PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Bound Spells



Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 07:51
I was reading the WP Dispel scroll thread and had a question, but didn't want to derail that thread so I made a new one instead.

The question is in a FAQ regarding WP's and taking Bound spell items.

Q: Can Warrior Priests be equipped with an item that has a bound spell?
A: Yes as prayers are not bound spell items

However in the Wood Elf FAQ this question arises

Q: Can Treeman Ancients have spites that are bound spells as they already have the tree singing bound spell
A: They can not as a character can have only one bound spell

These seem to contradict each other as one says an inherent ability to cast bound spells does not limit you from taking 1 item that casts a bound spell, and the other one states that in fact an inherent ability does in fact limit you to take a bound spell item. These are official FAQ's so the official answer is obviously follow the FAQ for each question, I'm just curious about peoples thoughts on this.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 07:59
I have a somewhat good explaination for this. Tree singing is actually a spell, and its bound making it a bound spell. Warrior priests prayers and not spells, although they act like them. There is no school of magic that can replicate a warrior priest prayers. So they are not bound spells, they are prayers that work like bound spells. So you are allowed to take an item that is a bound spell cause you don't have one yet. That make any sense?

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 08:08
I thought about that except:

1. It specifically states the word "item" in the answer for the warrior priest.

2. The majority of people in the WP/dispel scroll thread were very adamant that the statement in the empire book that reads "Prayers are cast exactly like bound spells" meant that prayers are subject to the restrictions of bound spells namely that having a bound spell does not make you a wizard.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 08:13
Uh don't know why the word item would affect my explaination. If you could explain in further detail. And I am in the camp that knows warrior priests are not wizards and cannot take arcane items. And to anyone who claims that they are all I have to do is say, what level wizard is your warrior priest? Oh you don't have a level? Thats too bad. Your not a wizard, lol.

Lordsaradain
08-01-2009, 08:17
warriors priests do not have access to arcane items.

Atrahasis
08-01-2009, 08:28
How is that in any way relevant Lordsaradain?

Did you even read the OP?

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 08:35
ok first I really hope this doesn't devolve into the WP/wizard discussion as I specfically made a new thread so I would not derail the other one, so I would hope any arguments about that subject be kept to that thread.

@Troy:
what I meant by item is GW expressly stated that as a Warrior Priest does not have a Bound Spell Item, he can indeed choose to take one from the magic item list.
A Treeman Ancient also does not have a Bound Spell Item so by this reasoning he should be allowed to take one from his spite list or?

@Lord thank you for your spam that had nothing to do with the question

The only reason I brought up the quote from the WP rules is that it was stated numerous times by many highly regarded people on this board that "Prayers are cast exactly like bound spells" means they follow the rules for bound spells.
But if that is indeed true, and we read the Treeman FAQ again:

"They can not as a character can have only one bound spell"

It completely contradicts. I hope you understand what I am trying to say

Necromancy Black
08-01-2009, 08:52
Congradulations on finding a contradiction in GW's rules. Don't feel so speacial about it, cause there's a ton of them out there, and possibly a few more to come in the future. The one that pisses TK players of is their FAQ overriding the wording for the casket of souls.

Basically you've got two FAQ's for two different armies, and they follow their own FAQ's. You can either make a house rule on this and agree with your oppanant on something (personally it'll be fairer to allow the WE to take a sprite) OR if you can't agree the RAW is there in the FAQ's. WP can take a bound spell item (although I don't think there is a single one he can take except for make the casket) but the WE can't take the sprite.

It's an annoying inconcistency but the RAW is still there to play by.

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 08:56
Yeah thats what I figured as well Necromancy although I fail to see how I put forth the idea that "I feel special about it"

I do indeed plan on letting our WE player take the spite even if she has yet to even field a Treeman Ancient lol.

Necromancy Black
08-01-2009, 09:02
Yeah thats what I figured as well Necromancy although I fail to see how I put forth the idea that "I feel special about it"

I do indeed plan on letting our WE player take the spite even if she has yet to even field a Treeman Ancient lol.

Oh that's just my standard sarcasm given out for free :p Wasn't directed at you, just highlighting the fact that rule inconsitencies exists and it's unlikely they'll go away.

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 09:04
Ah ok cool:)

TheDarkDaff
08-01-2009, 09:22
There is no contradiction

TA has a Bound Spell so can not have anymore
WP has Prayers that are cast like Bound spells but ARE NOT Bound spells so can have a Bound Spell Item in addition.

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 10:43
As long as it's not an arcane item, the WP can take a magic item that has a bound spell.

EvC
08-01-2009, 13:56
Indeed, Warrior Priests are the exception as they can have multiple bound spells. The proof? Well, they have multiple bound spells, for a start...

