as do the Orc and Goblin Rock Lobba and Doom Diver. There is a difference between firing as, and follows the rules for.

Of the examples given here all the ones I know the rules for give specific exceptions where they do something different, e.g. stegadon fires exactly like a bolt thrower except for its strength and move and shoot ability.

EvC
27-10-2008, 12:34
But as I say, the fact that the current rules allow it to move and shoot and stand and shoot has more to do with Mr Kelly's competence than his intent.

Yah, as I said, it's the way Phil Kelly writes his army books.

Faustburg
27-10-2008, 13:02
It's not unclear, it's people who choose to not to get it....

Fires as a stone thrower = fires as a stone thrower.

A stone thrower cannot move and fire. How can you not get it?

Normally, it doesn't matter, I will happily let people have their opinions and outright dumb interpretations of the rules, but it grinds my gears when it is done by people "on the direwolf FAQ council, since sheepish tourney organizers bafflingly look up to them.

(and even then, it doesn't really matter, 3" move here or there, but itīs the principle...)

Mireadur
27-10-2008, 14:36
Incidentally, if the Hellcannon can move and shoot, then it can also stand and shoot. Anyone want to argue that? :)

Ugghh ok we need that damn FAQ.

Condottiere
27-10-2008, 16:18
Stand & Shoot? Can a Dragon S&S? No.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 16:22
What has a dragon got to do with it?

Dragons can't stand and shoot because the rules for breath weapons prevent it. If the Dragon had a bow, he could stand and shoot.

Nothing prevents the Hellcannon from Standing and Shooting.

Crispian25
27-10-2008, 16:58
Firing like a stone-thrower means look under the rules for stone thrower for how to use the Hellcannon during the shooting phase (estimating, placing the template, rolling for scatter, etc, as opposed to using bolt-thrower or cannon rules). Otherwise, it obeys the rules for a monster and handlers. The rules for warmachines do not matter, because it is not a warmachine. The FAQ will resolve this one way or the other.

As for the rule regarding movement, the Hellcannon moves/marches/charges at the speed of the slowest model present, the Chaos Dwarfs, unless stated otherwise.

Caramel Khorne
27-10-2008, 19:16
To deviate somewhat from the topic of the Hellcannon (personally I think 2 warshrines is better any day) I would like to get people's opinion regarding the wording for Chaos Knight's lances.

The unit entry states that ensorcelled weapons are "uprgaded" to lances rather than exchanged, replaced, etc. And considering the description for ensorcelled weapons explains that they grant a bonus regardless of form (although once again we wonder if fluff and rules are colliding messily into each other) it hopefully stands to reason that the weapons still retain the blanket +1 str but also grant the abilities of a Lance.

Meaning +2 str on the turn you charge, +1 str at all other times.

Does that seem resonable or am I reaching? It seems a bit daft to charge you 5pts a model for the privilege of having a lower strength. =P

nerull1025
27-10-2008, 19:23
It will be a shame if gw does rule in favour of faustberg, who needs to take a pill of some kind, and choose now to suddenly get a move on with their FAQs, no doubt resuming the slow trudge of a plague zombie immediately after having pulled some kind of muscle. True moving it 3" is pretty useless, 6 would be nice but less believable, but I think it adds flavour, even if it was unintended.
Firstly, who would argue chaos couldn't use some more tactical options?
Secondly, it's a ******* daemon engine of chaos, the only one might I add where more could easily have been thought of, except for the dwarves its almost like a dragon with breath weapon.
Thirdly it fits the "theme" of chaos gw have insisted on for so long, ignoring all logic to the contrary, chaos=combat. Think of it, they're so combat-oriented even their siege engines are marching towards you, eager to bite your head off.

And aw yes I had forgotten about the lances, I was unsure when I read it the other day as well. I'd agree it wouldn't make sense to get an "upgrade" thats not really an upgrade at all.

....:wtf: they censored freak-in on me?

xragg
27-10-2008, 19:25
Stand & Shoot? Can a Dragon S&S? No.

A treeman can S&S. Being a monster doesnt prevent S&S, a breath weapon does.

Faustburg
27-10-2008, 19:54
Yeah, Nerrul, It would be a shame if they "ruled" in favour of clearly what the rules say, instead of what people groundlessly dream up here... lets all go by your concept of what the "flavour" of chaos is, that's infallible... Nice jump in on the discussion there... :rolleyes:


Stand and shoot... Well, while it is not a dragon (and that as pointed out is not really what prevents stand and shoot), it still falls under "fires as a stone thrower", and a stone thrower cannot fire as a stand and shoot reaction. It is still not about the Hellcannon being a war machine or not (which it is not, nobody claims that), or that rule being part of the rules for stone throwers or war machines.

As always the flying goblin rule; permissive rules set, no "it doesn't say I can't, so I can".

What the FAQ ruling on the treeman standing and shooting actually broke against was not monsters s&s, but as by the letter of the rules you must have a missile weapon, not as the TM a "shooting attack" :p

Ensorcelled blades to lances... nah, you upgrade it to a lance, so it becomes a lance. +2 S on the charge and nothing otherwise. It's a choice you have to make, no having your cake and eating it, even if you pay points for it...

Mireadur
27-10-2008, 20:04
It may be Phill kelly's intention the Hellcannon not to move and shoot but all the other monsters with handlers in game can do it, i really wouldnt understand why this one not. Not to mention it makes it a way way less interesting choice (bordering the label of ''useless'').

Definitely it is not Phill kelly strongest point the clarity in his rules explanations. Miles away from Anthony Reynolds for example, who specifies every single detail for every unit which gets out of normal.

FigureFour
27-10-2008, 20:18
I'm pretty sure Faustberg is right here. Stone throwers are war machines so by shooting as a stone thrower all the rules for shooting with a war machine apply.

That being said, being right isn't an excuse to freak out at people.

Relax man.

Edit: Although . . . it does make that avatar seem rather appropriate.

Shamfrit
27-10-2008, 20:28
Hellcannon is ITP - cannot declare charge reactions.

Crispian25
27-10-2008, 20:36
Ok, getting away from the Hellcannon debate for just a quick second....

If I play in a legendary battle (all my chaos against my friends' combined forces), and I bring Epidemius, do my Nurgle Sorcerers and troops benefit from his special rules (plus X to cast, etc, though obviously not the ones that don't relate (regen, poisoned attacks))?

Also, I just noticed that in 3000+ games, you could have the equivalent of 3 BSBs (BSB, Archaon, Valkia).

EvC
27-10-2008, 20:36
Don't guess at the rules if you don't know them, Shamfrit ;) ItP units can declare charge reactions (See people talking about a Treemen standing and shooting above?), they just can't choose to flee.

Shamfrit
27-10-2008, 20:53
The treeman's Strangle Roots have an explicit clause saying that they can choose to stand and shoot.

However, having just checked the BRB, if I could somehow make my army Itp...

Oh, Screaming Bell :D

FigureFour
27-10-2008, 21:02
The treeman's Strangle Roots have an explicit clause saying that they can choose to stand and shoot.
No it doesn't. If it did, they wouldn't need a FAQ specifying that they CAN stand and shoot.

Shamfrit
27-10-2008, 21:09
No it doesn't. If it did, they wouldn't need a FAQ specifying that they CAN stand and shoot.

That might be why, yes, lol.

nerull1025
27-10-2008, 21:23
Ya I don't know what I was thinking, having an opinion in a forum of all places. Get over yourself. :eek:
It's clear that the rules, atm, aren't clear, same with the lances. They DON'T say it can't shoot, so don't act like it's fact just because this opinion happens to be yours. Theres also no mention in the hellcannon saying it explicitly can. So it's open to discussion, :eek: oh no, which is what I suggested in the first place. See what your opponent thinks, and hope he's not the type that freaks out at the mere suggestion of a movement at the speed of a dwarf :eyebrows:.

Faustburg
27-10-2008, 23:37
What you did was jumping into a discussion telling participants they need medication... So, yeah, your'e welcome to the get shot down....

You can't argue "They DON'T say it can't shoot", no more than you can argue "it doesn't say Goblins can't make flying moves".

It is 100% clear that it fires as a stone thrower, that is all it says. Then the creative reading enters, and people claims that move or fire is not part of the explicit Stone Thrower rules.

But neither is how to use the artillery and scatter dice, or how to roll to wound once you have established who are hit by the template...

nerull1025
28-10-2008, 00:02
It's sad when people are this unreasonable, I'm thankful I have yet to play one as they're not worth being around.

BTW take a pill (or its elongated version take a chill pill) is a common expression for calm down, not an excuse to get more carried away.

Kerrahn
28-10-2008, 02:51
Okay, I've got a question about the Chaos book of a different sort, and hopefully won't get into such a heated debate like the Hellcannon one...

Anyway, the Eye of the Gods special rule says that "Chaos models that may issue challenges must do so whenever they are able"

However, this is under the Eye of the Gods rule, and not all Chaos models that can challenge (Galrauch, Daemon Princes, Champions without a Warshrine etc) have that rule.

Therefore: Must they still challenge, or can they choose not to if they don't want to?

Also, if they don't have to challenge, can I still challenge with a Unit Champion to prevent my Sorcerers, for example, from entering an undesired challenge (such as Skulltaker)? Or must my Champions have the Eye of the Gods rule from the Warshrines to challenge in their place?

This last question actually came up one battle when Skulltaker's unit was charged once by a unit with a character who could easily have killed him before he got to attack, so I wanted to throw a Bloodletter Champion in the way, but his rules say he must challenge.

EDIT: And another question... None of the Daemonic Mounts have multiple wounds now, so do they apply a +1 Armour save like a regular mount does? I'm assuming yes, of course, seeing as the Juggernaught gives +3 instead of +1. I'm mostly asking because does my Disc of Tzeentch give my characters a +1 save?

Mireadur
28-10-2008, 09:54
Also, if they don't have to challenge, can I still challenge with a Unit Champion to prevent my Sorcerers, for example, from entering an undesired challenge (such as Skulltaker)? Or must my Champions have the Eye of the Gods rule from the Warshrines to challenge in their place?


With a warshrine on the table im pretty sure that you can, since unit champions work under the same ruling as the other characters. Without... Not sure (dont think i will play a single game without a shrine anyway :p)

Atrahasis
28-10-2008, 10:07
Anyway, the Eye of the Gods special rule says that "Chaos models that may issue challenges must do so whenever they are able"Who knows? The rules don't answer the question adequately.

It's in the list of things to be submitted to the Design Team (see link in my sig).


EDIT: And another question... None of the Daemonic Mounts have multiple wounds now, so do they apply a +1 Armour save like a regular mount does? I'm assuming yes, of course, seeing as the Juggernaught gives +3 instead of +1. I'm mostly asking because does my Disc of Tzeentch give my characters a +1 save?Yes, the daemonic mounts are all cavalry mounts now. They grant +1 save and cannot be targeted separately.

Crispian25
28-10-2008, 14:51
Apparently got overlooked:

If I play in a legendary battle (all my chaos against my friends' combined forces), and I bring Epidemius, do my Nurgle Sorcerers and troops benefit from his special rules (plus X to cast, etc, though obviously not the ones that don't relate (regen, poisoned attacks))?

Skulltaker has to be the challenger/challenged, as it says he must be in a challenge if he can, and there can only be one challenge between units (IIRC, no BRB).

As for unit champions, I would say that they do not need to, because they do not have the Eye of the Gods special rule requiring it. However, it may say elsewhere that they need to, so just double check the army special rules section. It may later come down that the EotG rule will supercede another model (unit champion) from attacking. A question then would be do major characters without the rule (no book in front of me) have to stand aside while regular characters fight (Archaon stepping aside for a unit champion, for example).

UltimateNagash
02-11-2008, 01:41
Also, Sorcerer's of Chaos can only use two Lores - Death and Fire. No Shadows... Right?

Dead Man Walking
03-11-2008, 02:03
Is Valkia The Bloodless supposed to have a 5+ ward save like a daemon prince or is she not at all daemonic? (Might help if she had a model, is it mansized or Prince sized? Whats the base size?)

Throgg king of trolls says trolls count as core, and ogres, trolls, dragon ogres, warhounds and monsters in the same army as throgg may use his leadership.... blagh blagh...
What counts as 'and monsters'? Do Giants? Spawn? Galrauch? Scyla? Warshrines? Hell cannons? Shaggoths?

More importantly, why even bother to add the word 'and monsters' to the list? :wtf:

Dtrik
03-11-2008, 02:34
on the hellcannon subject, yes GW needs to write their rules more clearly, however we should review more closely some units with similar rules. I saw someone mention that because a scraplauncher fires like a stone thrower and can move and fire, a hellcannon can. however, the scraplauncher rule reads as follows:

Stone Thrower: When they fire, scraplaunchers determine where their shot lands exactly like stone throwers. They can move and fire, and...

The passage goes on to describe other exceptions to firing like a stone thrower including the use of a different template, strength, and has the killing blow rule. These are all specifically mentioned exceptions to the stone thrower rules. If the hellcannon does not also say that it can move and fire than I don't think it could. I am just using this example that I can refer to because I have the ogre book. In any other cases though, I would assume that if they say they fire like stone throwers, they must also mention that they can move and fire because firing like a stone thrower in all other instances (unless someone can point out a unit that contradicts this point) means that it can move or fire.

The Red Scourge
03-11-2008, 05:45
Is Valkia The Bloodless supposed to have a 5+ ward save like a daemon prince or is she not at all daemonic? (Might help if she had a model, is it mansized or Prince sized? Whats the base size?)

Throgg king of trolls says trolls count as core, and ogres, trolls, dragon ogres, warhounds and monsters in the same army as throgg may use his leadership.... blagh blagh...
What counts as 'and monsters'? Do Giants? Spawn? Galrauch? Scyla? Warshrines? Hell cannons? Shaggoths?

More importantly, why even bother to add the word 'and monsters' to the list? :wtf:

A) Valkias rules doesn't include a ward save, so she has none. The same goes for the Hellcannon. The only generic character in the army with a built in ward is the deamon prince. Expect her to be US1 on a 25 mm base, as she has no specified US – unlike the deamon prince.

B) Noone knows what a "monster" is, and from your list of options only an uncrewed hellcannon stand to gain anything from this.

The Red Scourge
03-11-2008, 06:03
Also, Sorcerer's of Chaos can only use two Lores - Death and Fire. No Shadows... Right?

If you check p. 78 you will find the answer to your question :p

It is not abnormal for hero level sorcerers not to have access to the same lores as the lord level sorcerers ;)

Nurgling Chieftain
03-11-2008, 06:26
Noone knows what a "monster" is...Huh? Monsters are reasonably well defined in the BRB. Pretty much anything on a larger base than an ogre that doesn't fit neatly into another category. (Also multiple-wound mounts, but they cannot benefit from General's leaderships!)

But yeah, the "and monsters" ends up not meaning much, as the most obviously relevant monsters (shaggoths, giants) already have better leadership than Throgg...

UltimateNagash
03-11-2008, 10:20
If you check p. 78 you will find the answer to your question :p

It is not abnormal for hero level sorcerers not to have access to the same lores as the lord level sorcerers ;)
What, Festus' page? :confused:

And it's not standard because it says "from the Lores of Death, Fire, or, if he has a Mark of Chaos"

Harwammer
03-11-2008, 20:40
can banner of wrath be used to frenzy your own dragon ogres?

There doesn't seem to be anything stopping it being cast on friendly units, and although the rules don't explicitly mention it as a lightning attack the fluff does. It seems to me that working out if an attack is lightning or not is rather left to the players' disgression.

Atrahasis
03-11-2008, 21:12
It casts a magic missile, and you can't target your own troops with magic missiles.

Pendragon
03-11-2008, 22:41
I found another tidbit of information on the issue of sorcerors and magic shields (assuming this hasn't been resolved elsewhere). In an article found here: http://http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=400023&pIndex=1&aId=10100004&start=2 (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=400023&pIndex=1&aId=10100004&start=2) (look under "Fragile Wizards") Adam Troke gives the tactical advice to equip sorcerors with magic shields. While this isn't a rules text or FAQ it still should have some merit, right?

/Joel

Harwammer
03-11-2008, 23:16
It casts a magic missile, and you can't target your own troops with magic missiles.

D'oh! this was a simple anser. You are of course correct; magic missiles follow the targeting rules of regular shooting, thus can only be aimed at enemy troops (though I guess skaven are an exception to this).

Dead Man Walking
03-11-2008, 23:23
And monsters does count for those creatures as Throgg also gives those creatures a reroll like a bsb.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-11-2008, 05:15
It casts a magic missile, and you can't target your own troops with magic missiles.You could, however, potentially target an enemy unit within 12" of Kholek Suneater, who will then re-direct a lightning attack onto himself.

Lord Khabal
04-11-2008, 07:27
Hi guys!
maybe you could answer me this...

1 - A unit with a character inside gets a bonus from a warshrine. Im assuming the bonus passes to the character, even if he leaves the unit afterwards.
2 - can kholek use his shooting attack if in combat? he is a large target...
3 - can valkia use her "inspiring presence" on herself if fighting alone? (any friendly unit...)
4 - what is throgg base size and valkia? Im assuming troll and chaos warrior respectively
5 - lore of tzeentch: treason; Vs DE does hatred works against themselves?
6 - ch knights: if using lances do they have ensorceled weapons after they charge?

thanks a lot.

UltimateNagash
04-11-2008, 08:02
1 - A unit with a character inside gets a bonus from a warshrine. Im assuming the bonus passes to the character, even if he leaves the unit afterwards.
Bonuses given to a unit are normally lost when a character leaves the unit (this isn't actually a rule just a general point), so I would say no, he looses it.

2 - can kholek use his shooting attack if in combat? he is a large target...
No, only Slann can do that, and only because their rules specifically say that

3 - can valkia use her "inspiring presence" on herself if fighting alone? (any friendly unit...)
I think it's the case of, she's not actually within 12". When there are rules like that, it would say

Her, and any unit within 12" of her
instead of what it does. Therefore, I say no...

4 - what is throgg base size and valkia? Im assuming troll and chaos warrior respectively
Unknown at the moment, but that is what is presumed...

5 - lore of tzeentch: treason; Vs DE does hatred works against themselves?
Yes, I think

6 - ch knights: if using lances do they have ensorceled weapons after they charge?
No, they've replaced their weapons with lances (been FAQ'd to that)

Atrahasis
04-11-2008, 10:13
1. We don't know - the only precedent is RiP spells, where a character leaving a unit means the player must decide which continues to be affected.

2. No

3. Yes - she is a friendly unit, and she's definitely within 12" of herself.

4. Troll, 25mm infantry

5. It is treated as an ongoing combat, so no. Hatred works only in the first round.

6. As the rules are presently, yes. It will more than likely change come the FAQ.

GrogsnotPowwabomba
05-11-2008, 19:11
I'm not sure if this has been asked, but I had some questions on base sizes. What are the base sizes for:

Chaos Warshrine
Daemonic Mounts (Steed of Slaanesh, Palanquin of Nurgle, etc)
Valkia (also, what is her unit strength?)

Thanks for the help.

UltimateNagash
05-11-2008, 19:16
Chaos Warshrine is a chariot base, and the others are somewhere in this thread (Valkia's is right above ya)...

Goruax
06-11-2008, 15:50
The Warshrine is whatever size, really.
It isn't a Chariot, it just looks like one (for the most part)
It fights as a monster, so really, any size for your model works.

The Red Scourge
06-11-2008, 16:13
I'm not sure if this has been asked, but I had some questions on base sizes. What are the base sizes for:

Chaos Warshrine
Daemonic Mounts (Steed of Slaanesh, Palanquin of Nurgle, etc)
Valkia (also, what is her unit strength?)

Thanks for the help.

Its all a mystery, that will probably first be solved, when GW releases a mini for them.

I'd expect the warshrine to get a chariot base.
All daemonic mounts to be 50x50
And Valkia to be US1 – as the DP specifically says its US3 (by the way she has no daemonic rules)

Shamfrit
07-11-2008, 00:51
The War Altar is being played on a chariot base in tournaments currently, and that is the general concensus on it's size; that, and the picture clearly shows a chariot, so it's half fact and half 'oops, a picture' to be honest.

But as has been said, Valkia is definately a 25mm US1 sorta gal.

GodlessM
07-11-2008, 01:15
War Shrine is on a Chariot base.
Valkia is on a 25mm base.
All Daemonic Mounts are on a 50mm base except the Steed of Slaanesh which is the bipedal creature on a 25x50mm base.

Nurgling Chieftain
07-11-2008, 03:39
...except the Steed of Slaanesh which is the bipedal creature on a 25x50mm base.This thing is neither bipedal nor on a 25x50mm base; I think it's 50x50 just like the others.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1183604_99110201139_ChaosLordSlaaneshMain_873x627 .jpg

The Red Scourge
07-11-2008, 05:48
...All Daemonic Mounts are on a 50mm base except the Steed of Slaanesh which is the bipedal creature on a 25x50mm base.

Except there are no such minis in the current range, so expect it to be just like any other daemonic mount and on 50x50 base should it ever be released :)

SolarHammer
07-11-2008, 06:08
No. Don't expect that because it's a cavalry model without any special exception for using a larger base in the army book.

Here is what I had to say on the subject on the Daemon forum:
The rules do so say so. The rulebook says nothing about a "norm" for cavalry.

The term cavalry refers to riders mounted on horse-sized creatures that have only 1 Wound in their profile, mounted on a 25mm by 50mm 'cavalry' base.p.7


Fast cavalry uits use regular formations and follow all the rules for normal cavalry units, except for the differences described in this section.p.70

Steed of Slaanesh:
is roughly horse sized
has only 1 Wound
is referred to as cavalry
is fast cavalry
is the only cavalry mount in both the Daemon and the Warrior book that does not have an exception for being cavalry despite being on a larger base.

No "norm," no "usually," just "mounted on 25mm by 50mm 'cavalry' base."

If you put it on a big base, then it's not a cavalry mount at all (lacking the exception for being one on a large base), it's a 1W monster, and should die pretty damn quick.

darghan
07-11-2008, 06:09
The funny thing about the Steed of Slaanesh is that the current model is called a 'daemonic mount' in the book (p 84).

Also, it's not included under the listing of which chaos mounts are cavalry mounts:"note that Juggernauts of Khorne, Deamonic Mounts, Palanquins of Nurgle and Discs of Tzeench are cavalry mounts, even though they are not mounted on a 25x50mm base." (p 54)

does this mean that a SoS should be on a 25x50? it has the fast cavalry rule as well, how does this impact the hero? It seems to suggest to me that it is supposed to be mounted on a 25x50 base, like the Mounted Deamonettes, but it's very unclear to me.

Nurgling Chieftain
07-11-2008, 07:32
The funny thing about the Steed of Slaanesh is that the current model is called a 'daemonic mount' in the book (p 84).I guess if that thing is just a variant Daemonic Mount, than the Steed of Slaanesh is what the old Mounted Daemonette models were on, and what the new Seekers models will be on when they come out.

Clegane
09-11-2008, 00:53
So I have a player trying to tell me that he is not obliged to use his shield when making his armor save from Cloying Quagmire. I have no idea why he assumes it would be optional, as the intent of the spell clearly indicates that its the weight of the armor dragging the model down, and that shield weight would be there whether it was on his arm or on his back.

Has anyone else dealt with this (in my opinion) gross misconception regarding CQ and, if so, how did you resolve it?

UltimateNagash
09-11-2008, 13:04
That's plain wrong. You can't say you're not gonna use your shield, not like that...

OldMaster
09-11-2008, 17:31
He's simply tweaking the rules in his favour.
The shield must be includedin the armour save. Note however that the HW+SH bonus does not apply here.

UltimateNagash
09-11-2008, 17:38
Probably shoulda mentioned that - but it's kindof obvious to anyone who actually knows the rules. Unlike Clegane's opponent.
Something I noticed - could a Sorcerer Lord/Chaos Lord with Diabolic Splender join a Hellcannon and make enemies take a -2 Leadership Panic test? Splender does say it is conferred to the unit the character joins...

DeathlessDraich
09-11-2008, 17:45
So I have a player trying to tell me that he is not obliged to use his shield when making his armor save from Cloying Quagmire. I have no idea why he assumes it would be optional, as the intent of the spell clearly indicates that its the weight of the armor dragging the model down, and that shield weight would be there whether it was on his arm or on his back.

Has anyone else dealt with this (in my opinion) gross misconception regarding CQ and, if so, how did you resolve it?

It depends on the circumstances.
It is possible *not* to use a shield when fighting with some weapons - e.g. GWeapon or requires 2 Hands.
The shield may then be dropped according to the rules.

I don't think Quagmire can be cast into combat though IIRC.

Kalec
11-11-2008, 00:14
So I have a player trying to tell me that he is not obliged to use his shield when making his armor save from Cloying Quagmire. I have no idea why he assumes it would be optional, as the intent of the spell clearly indicates that its the weight of the armor dragging the model down, and that shield weight would be there whether it was on his arm or on his back.

Has anyone else dealt with this (in my opinion) gross misconception regarding CQ and, if so, how did you resolve it?

He could just, you know, drop the shield. Fits with the intent just fine, doesn't it?

Nurgling Chieftain
11-11-2008, 00:54
Except that then he would no longer have a shield...

Condottiere
11-11-2008, 03:19
I don't think that the rules have an allowance for dropping equipment. If the option to upgrade to both shield and GW exists, in combat you could choose either HW&S or GW, and in the shooting/magic phases you'd still have that +1 AS.

GravlinG
11-11-2008, 10:44
Can anyone help with this.
Rolling "eye of the gods table" and challenges.
I know my characters (lords, sorcerer etc) will get too roll on they table if they kill a large target or another character in a challenge. DOES this challenge include there unit champions ??? as it states in the Rule book unit champions do follow certain character rules.
Also why I ask this is because if I have a warshrine on the table, all my unit champions gain the eye of the god rule. And im guessing im not planning too beat there general or main characters with a unit champion to gain the roll.
So it must also include unit champions in a challenge ? ! ?

What u all think ?

Atrahasis
11-11-2008, 10:47
No, killing a champion is not killing a character.

Also note that champions do not get to roll on the Eye of the Gods rule even if there is a War Shrine on the table.

Atrahasis
11-11-2008, 11:05
In the 1st line of the warshrine, it states that unit champions gain the eye of the god special rule.
They gain the rule, but they still aren't "Characters with the eye of the gods rule".

You might not want to post illegal material here, the mods aren't forgiving.

Goruax
11-11-2008, 11:17
He's not posted a points value, and that part of the rules is pretty specific, so is relatively useless on it's own. No need to jump on him for what is not exactly illegal, since it is being discussed.

And do not make a blanket statement about the Warshrine, since it is a contentious ruling, and there has been no official word.
IMO, the Champions do get to roll, because they are characters for the purposes of a challenge, but that is my opinion and you believe they aren't, which is your opinion.

Champions accept challenges like a Character - only Characters can fight in a challenge, thusly, during a challenge, a Champion should be considered a Character.
But I digest :p

GravlinG
11-11-2008, 12:13
Yea i didnt realize it was frowned upon to post images like that, since i got that image from a forum, (thought it was from this forum) but learned from my mistake :-D

And yea Goruax I agree with how u interpret the rules, that is how i interpret it aswell. But guess we will all just have too wait and see when the official FAQ comes out... Sigh... hope does not take too long... :-P

Thanks...

Mireadur
11-11-2008, 21:05
No, killing a champion is not killing a character.

Also note that champions do not get to roll on the Eye of the Gods rule even if there is a War Shrine on the table.

Just ignore atrahasis on this one. Unfortunately, as Direwolf council chaos member he is, im guessing it's his opinion GW is going to follow once they FAQ the issue.

Gazak Blacktoof
11-11-2008, 21:20
GW don't use the direwolf FAQs to formulate answers they only use the questions.

Nekrodamus
12-11-2008, 07:54
@ Steed of Slaanesh

The german list of "large size horses" includes this one!

Some days ago I sent a mail with some first translation errors to the german webmaster and he replied that he will have to examine them carefully "since the german book includes some changes / improvements allready".

So either this one is indeed a translation error or you will see a note with the FAQ. Perhaps someone could check another version of the book?

Nekrodamus
12-11-2008, 08:09
@ Infernal Puppet

I expect this item to be in every WoC list so I'm thinking about the interaction of two of them. Who has to go first?

"The affected player goes last" seems to be a fair solution, but neither a concrete rule nor a precedent come into my mind. Any ideas?

Maarten K
12-11-2008, 10:05
I've seen a few lists with chaos sorcerers armed with magic shields. Is that allowed? I thought characters can't have the magic version if they don't have acces to the mundane one. thus chaos sorcerers can have magic armour but not magic shields, or am i wrong?

Atrahasis
12-11-2008, 10:10
Sorcerors and Shields : Debatable but probably legal due to p106.


Just ignore atrahasis on this one. Unfortunately, as Direwolf council chaos member he is, im guessing it's his opinion GW is going to follow once they FAQ the issue.

I have presented the rules.
If you checked the link in my sig you'd see that it is among the questions I have compiled to submit to the Design Team. If I thought it was as clear cut as you appear to believe I do, I'd never ask the question.

Direwolf compile lists of questions (and expend a lot of our own time, unpaid, to do so) which are submitted to the Design Team with commentaries explaining why the questions need answers in our opinion. The Design Team then answers the questions. Sometimes they agree with our commentary, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they don't even agree that a question exists.

In short, your ignorance is showing.

Akuma
12-11-2008, 10:25
@ word of agony - used on say mounted on dragon character - do I get to chose who takes the D6 hits OR its random like say from shooting ?

Godgolden
12-11-2008, 10:25
why wouldnt a sorcerer have a magic shield?

even the test hero builds on GW website advises with the new challenge rules.. to take him a runeshield.

and enchanted shield isnt a shield.. its armour.

Atrahasis
12-11-2008, 10:33
The Enchanted Shield most definitely is a shield, otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy Light/Heavy/Plate/Gromril armour with it. It would be the world's most expensive heavy armour.

Atrahasis
12-11-2008, 10:33
@ word of agony - used on say mounted on dragon character - do I get to chose who takes the D6 hits OR its random like say from shooting ?No idea - it's in the list of questions.

FigureFour
12-11-2008, 15:10
@ word of agony - used on say mounted on dragon character - do I get to chose who takes the D6 hits OR its random like say from shooting ?

I believe it says "target model" right? The dragon and the rider are considered to be one model, so I think you'd randomize.

White_13oy
12-11-2008, 19:22
Hey I have a question. I was reading the Knights profile and it says upgrade enscorcelled weapons to lances. Does this make the lances also ensorcelled?

FigureFour
12-11-2008, 19:24
Hey I have a question. I was reading the Knights profile and it says upgrade enscorcelled weapons to lances. Does this make the lances also ensorcelled?

This question has been answered many times.
No.

White_13oy
12-11-2008, 19:53
Thank you.

Mireadur
13-11-2008, 00:06
I believe it says "target model" right? The dragon and the rider are considered to be one model, so I think you'd randomize.

Is there any precedent where in CC hits get randomized as in shooting? its a real question not sarcasm.

In truth i cant see the issue with this one, its CC and says you choose a target.

Atrahasis
13-11-2008, 09:13
Chariot impact hits are distributed like shooting, but have special rules against mounted characters.

As I've said, it's in the list of questions for the Design Team : there's no rule to cover it at present.

bojan
13-11-2008, 09:42
Question about Dr.Ogre special character:
1. Starcrusher says that he does d3 wounds for each unsaved wound. Does this works for his shooting attack also (by RAW it does), or not?
2. Is a Sturcrusher a magical weapon or just a magical item (by RAW it is not a weapon, but again this sounds a bit iffy)?

Shamfrit
13-11-2008, 09:44
It's a weapon, and his weapon attacks do D3 Wounds, not his lightning.

Pendragon
13-11-2008, 10:40
I stumbled on an interesting precedent regarding the "sorcerors and magic shields" issue.
From the wood elf FAQ: "Q. Is it legal to equip a Wood Elf Battle Standard Bearer with a magic bow even if it cannot have a normal one?
A. Yes, he can use a magic bow, as he can be given magic weapons."

Granted, this doesen't have to mean anything.

/Joel

Atrahasis
13-11-2008, 10:45
It really doesn't mean anything - the rules for taking magic weapons are that you must have a weapon option, which the BSB has.

The rules for magic shields are that you must have a shield option, which the sorcerer doesn't.

bojan
14-11-2008, 20:46
It's a weapon, and his weapon attacks do D3 Wounds, not his lightning.


Sorry but my book does not say it is actually weapon:
Under the heading Magic Items:
Starcrusher: Each unsaved wound Kholec inflict is multiplied to D3 wounds.

So, by RAW id could work on lightning also.

And please - no pointless discusion it should not do etc, as I just want to check if my book has potential misprint.

SolarHammer
15-11-2008, 00:01
It's a weapon, and his weapon attacks do D3 Wounds, not his lightning.

You have nothing to base that on, as has been stated in this thread.

That question will be posed to the design studio in the WoC FAQ.

Shamfrit
15-11-2008, 00:05
Excuse me gentlemen.

Look in the 3rd paragraph down on the left hand side of Kholek's Description, you'll find:

'In his great taloned claws Kholek bears the gigantic hammer known as Starcrusher, a weapon forged in the heart of a volcano and enchanted to fell montruous foes.'

Nope. Starcrusher isn't a weapon at all...:skull:

Kalec
15-11-2008, 02:19
If only the fluff description mattered at all, then you would have a case. But it doesn't.

Nurgling Chieftain
15-11-2008, 03:10
Look, virtually no Special Character magic items are explicitly classified as a particular type of magic item in any book - you almost always have to extrapolate the patently obvious. Kholek's hammer is clearly a weapon, and should be treated as such.

What's next? Sigvald's Silverslash can't hit Ethereal creatures because his sword isn't specifically identifed as a Magic Weapon? Get over it. Pure RaW doesn't work with GW rulesets, it never has and probably never will.

bojan
15-11-2008, 12:08
Look, virtually no Special Character magic items are explicitly classified as a particular type of magic item in any book - you almost always have to extrapolate the patently obvious.


Sometimes yes, but usually other character's items do not interfere/make a synergy with other abilities as is a case with Kholek.



Kholek's hammer is clearly a weapon, and should be treated as such....


I agree, but that is NOT what RULES say.



What's next? Sigvald's Silverslash can't hit Ethereal creatures because his sword isn't specifically identifed as a Magic Weapon?


It can, as it is under the heading called MAGICAL ITEMS, hence it is magical. Pure RAW.



Get over it. Pure RaW doesn't work with GW rulesets, it never has and probably never will.

But it is a name of the game at this moment. And really, I want to know unified set of rules, not every club/individual has own version that sounds fair to them.
And BTW, it was GW's own avoiding of RAW gave us S&S Treemen and such BS.

Shamfrit
15-11-2008, 12:10
By your own logic, Biting Blade confers -1 to ALL saves that the wielder causes, even his ranged attacks.

This isn't just RAW, it's blindsiding and wishful thinking taken to an extreme.

DeathlessDraich
15-11-2008, 12:29
Starcrusher - The rules does not state whether it is a magic weapon. Just a Magic item and could therefore be a weapon, a talisman, Enchanted item.

However the background story does clearly indicate it is a weapon.
Any FAQ will probably confirm this.

JonnyTHM
15-11-2008, 12:59
Okay... I'm taking a stand.

If you're going to go to the extremes of RAW, the fluff description DOES matter.

I'm tired of people trying to claim RAW and then saying 'oh, that's just fluff, you don't have to count that'.

Most reasonable people aren't constrained by it, but if you want to be that unreasonable with RAW, I'm calling you on it, and you need to use the fluff. Why? Because there's no rule saying that what you're calling 'fluff text' is, and as it's in the rules part of the book, it's clearly relevant.

Godgolden
15-11-2008, 13:37
The Enchanted Shield most definitely is a shield, otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy Light/Heavy/Plate/Gromril armour with it. It would be the world's most expensive heavy armour.

check it

enchanted shield: armour; 5+ armour save (WOC army book)

however runeshield has the 'shield' rule (shield; special rules blah blah)

of course common sense dictates there both shields (or you could take a standard shield 'ontop of enchanted shield =P)... but that would mean all magic weapons described as a handweapon get parry with said shields on foot :)

such an imperfect system.

and whats the point of champions getting the special rule 'EOTG' if they cannot benefit from it? i say they get to role, and if anybody said otherwise after my champion lays low there hero or lord.. then i shouldnt be playing them...

Edonil
15-11-2008, 15:39
On the issue of the Starcrusher...
If your interpretation is correct, by taking a Runefang, an Empire General's pistol shots ignore armor and hit automatically. Ridiculous, right? Well, that's what you're arguing for. Granted, you'll do whatever you want...but you will never find a tournament judge who will back you anywhere. If you don't play in tournaments, I hope that the people you play read the rules for themselves- this is the first WoC error I've read about something clearly stated!

Shamfrit
15-11-2008, 16:13
Godgolden, the Enchanted Shield has been errated, it very much does confer the parry bonus when using a mundane hand weapon, and is a shield for all intent and purpose.

Commisar Dave
15-11-2008, 17:42
Ive noticed something that could be horribly horribly abused: A spell in lore of tzeentch that changes an ordinary guy to a hero. From the description it seems that after the effects of the spell expire that the person in question suffers a none too pleasant fate, yet the in game rules are way off(please correct me if I am wrong) but this is how I see it:

When cast you remove the target model from play (thereby making it a casualty right?) & replace with a hero model, now I'm not sure if it a misprint or me not quite reading it correctly but when the spell ends (caster dies, etc) it doesnt state what happens to the 'new' hero it had created, from what I can tell by the RAW would it leave Chaos warrior no#27 as an corpse or an aspiring champion/etc thereby allowing the sorceror to convert an entire unit (if he wanted) into characters, in short omg cheese! or hell no?

Shamfrit
15-11-2008, 18:12
It dies, it's quite clearly written, and the subsequent death of the Exalted awards 100 victory points to your opponent.

SolarHammer
15-11-2008, 18:56
I don't think there's any reason to assume the model dies, and I certainly don't think it's clearly written.

It is after all the subject of a rather heated 3 page debate found here:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170712

This question will be submitted to the design team for the FAQ as it is obviously not "clear" to all players...

Goruax
15-11-2008, 19:23
If the spell is ended by the caster, it seems unfair to award VP's to the enemy...
Hmm.

bojan
16-11-2008, 00:04
By your own logic, Biting Blade confers -1 to ALL saves that the wielder causes, even his ranged attacks.


No, as BB is clearly defined as a magical weapon. Starcrusher IS NOT. Hence a problem.



This isn't just RAW, it's blindsiding and wishful thinking taken to an extreme.

No, it is preparing for worst - I do not play nor I intend to play with Kholek.

bojan
16-11-2008, 00:11
On the issue of the Starcrusher...
If your interpretation is correct, by taking a Runefang, an Empire General's pistol shots ignore armor and hit automatically.

No, as a Runefang is clearly defined as a magical weapon, Starcrusher is not.



Ridiculous, right?


I don't ask anyone to agree, I ask people to acknowledge that problem exists.




Well, that's what you're arguing for.

No, read again rules for Starcrusher.



Granted, you'll do whatever you want...but you will never find a tournament judge who will back you anywhere.

I don't play and will not play with Kholek so it is irelevant.



If you don't play in tournaments, I hope that the people you play read the rules for themselves- this is the first WoC error I've read about something clearly stated!
Sorry, but only thing clearly stated is:

Starcrusher: Each unsaved wound Kholec inflict is multiplied to D3 wounds.
It does not say it is only in close combat, it does not say that SC is a magical weapon (heading is called Magical Items).

Goruax
16-11-2008, 01:59
No, as a Runefang is clearly defined as a magical weapon, Starcrusher is not.

The Runefang is listed as a Magical Weapon, but it isn't described in it's own text as a Magical Weapon. How can you trust such a devious being?

Considering that neither the Slayer of Kings, nor the Spear Slaupnir are described as Magical Weapons, surely the bonuses would apply to any other damage they cause?


I don't play and will not play with Kholek so it is irelevant.

Regardless of whether you play or not, the simple fact is you're playing Devil's Advocate in a case where the intention is veeeery clear.

SolarHammer
16-11-2008, 02:24
Is it really as clear as you think?

I disagree.

Blueskies
16-11-2008, 04:07
The Runefang is listed as a Magical Weapon, but it isn't described in it's own text as a Magical Weapon. How can you trust such a devious being?

I don't understand your point here, if it is listed under the section magic weapons it does not have to have magic weapon in its text. By virtue of being in a list of magic weapons, makes it a magic weapon as specified by the list's heading.


Considering that neither the Slayer of Kings, nor the Spear Slaupnir are described as Magical Weapons, surely the bonuses would apply to any other damage they cause?

Problem as discussed isn't even really about if it is a weapon or not, the problem is that the wording for starcrusher states "each unsaved wound Kholek inflicts is multiplied to D3 wounds". Wounds from herald of tempest are wounds inflicted by Kholek... this is the problem being proposed.

Slayer of Kings is not described as a magic weapon but the wording on it states "The slayer of kings ignores armour saves. In addition archaon may unleash the power....(not material as it only refers to close combat after this)". But note that the wording says that the slayer of king's ignores armour saves, not archaon ignores armour save. If it said archaon ignores armour saves then we would have the same problem everytime archaon zaps something with a spell.

I don't see how Spear Slaupnir helps your arguement as Slaupnir is armour piercing and it's other rule only confers +2 str and killing blow on a charge, Valkia doesn't have any way of taking advantage of this since she has no magical or ranged attacks.


Regardless of whether you play or not, the simple fact is you're playing Devil's Advocate in a case where the intention is veeeery clear.

Actuallly he is not devil's advocating, you are, he is merely stating a problem with the rule interactions, you are purposely pushing your view despite the obvious problem with the rule interactions we have here. People who come on to these forums and keep screaming "thats not the intent" or "I wouldn't let them play it like that" are not helping, we are outlining problems and questions that we hope will one dat be FAQ'd. If we can find a technical rules answer that solves the problems then that is fantastic, but if we can't then kicking and screaming that you personally will not pay it despite the wording of the rules doesn't help, and may not go your way in a tournament, when a judge determines that they are paying the RAW when there is a lack of a presence of an official FAQ to state otherwise.

Nekrodamus
16-11-2008, 07:36
... Some days ago I sent a mail with some first translation errors to the german webmaster and he replied that he will have to examine them carefully "since the german book includes some changes / improvements allready". ...

In the german AB the rules for 'The Father of Blades' have an additional sentence: 'Note that this applies to close combat and shooting attacks.' :wtf:


It is important whether 'Starcrusher' & Co. are magic weapons or f.i. enchanted items, since some rules (f.i. Chaos Runeshield) interact (only) with this kind of magic items.

Regardless of the type of item, right now it does effect 'Herald of the Tempest', since the pizza baker strictly insists on RAW instead of allowing to use anyone's brain at least after they released something.

So by having the 'Rending Sword' just with him, a Chaos character is able to increase the effectivity of 'Bloodcurdling Roar' and the like. To be continued for a bundle of items ... :mad:

Goruax
16-11-2008, 09:49
Actuallly he is not devil's advocating, you are, he is merely stating a problem with the rule interactions, you are purposely pushing your view despite the obvious problem with the rule interactions we have here.

There's only a minor problem with the rule interaction, since it is simple to see what the intention is.
It's not that it shouldn't be FAQ'd, but it's not hard to understand what the intent is in this case, something that's relatively rare.


People who come on to these forums and keep screaming "thats not the intent" or "I wouldn't let them play it like that" are not helping, we are outlining problems and questions that we hope will one dat be FAQ'd.

This rule 'problem' is easily solved if you apply the Most Important Rule and a smidgeon of logic.
Sure, an FAQ would help those with their rule dial stuck eternally on RAW.


but if we can't then kicking and screaming that you personally will not pay it despite the wording of the rules doesn't help, and may not go your way in a tournament, when a judge determines that they are paying the RAW when there is a lack of a presence of an official FAQ to state otherwise.

I never mentioned not playing it a certain way, and if anyone asked me, I'd explain the situation, ask their opinion and play it whatever way they felt represented Kholec's ******* off hammer best :angel:

And who's screaming? The only one before now who mentioned not playing anything a certain way was on the RAW side ;)

GodlessM
16-11-2008, 19:20
This is all so silly

Einholt
16-11-2008, 19:39
I agree godless, there has been a rise in Easter Egg detection lately.

Guys you are gonna have to realize that GW is not gonna address these issues, the best way to do this is for us to police the game as a community.

My only recommendation is to treat the book as being written in such a way that unless something is clearly stated to be intended that we should disregard what it POTENTIALLY means.

Often these potential effects are clearly more powerful, it is more damaging to assume an effect that has a greater influence then assume it is a standard effect and play it as such.

Play devils advocate and disagree with me all you want for those of you that will, it really does not matter but for the sake of the game and everyones enjoyment not just the person finding the easter egg.

The onus on proof should be on people who FIND something they believe they found, if it is inconclusive and "can" go either way, heir on the side of caution and do not abuse it. Simple as that.

bosstroll
17-11-2008, 14:22
Guys you are gonna have to realize that GW is not gonna address these issues, the best way to do this is for us to police the game as a community.

My only recommendation is to treat the book as being written in such a way that unless something is clearly stated to be intended that we should disregard what it POTENTIALLY means.

Often these potential effects are clearly more powerful, it is more damaging to assume an effect that has a greater influence then assume it is a standard effect and play it as such.

Play devils advocate and disagree with me all you want for those of you that will, it really does not matter but for the sake of the game and everyones enjoyment not just the person finding the easter egg.

The onus on proof should be on people who FIND something they believe they found, if it is inconclusive and "can" go either way, heir on the side of caution and do not abuse it. Simple as that.

If we take your bolded as a ruling, then i'm gonna be able to exploit wraiths so bad, since non of the CW SC are actually explicitly stated as having a magic weapon, they just have magic items with cc abilities...

Clearly your solution won't work, or your arguing that items such as the slayer of kings are not magic weapons.

Shamfrit
17-11-2008, 14:32
How would Starcrusher increase the damage of the storm exactly?

Oh and whilst we're on the idiocy trail: Look what I've found!

Weeping Blade: Each unsaved wound is multiplied into D3 wounds.

RAW. Every wound inflicted in the game is multiplied into D3, woo, mass carnage!

RAI. Wounds caused by the Weeping Blade.

Blade of Nurglitch

Enemy models lose 1 point of Toughness from their profile for each unsaved wound theysufffer, to a minimum of 1 toughness.

RAW. This happens when a wound is caused, regardless of source, woo, dead heroes!

RAI. Wounds caused by the Blade..


--

We could indeed, go on...

FigureFour
17-11-2008, 14:52
How would Starcrusher increase the damage of the storm exactly?

Oh and whilst we're on the idiocy trail: Look what I've found!

Check out the Wood Elf FAQ. The magic bow Asyendi's Bane allows rerolls of all shooting attacks. The FAQ clarifies that this applies to all shooting attacks made by the bearer, even those not made with the bow.

GW even admits that it's idiocy in the FAQ, but it's idiocy the designers seem to think you should play with . . .

Gazak Blacktoof
17-11-2008, 15:06
GW even admits that it's idiocy in the FAQ, but it's idiocy the designers seem to think you should play with . . .

Idiots :p.

As I mentioned in another thread the silliness of the GW FAQs is why its usually better just talk to your opponent. This works best in a small group of players but can be impractical in pickup games, they're a default position more than anything.

GW don't like using Errata or common sense these days and tend to go with the rules as written which isn't conducive to good behaviour, instead leading to rules-lawyering of the highest magnitude. They don't even play by their own rules though so they occasionally arrive at answer unsupported by the rules.

Einholt
17-11-2008, 15:10
I am not arguing for multiple wounds with Starcrusher in fact it was a General statement, but since that seems to be impossible to make.

Listen to Shamfrit and look at the idiocy that ensues if we try reading things literally and looking for these bonuses in previous books, they have always been around but people did not act like ***** so it was a non issue, the norm would be to assume If a character carries items with non mundane names their equipment is a magical item, if it was supposed to be an ability to multiply D3 wounds on Kholek then it would have been and ability and not under his items section as Star Crusher which language and placement in rules implies is an object (his hammer) his magical hammer because it doesn't say Hammer (great weapon).

Deep down no matter what some people say and "I disagree" even if the rules do not state something. They know the intent and should not go for POTENTIAL intent, like I said its less harmful for the game to play it safe.

The language might not be clear but if you are saying well I do not see it that way because I am not being told a specific thing and you cannot tell me otherwise thats fine but are these same people going to concede idiocy and claim ignorance on just about everything.

FigureFour
17-11-2008, 15:20
Deep down no matter what some people say and "I disagree" even if the rules do not state something. They know the intent and should not go for POTENTIAL intent, like I said its less harmful for the game to play it safe.

What about the (many) situations where it's impossible to know for sure that the designers intended? You seriously think that what you think someone else thought at the time they were writing the book is a better way of playing than using the rules?

I know sometimes the rules are a little wacky and need to be treated with common sense, but your attitude here is just as idiotic as a "pure RAW" stance.


The language might not be clear but if you are saying well I do not see it that way because I am not being told a specific thing and you cannot tell me otherwise thats fine but are these same people going to concede idiocy and claim ignorance on just about everything.

Punctuation dude.

And you ARE being told a specific thing. Specifically you inflict d3 wounds for every attack Kholek succeeds with.

Shamfrit
17-11-2008, 15:23
Although...

Actually, sure, go ahead and play with D3 wounds inflicting on the lightning too..


I will laugh so hard in your face when you roll a 1 for his lightning attack and then continue to kill your 600 point character.

Oh how I will lol.

OldMaster
17-11-2008, 15:30
Surely his Storm Rage special rule would prevent death.

Shamfrit
17-11-2008, 15:36
True.

But now your character is Frenzied.

So win win.

FigureFour
17-11-2008, 15:38
Although...

Actually, sure, go ahead and play with D3 wounds inflicting on the lightning too..


I will laugh so hard in your face when you roll a 1 for his lightning attack and then continue to kill your 600 point character.

Oh how I will lol.

Some people seem to be assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is doing so because they're trying to cheat.

I don't even play Warriors of Chaos, but my opponents do. I assure you my position on this will hurt me more than it helps.

Also, Kholek is immune to his own lightning. It'll just make him frenzy.

Shamfrit
17-11-2008, 18:21
Sorry Figure, that was a general 'to whatever opponent tries it' not directly at anyone in particular.

And I caught that, *points up.*

FigureFour
17-11-2008, 18:33
Sorry Figure, that was a general 'to whatever opponent tries it' not directly at anyone in particular.
Actually, I was trying to generally address an attitude I see on the boards and just using you as an example so, no hard feelings.

Suffice to say, sometimes people have opinions on rules despite that rule never applying to a single game they've played.


And I caught that, *points up.*
Ah. You must have posted that while I was typing.

Edonil
18-11-2008, 01:18
Actually, I was trying to generally address an attitude I see on the boards and just using you as an example so, no hard feelings.

Suffice to say, sometimes people have opinions on rules despite that rule never applying to a single game they've played.


Well, speaking as one of those 'general attitude' people...I owe you an apology it does seem. After seeing that thing on the bow, weeping blade, and so on, I'd have to say that, as screwed up as it is...you are, indeed correct as to the RAW interpretation. Doubt I'll play it like that, my group'll probably establish a house rule since it is extremely silly that GW did that.

Deacon Bane
18-11-2008, 02:33
I have the answer for people that abuse, RAW. In tournament settings you get very poor scoring for Comp and Sportsmanship and your armies appearence gets a going over with a fine tooth comb, so there better not be any paint chipped. Good luck trying to win the Overall title. In casual games, i just walk away.

FigureFour
18-11-2008, 14:57
Well, speaking as one of those 'general attitude' people...I owe you an apology it does seem. After seeing that thing on the bow, weeping blade, and so on, I'd have to say that, as screwed up as it is...you are, indeed correct as to the RAW interpretation. Doubt I'll play it like that, my group'll probably establish a house rule since it is extremely silly that GW did that.

No appology nessicary. (Unless you said something terribly rude that I don't remember. Then, appology accepted.)

For the record, I argue the RAW position because I believe that everyone should at least understand the rules of the game they play and how they work, because I think it makes people better players and it sets a common playing field. If you're playing a game with someone for the first time, the rulebook and how it is written is our common ground, and nothing sucks worse than someone saying "Oh. I play that differently." in the middle of a game. If you do fully understand them and then you and your group decide on a better way of doing things, that's awesome. Frankly I've houseruled my 40k games up a lot, but I havent' found anything with Fantasy that I feel needs fixing, yet.

Lordmonkey
18-11-2008, 16:28
I agree, FigureFour. The trouble is that when you head to a tournament, you don't know your opponents or where their opinion is on certain rules ambiguities. Official (at least in the context of your immediate environment) rulings need to be in place in advance for things like that.

I like to know where to be with rules, even if I will never need to know for my own army, because theres always that annoying opponent that tries to win using a preferential rules interpretation.

Universally, RAW is the best we can resort to...

ghanson
19-11-2008, 01:20
Hey all, I don't know if this has allready been asked because i didn't feel like going through 8 pages of questions.

I take Wulfrick The Wanderer. I then put him in a unit of marauders (size is unimportant). now for the question: can I deploy other heroes in this unit.

I have looked into the rulebook for this and could not find anything to say that I could or could not do this.

Einholt
19-11-2008, 01:36
no surely not... I mean dwarves have to pay to do that it cannot possibly be so. hahaha... oh man thats great. lmao amazing.

PHIL!! PHIL!! PHIL!! ......... retard.

Hope that answers it ghanson.

Shamfrit
19-11-2008, 01:44
It specifically says Wulfrik and a unit of Marauders.

That's a specific enough clause to say no, you may not place characters in that unit.

goodz
19-11-2008, 09:37
monster and handler can also move with monsterds speed and handlers run around behind it:P

I dont think we will be seeing hell cannons marching around the battle field with their m 6, and I highly doubt it well be allowed to move and fire after the FAQ is done

CGLover
19-11-2008, 10:02
Q: The hell cannon is a skirmish unit, so can it go into a forest with no penalties?

Atrahasis
19-11-2008, 10:12
monster and handler can also move with monsterds speed and handlers run around behind it:P

I dont think we will be seeing hell cannons marching around the battle field with their m 6, and I highly doubt it well be allowed to move and fire after the FAQ is doneUnits move at the speed of the slowest model, in this case 3".

The only problem area is charges.


Q: The hell cannon is a skirmish unit, so can it go into a forest with no penalties?Yes, as can Hydrae.

goodz
19-11-2008, 10:38
lol right right

was just thinkin about "dwarfs can always march even when an enemey is within 8 inchs"

and somehow credited them with 6 movment in my head:P

Injun
20-11-2008, 20:30
I have a question about Valkia actually. Her armor reduces all attacks to a strength of one. Does this mean every attack period? Cannon fire as well?

loveless
20-11-2008, 20:44
I have a question about Valkia actually. Her armor reduces all attacks to a strength of one. Does this mean every attack period? Cannon fire as well?

Are you sure her armour doesn't reduce the strength of attacks BY one? :eyebrows:

Injun
20-11-2008, 20:55
Are you sure her armour doesn't reduce the strength of attacks BY one? :eyebrows:

:o Oh geez... See kids this is what happens when you don't read carefully!

Kalec
21-11-2008, 03:30
Also, since Starcrusher isn't a weapon, Kholek doesn't have magical attacks either.

Einholt
21-11-2008, 03:57
Surely you jest, that would be a disadvantage it cannot possibly be the intent!

bojan
21-11-2008, 19:00
Also, since Starcrusher isn't a weapon, Kholek doesn't have magical attacks either.

By RAW - no, he does not.

Injun
22-11-2008, 00:33
Do fleeing chaos warhounds cause panic in units they pass?

EvC
22-11-2008, 00:37
If they are US5, then of course. Why wouldn't they?

Injun
22-11-2008, 00:38
well... as they are dogs... I didn't thnk dogs running away would cause hardened northmen to turn tail and run

EvC
22-11-2008, 01:11
Hence why all Chaos models get to re-roll panic tests.

Pavic
23-11-2008, 22:32
Well, I have not been able to locate this question with searches, so here it goes.

How are the wounds distributed with Baleful Transmogrification on a warmachine? I would assume that it should be as shooting, but this is not in the text.

Alathir
24-11-2008, 05:04
One question...

If the Warshrine blesses a unit with an ability and then the unit moves out of 12" with the shrine, does the unit still keep the blessing or is it lost?

Einholt
24-11-2008, 06:03
I figure we should make a compromise on that and say if the unit is out of range at the end of the movement phase then the blessing is gone. But it is open ended I suppose.

Nurgling Chieftain
24-11-2008, 08:57
I think it keeps the blessing, but of course the Shrine cannot then give it a different blessing.

Atrahasis
24-11-2008, 09:10
How are the wounds distributed with Baleful Transmogrification on a warmachine? I would assume that it should be as shooting, but this is not in the text.All magic is distributed like shooting unless otherwise stated.


If the Warshrine blesses a unit with an ability and then the unit moves out of 12" with the shrine, does the unit still keep the blessing or is it lost?Range only matters when you apply the affect - moving out of range doesn't stop the blessing.

Imagine you cast Bear's Anger on a friendly character, who then uses Steed of Shadows to charge something. Would Bear's Anger end?

Nurgling Chieftain
24-11-2008, 11:33
Does Curse of the Leper automatically destroy most warmachines - as they typically have S -, which is defined in the BRB as 0?

Atrahasis
24-11-2008, 11:39
RAW, yes. It's in the list of questions.

Gazak Blacktoof
24-11-2008, 11:39
That's been brought up before and the general response was 'yes' for the reason you've stated.

Zarahemna
24-11-2008, 12:36
Some of these arguments are crazy. There are so many areas where there is genuine confusion and yet there seems to be a large number of players who are so intent on finding flaws in the rules and dragging them as far open as possible. Did they forget this is a game?

There is no ultimate truth for us to discover. It's not like physics. All you need is a workable answer that helps provide the opportunity to have an enjoyable game. Why isn't the fact the Kholek's hammer does D3 wounds cool enough on its own?

The War Shrine thing is one of the better questions. I can see both arguments really. Since the power is granted to a unit within 12", perhaps the unit needs to stay there to retain it? That would also strengthen the Shrine Destroyed - Power Lost rationale. The confusion for me is that many of the Shrine's effects are in play as long as the model is on the table. That would lead me towards the granted within 12" and then retained like a RIP spell as long as the Shrine is on the table and the power is not used again.

I think it is pushing it to maintain that the power is retained when the Shrine is destroyed. That seems unfluffy and non-sensical.

Atrahasis
24-11-2008, 12:54
You've just outlined why the FAQs are necessary - because there are reasonable interpretations and unreasonable ones, and both are objectively valid.

Goruax
24-11-2008, 13:53
The War Shrine thing is one of the better questions. I can see both arguments really. Since the power is granted to a unit within 12", perhaps the unit needs to stay there to retain it? That would also strengthen the Shrine Destroyed - Power Lost rationale. The confusion for me is that many of the Shrine's effects are in play as long as the model is on the table. That would lead me towards the granted within 12" and then retained like a RIP spell as long as the Shrine is on the table and the power is not used again.

I think it is pushing it to maintain that the power is retained when the Shrine is destroyed. That seems unfluffy and non-sensical.

Considering the Eye of the Gods represents one of the pantheon going, "Awesome, that guy decapitated someone and shouted my name at the same time! **MUTATEAFY**" it's not too hard to understand that the benefit can remain after a Warshrine is destroyed.

Warshrine goes, "Look at those dudes, they're your biggest fans!" and God #43 bestows Terror, or 4+ Ward and Stubborn
Warshrine buggers off home content as the unit runs around destroying everything.

When you say unfluffy, I feel you're pushing it other way. It makes plenty of sense that the Gods keep watching the one unit the Shrine told them to, rather than going, "Oh crap, shrine's dead, those guys suck now"

Also, consider this train of thought:
Warshrine bestows an EotG roll.
EotG states, "Once the result has been determined, make a note on your army roster - your character [unit in this case] now has that gift for the rest of the battle!"
Warshrine can only negate this rule by giving a unit a roll in a subsequent turn, and only because it specifically says it does.

IE, Warshrine points at Unit A. God #43 watches Unit A. Warshrine runs around doing nothing. God #43 still watches Unit A.

That was a fun ramble :p

Neknoh
24-11-2008, 22:29
And most logical one, otherwise, it would quite clearly state "That unit has said blessing untill the Warshrine casts it at another unit OR is removed from the table."

theunwantedbeing
25-11-2008, 00:09
^^yup thats how its worded to work.

What we dont know is if mounts are affected, as that's fairly major.
ie. Knights getting +1 attack, mounts as well (pretty brutal if it is)

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 08:58
^^yup thats how its worded to work.

What we dont know is if mounts are affected, as that's fairly major.
ie. Knights getting +1 attack, mounts as well (pretty brutal if it is)

Well, frenzy grants mounts an extra attack as well as the riders, so why not this?

Neknoh
25-11-2008, 09:35
I would say because it doesn't explicitly mention the mounts of the target getting an extra attack? For otherwise, Marauder Horsemen would get it, any daemonic steed rider would get it... dragon riders would get it.


Now, was there ever a response produced to why people think the Mark of Nurgle gives enemies -1 Weaponskill throughout the close combat rather than when rolling to hit your Nurgle units?

EDIT: Reread it, can clearly see the ambiguous part... now I'm leaning toward -1 weaponskill in base contact whether or not targeting Nurgle models there

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 09:42
I would say because it doesn't explicitly mention the mounts of the target getting an extra attack?

Where does it explicitly say that the riders are the ones that get the bonus attack?

Nurgling Chieftain
25-11-2008, 09:45
I would say because it doesn't explicitly mention the mounts of the target getting an extra attack?Ironically, I would make the opposite argument for units: they get the extra attack on the basis of the facts that (1) they're in the unit and (2) they're not excluded.

For characters on mounts who get a roll based on the Eye of the Gods rule, while I could definitely see the precedents from frenzy (and counter-precedents in terms of magic items!), I would be inclined to exclude the mount, as the mount is not a character and does not have the Eye of the Gods rule.

Atrahasis
25-11-2008, 09:49
As long as you ignore the VC FAQ that says a corpse cart is a character if there's a necromancer riding it :(

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 09:55
For characters on mounts who get a roll based on the Eye of the Gods rule, while I could definitely see the precedents from frenzy (and counter-precedents in terms of magic items!), I would be inclined to exclude the mount, as the mount is not a character and does not have the Eye of the Gods rule.

This makes sense - cheers :)

Alathir
25-11-2008, 09:58
If a character wins a challenge and gains an extra attack, we know from the table that only he gains an extra attack. Due to the warshrine's gift being exactly the same effect I would argue that only the riders gain the bonus. No where in the table does it ever mention the mount being affected, why would something different apply to the warshrine's effect?

I cant see the Chaos Gods caring too much about a horse anyway.

Atrahasis
25-11-2008, 10:04
It's different because it's different.

The Warshrine applies the result to the entire unit. Mounts are part of the unit.

If you say that it says it applies to characters in the eye of the gods rule and so doesn't apply to mounts, then I can argue that it says it applies to characters in the eye of the gods rule and rank and file aren't characters, so it doesn't apply to them either.

DeathlessDraich
25-11-2008, 10:19
The EOTG rules doesn't need an FAQ, it really needs to be re-written.

Of the 3 different ways it is used,
- only the Chosen rules are clear enough - "the whole unit benefits"
- Characters - What exactly is a "favoured one" - a model, unit (sometimes) or character only is unknown
- Warshrine - probably affects the whole unit but still unclear

Goruax
25-11-2008, 10:40
Of the 3 ways though, only 1 affects a single model, and that's through the regular EotG rule.
Both Chosen of the Dark Gods and Giver of Glory state unit over character.

The conclusion to allow effects to apply to all models in a unit is decided when they chose the term 'unit' in both of those.

Neknoh
25-11-2008, 11:42
Then what happens when the steeds gets +1 armoursave?

Common sense tells me "nothing", but there is sure to be somone out there claiming that it bolsters the armoursave of the Knights further due to the way Barding works

Goruax
25-11-2008, 11:44
There is no armour save for a steed, since it cannot be attacked.
Thusly, it gets an armour save, but it is redundant.
The Knight has already got his benefit, in that he gets +1 anyway.

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 11:51
A Chaos Knight has one armour save characteristic. It is, for all intents and purposes, one model.

If the "model" gets a bonus armour save, it's not different from normal.

A Chaos Knight has two attacks characteristics - one for the rider, one for the steed. It is still, for all intents and purposes, one model.

If the "model" gets a bonus attack, then this will apply to each relevant profile on the model, i.e. the steed and the rider - each will gain an additional attack.

The same applies for a chariot - if it gains frenzy, for example, then each of the steeds and each of the crew will gain an additional attack. (Correct me if i'm wrong about this last part, i have that sinking feeling...)

FigureFour
25-11-2008, 14:03
If the "model" gets a bonus attack, then this will apply to each relevant profile on the model, i.e. the steed and the rider - each will gain an additional attack.

I'm not sure about this. Hasn't GW said that magic items that affect "the model" don't affect mounts (even though they and the rider are one model). Seems like it's not what GW is intending.

Shamfrit
25-11-2008, 14:16
The only thing that I can think of that confers to the mount in 90% of cases are Hatred and Frenzy.

Atrahasis
25-11-2008, 14:21
I'm not sure about this. Hasn't GW said that magic items that affect "the model" don't affect mounts (even though they and the rider are one model). Seems like it's not what GW is intending.They've said that magic items that affect the character do not affect the mount, which isn't the same thing at all.

They've also said that the Wild Rider's special rules apply to the whole model.

foehammer888
25-11-2008, 15:19
The only thing that I can think of that confers to the mount in 90% of cases are Hatred and Frenzy. This applies to almost every psychology benefit.

Hatred, Immune to psych, Frenzy, stubborn, stupidity, panic. All apply to both rider and model. The only difference is for some of them (stupidity, stubborn) the whole model has the rule as long as either the mount or the rider has the rule, you just use the leadership of the rider when taking tests. If the unit gets the benefit, then that includes the mount.

Problem is they should have classified the Eye of the Gods rule into two applicable areas, when characters roll due to winning challenges/killing large targets, and when units gain the benefit (trolls, warshrine).

While I agree that it could be powerful to give WoC characters an "eye of the gods" role for killing champions, its no more powerful than a warshrine giving a unit of chaos knights +1S if it applies to both mount and rider. Saw this in a game a few weeks back, where khorne knights got +1S. That's 3 S6 magical attacks and 2 S5 normal attacks per model. Thats 25 attacks at S5 or higher from a single unit of 5.

Similar results from a chariot of khorne with +1S benefit. D6+1 S6 impact hits, 4 S5 horse attacks, 6 S6 rider attacks.

loveless
25-11-2008, 15:35
While I agree that it could be powerful to give WoC characters an "eye of the gods" role for killing champions, its no more powerful than a warshrine giving a unit of chaos knights +1S if it applies to both mount and rider. Saw this in a game a few weeks back, where khorne knights got +1S. That's 3 S6 magical attacks and 2 S5 normal attacks per model. Thats 25 attacks at S5 or higher from a single unit of 5.


This part irks me. In the bloody White Dwarf battle report that Phil Kelly played in, he took rolls on the table anytime he killed a champion in a challenge. Of course, RAW, you don't get that. I had my hopes up for the rule after I read the WD, but after I went and picked up the book, they were dashed.

It's still a cool rule, but it just doesn't happen that often. As such, I don't see a huge problem in giving the bonus to the mounts as well - but that's all preference on my part - I think that Chaos needs a few more reasons to be feared.

archeon8
25-11-2008, 17:16
Hey all

Been a long time since i posted so if this is already answerd i'm sorry (my search function isn't working either)

If my lord has armour of morrslieb and i roll a 12 on the eotg table does this mean i would have a 2+ ward against non-magical and a 4+ against magical or i would just get an 4+ against everything?

thx

nosferatu1001
25-11-2008, 19:42
Unless the armour of Morrslieb indicates it would stack with an exisitng ward save (what the "12" result would effectively give you) then you would simply have 2 ward saves, and get to pick which one you want to use.

Goruax
25-11-2008, 23:03
This part irks me. In the bloody White Dwarf battle report that Phil Kelly played in, he took rolls on the table anytime he killed a champion in a challenge. Of course, RAW, you don't get that. I had my hopes up for the rule after I read the WD, but after I went and picked up the book, they were dashed.

Yes you do get EotG for killing Champions.
Under Command Groups, it states that Champions are Characters in regards to Challenges.

Either they are a Character for the Challenge, and give an EotG roll, or they aren't and cannot take part in the Challenge, something the rules state they can do.
Thusly, they are Characters for the purposes of a Challenge.


@archeon:
Nosferatu is correct.
Ward Saves don't stack, unlike Armour Saves, unless they specifically state so, eg, Mark of Tzeentch.

nosferatu1001
25-11-2008, 23:12
Except it states that champions are NOT characters, however they "act like" characters for certain purposes (i.e. have to be singled out to be killed, etc)

Therefore, although they can take part in challenges, they only "count as" characters and therefore do not give an EotG roll.

Shamfrit
25-11-2008, 23:18
Yes you do get EotG for killing Champions.
Under Command Groups, it states that Champions are Characters in regards to Challenges.

Either they are a Character for the Challenge, and give an EotG roll, or they aren't and cannot take part in the Challenge, something the rules state they can do.
Thusly, they are Characters for the purposes of a Challenge.




That's the most competant argument regarding EOtg working on Unit Champions I've seen so far, nice!

Goruax
25-11-2008, 23:31
If something 'counts as' something for a certain rule, then it either 'is' that something, or it isn't, unless certain parts are specifically ruled out.

In this case, Champions 'count as' Characters when they accept a Challenge.
If they cease to 'count as' a Character at any point during the Challenge, the whole Challenge must be void, because they aren't a Character, nor do they 'count as' one, and thusly couldn't participate.

Since they can participate, ie they can accept, they must follow the rules for Characters during a Challenge, or else no Challenge takes place, as they accept the Challenge as a 'count as' Character, then before any blows are struck, they cease to be a 'count as' Character and no Challenge is resolved.

Show me where it states that a Champion is not a Character for the purposes of a Challenge, or your argument has failed - I have shown my evidence of this side, and there is no contradicting of it in either the Command Group or Challenge sections of the Rulebook, nor does the Eye of the Gods rule prevent Champions from granting rolls to a Character who bests them, for the reasons stated above.

Shamfrit
26-11-2008, 00:18
I could kiss you right now :D

Metaphorically...obviously...*Shifty look.*

*Prints off the above post. Uses it as casing point for in game arguments.*

Thank you!

Goruax
26-11-2008, 00:26
Heheh, why thank you! :p
Just irks me is all! :D

loveless
26-11-2008, 00:37
Hmm...I hadn't thought of it from that angle before.

Goruax, you are my friend. I'm going to be using that reasoning until it gets FAQed otherwise (not that I play that often anyway).

I'll give you a "good work" for that one!

Shamfrit
26-11-2008, 00:45
In addition to that, Unit Champions don't have the Eye of the Gods rule, unless they are accompanied by a Warshrine (so the Eyes fo the Gods are greater focussed, and they thus see the wee men)...

Surely, this only goes to support the fact that Unit Champions can gain Eye of the Gods rolls for killing unit champions or characters as well, because if Unit Champions weren't Champions, why bother giving them the rule to begin with? Since they wouldn't be characters killing other characters!

Goruax
26-11-2008, 00:50
Excellent point Shamfrit.
Considering all of this, there's no support for the other side.

EvC
26-11-2008, 00:57
I think after muchos posting, the consensus is thus:
1) Chaos characters (and models with EotG rules such as Scylla) always have to issue or accept challenges where possible.
2) Such characters get an EotG roll after killing their opponent, be it a character or a unit champion.
3) When a warshrine is present, it means that champions are required to issue and accept challenges, just like normal characters.
3a) As they count as characters whilst in a challenge, if they win the challenge, they will gain an EotG roll if a warshrine is present.

The only problem with this, however... is that there's a little Q & A with Phil Kelly doing the rounds where he states that you don't get an EotG roll for killing champions, as it would be too powerful. I don't think that's the case (And besides, it's good to give VC players who constantly raise new champions a taste of pain!), and its validity is totally thrown into question by White Dwarf where he plays it that you do get the roll for killing champions, so it's probably for the best to ignore his response to that question.

Shamfrit
26-11-2008, 01:07
I think after muchos posting, the consensus is thus:
1) Chaos characters (and models with EotG rules such as Scylla) always have to issue or accept challenges where possible.
2) Such characters get an EotG roll after killing their opponent, be it a character or a unit champion.
3) When a warshrine is present, it means that champions are required to issue and accept challenges, just like normal characters.
3a) As they count as characters whilst in a challenge, if they win the challenge, they will gain an EotG roll if a warshrine is present.

The only problem with this, however... is that there's a little Q & A with Phil Kelly doing the rounds where he states that you don't get an EotG roll for killing champions, as it would be too powerful. I don't think that's the case (And besides, it's good to give VC players who constantly raise new champions a taste of pain!), and its validity is totally thrown into question by White Dwarf where he plays it that you do get the roll for killing champions, so it's probably for the best to ignore his response to that question.

I was too afraid to bring it up before to our gaming group and I've been playing it safe, until now - congratulations Warseer, we've actually worked together for a relatively common counterpoint to something that is clearly the case within the constraints of the rules we've been given. Bravo!

And how vicious we shall be, with Terror causing Marauders :D:D:D

loveless
26-11-2008, 01:10
Oh, just wait Shamfrit - someone on Warseer will manage to throw a monkey wrench into that idea :p

Shamfrit
26-11-2008, 01:12
I'm already eyeing up Atraharsis *waves fist.*

EDIT: I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it in a 'he knows his stuff and is usually the one I look for to get the final word or to confirm the ruling correctly.

Goruax
26-11-2008, 01:13
There isn't exactly a counter argument.
If there is, I'd love to find the holes in it. Not that they'd be hard to find :p

Nurgling Chieftain
26-11-2008, 09:14
There isn't exactly a counter argument.The rule is: "Champions can accept and issue challenges..." There's nothing there about them counting as characters. (You have to shoot at them for that to happen!)

Atrahasis
26-11-2008, 09:42
Precisely.

The entire argument is based on the false notion that the Champion rules in any way say that champions "count as" characters.

The Champion rules say:

"champions are not characters"

"champions can accept and issue challenges"

There is NO SUPPORT for applying any other rules for characters.

Goruax
26-11-2008, 09:47
It actually says they count as Characters for several purposes;
- Being singled out by ranged fire (and getting a Look Out Sir!)
- Accepting and Issuing Challenges
- Being singled out during combat

If the are not a Character for any of these, then the rules governing Characters cannot apply, and the whole process must revert to the beginning.
It's not really possible to say they count as a Character at the start of something, then stop being a Character in the middle, even though the activity requires you to be a Character to participate.


EDIT:
Also, you're contradicting your own argument when you say that he doesn't act as a Character.
He is being a Character during the Challenge, and the EotG states that when a Character is killed in a Challenge, the other Character (if they have the EotG rule) gets roll.
They can't be Character to accept a Challenge, then not be a Character during the fight, since only a Character can fight in a Challenge.
Dying during a Challenge is also, part of a Challenge (:angel:) and subsequently they must count as a Character for any special rules that also govern Challenges.

Atrahasis
26-11-2008, 10:04
It actually says they count as Characters for several purposes;
- Being singled out by ranged fire (and getting a Look Out Sir!)
- Accepting and Issuing Challenges
- Being singled out during combatNo it doesn't.

It says "they are subject the following rules that govern characters:"

Being allowed to accept and issue challenges does not make the model a character, nor does it mean it follows any rules for characters other than accepting and issuing challenges.


It's not really possible to say they count as a Character at the start of something, then stop being a Character in the middle, even though the activity requires you to be a Character to participate.The activity does not require you to be a character to participate - you can participate if you're a champion because the champion rules say so.



Also, you're contradicting your own argument when you say that he doesn't act as a Character.I didn't say he doesn't act as a character. You're misrepresenting my post in the same way you've misrepresented the text in the rulebook.

You're either very mistaken or being willfully dishonest.


He is being a Character during the ChallengeNO HE ISN'T. He can accept and issue challenges like a character, and can thus fight in challenges, but he is NOT a character. The champion rules EXPLICITLY STATE that he is not a character.


They can't be Character to accept a ChallengeThey're not a character to accept the challenge. They're a non-character with the explicit permission to accept the challenge.


subsequently they must count as a Character for any special rules that also govern Challenges.No - you're just inventing rules.

Goruax
26-11-2008, 10:19
Hmm, under the Champion rules it states that they can Issue and Accept Challenges. It mentions nowhere that they may fight in them, since only Characters can fight in them, because in the Challenge section, it makes no mention of Champions fighting.
Champions can Accept Challenges, but can't fight in them. Or that is how your presented argument pans out in eventuality.


They're a non-character with the explicit permission to accept the challenge.

Indeed. So they can't fight. They can accept the Challenge, but then they can't fight.


If something follows the rules for a purpose, it should be considered that for the duration the rules are required.
If it doesn't, as I've said, nothing can happen.

Page 77, under the Challenge rules;
"[...] in order to participate in a challenge, either to issue it or to meet it, a character must [...]"

I am being deliberately obtuse, but the reasoning that a Champion is not counted as a Character for the purposes of a Challenge renders so many things inapplicable.


EDIT:

It says "they are subject the following rules that govern characters:"
Being allowed to accept and issue challenges does not make the model a character, nor does it mean it follows any rules for characters other than accepting and issuing challenges.

If they follow the rules governing characters in those specific situations, then why do they, in your opinion, follow some but not all rules that govern that situation?
Any specific restrictions should be written, but none are, so they must be governed by all the rules appropriate to the challenge.
If they issue and accept challenges like a character, then they must award an EotG roll like a character.

Atrahasis
26-11-2008, 10:25
So you're using the fact that the challenge rules say "character" rather than "participant" to reason that champions get free benefits?

How intellectually honest of you.

Champions are explicitly not characters. Being able to issue and accept challenges (whether you can fight in them or not) does not make you a character.

Using one flaw in the rules to justify a dubious interpretation of a different rule is idiotic.

Lordmonkey
26-11-2008, 11:15
Oh, just wait Shamfrit - someone on Warseer will manage to throw a monkey wrench into that idea :p



The Champion rules say:

"champions are not characters"

Big enough wrench for you? :rolleyes:

When, oh when, will GW give a FAQ...

Nurgling Chieftain
26-11-2008, 11:36
I am being deliberately obtuse...Well, stop it. Look, your entire "flawless" argument was based on a totally false claim that the rules for champions explicitly made them count as characters during the challenge. Without that... You have nothing but smoke and mirrors versus a clear and compelling rule directly to the contrary.

blackcherry
26-11-2008, 12:04
Unless they have cleared things up in the latest BRB I do recall their being two tiers of characters, unit champions, which are just unit upgrade and are confined to their squad, and characters in the sense of lord and hero choices and which count against your army limit and have free reign to wonder willy nilly wherever they care to over the battlefield

So I would argue that unit champions are characters. But then rules could have changed (only taken a brief browse of the latest BRB and learnt the rest through play) or I could have misinterpreted it.

Either way, there is no real need to get your knickers in a twist. Calm down about at and STOP SHOUTING(;)) at each other over it. Both of you will never meet, so agree to disagree and play it as your club, mates or tournament runners rule it. Until a official FAQ comes out its all academical anyway:)

We all know how much GW love to release FAQs :evilgrin:.

Shamfrit
26-11-2008, 13:06
I told you Lord Monkey, I told you!

Lordmonkey
26-11-2008, 13:56
I told you Lord Monkey, I told you!

:D :D :D :D

blindingdark
26-11-2008, 13:59
Either way, there is no real need to get your knickers in a twist. Calm down about at and STOP SHOUTING() at each other over it. Both of you will never meet, so agree to disagree and play it as your club, mates or tournament runners rule it. Until a official FAQ comes out its all academical anyway

Thankyou,

Id swear the posters are half blood trolls. Its seems to be getting a bit personal when I was under the impression the thread was to clear up some rules questions. not to bitch about peoples opinions. As has been stated, this will all be cleared up with a FAQ at some point, but untill then, let people have there opinions. by all means share yours, but forcing opinions is, and should not be what ''Questions'' are about.

Kudos to BlackCherry;)

loveless
26-11-2008, 14:14
Big enough wrench for you? :rolleyes:

When, oh when, will GW give a FAQ...

See, this is why I should always look up this stuff myself :o:p

However, I've decided to just go with what Phil does as opposed to what he says until we get a FAQ. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if Phil gets to roll on the EotG table when he kills a unit champion, I see no reason why I shouldn't get to roll on the EotG table when I kill a unit champion.

Of course, I won't be playing in any tournaments anytime soon, so it's not a huge issue anyway.

There's two ways they can change this when they FAQ it.
1) FAQ "Do models with the EotG special rule get to roll on the table when they kill a unit champion?" "No."
2) Errata "Change the word 'character' to 'model' under the EotG rules."

Now, I think either one would clear it up. It's not like the EotG table is over-powered - you're most likely to get nothing when you roll on it.

Bah, come to think of it, the whole wording of the EotG rule is screwy, isn't it? Doesn't it say that only characters can roll on the table? So doesn't that make a portion of the Warshrine's rules useless, since all it does is force challenges (ignoring the instant benefit from blessing)?

FigureFour
26-11-2008, 14:35
So I would argue that unit champions are characters. But then rules could have changed (only taken a brief browse of the latest BRB and learnt the rest through play) or I could have misinterpreted it.
The BRB says "Champions are not characters." I think that's pretty clear. It specifies some of the character rules that they are allowed to use, but they don't operate as a character in any situations not outlined in those rules. If they intended ALL the character rules to apply, they would have just said "Champions are characters" instead of saying that they AREN'T and then pointing out the limited number of situations where they behave LIKE a character(without being one).


Thankyou,

Id swear the posters are half blood trolls. Its seems to be getting a bit personal when I was under the impression the thread was to clear up some rules questions. not to bitch about peoples opinions.
Saying that champions aren't characters isn't an opinion. It's a rule.


As has been stated, this will all be cleared up with a FAQ at some point, but untill then, let people have there opinions. by all means share yours, but forcing opinions is, and should not be what ''Questions'' are about.

I'm not going to force my opponent to play by my opinions, but I sure as hell am going to insist that they play by the rules. You don't have to play by the rules if you don't want to, but at least admit you're making a houserule.


It's not like the EotG table is over-powered - you're most likely to get nothing when you roll on it.
Not true. There's a 66% chance that you'll get something. There's about a 64% chance that you'll get something good. (If my math is good.)

You're more likely to get a bonus than nothing.


Bah, come to think of it, the whole wording of the EotG rule is screwy, isn't it? Doesn't it say that only characters can roll on the table? So doesn't that make a portion of the Warshrine's rules useless, since all it does is force challenges (ignoring the instant benefit from blessing)?
Yes. The rules are totally bizare, but they're also fairly clear.

Until a FAQ is released THE RULES say EOTG sort of sucks. You can choose to play otherwise if you like, but please don't get pissed off about it if you run into someone who insists on playing the game by the rules. It's the only fair and honest way to play with strangers.

If you're only playing with your friends, that's fine, but your houserules have no place in this sort of discussion.

Edit: I sort of tangented into a rant there after replying to something. That wasn't directed at you Loveless. You made it pretty clear that you're playing that way with your friends, and that's totally cool. I've got nothing against house rules, I do have something against people insisting on them outside their house.

blindingdark
26-11-2008, 14:45
Saying that champions aren't characters isn't an opinion. It's a rule.

I happen to agree with this, But that it is a rule, is your opinion when other people interpret it in a different way. If a rule is unclear, as this may be to some. Then the interpration of it is your opinion.

I agree that Champions are not characters, but i dont believe i can shout people down to agree with this, as it seems some people do. the point i was making is that untill it is officially resolved, then it is just opinion. if people cannot see that a champion is not a character, then thats up to them, but i very much doubt this wont have been cleared up by the next tourney, so untill then....

A) do we all argue about who is right and wrong ? when it is unclear ?
b) roll a dice, agree to disagree, get on with our favorite hobby ?

you choose. ;)

loveless
26-11-2008, 14:52
@ FigureFour - I worded that poorly. The most common single result is nothing, but the probability of getting a different result is higher than that most common result. So yes, you aren't "most likely" to get nothing, but the most common single result is nothing. (1 out of 6 times you should get a 7 - which is a higher proportion than any other single result).

Lemme see...
Stupidity - 1/36 = ~2.78%
Eye is Closed = 6/36 = ~16.67%
Statistic Increase/Fear/Terror/12 = 29/36 = ~80.56%

So you're actually pretty likely to get something. Pardon my previous brain glitch.