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 15:07
There is no contradiction

TA has a Bound Spell so can not have anymore
WP has Prayers that are cast like Bound spells but ARE NOT Bound spells so can have a Bound Spell Item in addition.

Ok so using your reasoning if someone were to make this statement:


Page 53 of the empire book "These spells are cast exactly like bound spells" - one of the rules of bound spells is that they don't make you a wizard.

It would have no bearing as according to you prayers are not bound spells and so are not subject to the rules for bound spells namely that you can not have more than one.

I'm just making sure I am understanding your position correctly

nosferatu1001
08-01-2009, 15:22
They are cast exactly like, but that only means they are like bound spells for casting - they are NOT like bound spells in that you can

a) have more than one
b) take a bound spell item from the magic section of the book [assuming one exists and is not arcane)

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 15:31
They are cast exactly like, but that only means they are like bound spells for casting - they are NOT like bound spells in that you can

a) have more than one
b) take a bound spell item from the magic section of the book [assuming one exists and is not arcane)

Ok cool so that means that the rule on page 121 that having a bound spell does not make you a wizard does not apply to warrior priests as by your very words prayers are only cast like bound spells, they are not actually a bound spell.

Atrahasis
08-01-2009, 15:56
No, because they aren't spells either...

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 16:28
I'd have to disagree with you as one prayer in particular Armor of contempt states that it Remains in play, which is covered in the rules for spells. It states that "Some spells last for longer than this and they are clearly marked as remains in play."

Armor of Contempt is clearly marked as Remains inn Play so is in fact considered a spell unless you can cite a rule that says it is not.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 17:25
it sure is a spell. a bound spell that RIPs.

i dont see how this is even a question, but you should follow the empire FAQ for the empire rules. sounds silly, but there you go. what the WE FAQ writer probably meant is that you can only have one bound spell "item" or "upgrade" in the case of spites. but i am definately not trying to read any intentions into what GW employees are thinking.

at any rate, a WP can have a bound item, plus use his spells... per the empire FAQ

@necro is just being emo. :P

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 17:49
D&D was easier.

nosferatu1001
08-01-2009, 18:08
I'd have to disagree with you as one prayer in particular Armor of contempt states that it Remains in play, which is covered in the rules for spells. It states that "Some spells last for longer than this and they are clearly marked as remains in play."

Armor of Contempt is clearly marked as Remains inn Play so is in fact considered a spell unless you can cite a rule that says it is not.

If they are cast exactly like bound spells that that includes remain in play - it does not actually make them spells. As you're told theyre not. *sigh*

Are you trying to be obtuse? Because if not you're very gifted in that department. Please read the other thread where nothing you have posted is either new or does anything to show they are wizards.

Regardless - please show how your nonWizard fulfills the definition of a wizard - namely, they eiother have:

a) A magic level
b) A rule that states you are a wizard.

otherwise you have not fiulfilled the definition for being a wizard. Or you could just read the other thread and think a bit before you post...

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 18:15
I think before you tell someone to go read another post you should read the one you posted in first can you please point out anywhere in this post where I claimed that a WP is a wizard?

So what your saying is that a priest casts a prayer that is cast exactly like a bound spell and includes a rule that is under the spells section and is only ever used for spells but it is not a spell. Is this your final answer?

And thank you for calling me obtuse it definitely makes you appear to be smarter and as such I am inclined to agree with everything you say regardless if we are not even discussing if a WP is a wizard or not. Thank you and I will try to be less obtuse and more acute in the future sir!

Harwammer
08-01-2009, 18:28
I'm interested if the WE FAQ was written for 6th or 7th ed and, furthermore, what are the differences in rules for bound spells/bound spell item between the two editions?

At first glance it seems the WE FAQ may not be entirely RAW, but I'd like to see further information before I make up my mind or start insulting people who disagree with me in the way that is traditional for the internet.

Asmodiseus
08-01-2009, 18:30
I thought about the same thing Harwammer it could indeed be a change from 6th to 7th edition.

Griefbringer
08-01-2009, 21:12
Looks like Harwammer has a point here. I ended up checking the books:

6th edition (page 153): "A character cannot have more than one Bound Spell item."

7th edition (page 121): "A character cannot have more than one bound spell."

nosferatu1001
08-01-2009, 21:13
I think before you tell someone to go read another post you should read the one you posted in first can you please point out anywhere in this post where I claimed that a WP is a wizard?

So what your saying is that a priest casts a prayer that is cast exactly like a bound spell and includes a rule that is under the spells section and is only ever used for spells but it is not a spell. Is this your final answer?

And thank you for calling me obtuse it definitely makes you appear to be smarter and as such I am inclined to agree with everything you say regardless if we are not even discussing if a WP is a wizard or not. Thank you and I will try to be less obtuse and more acute in the future sir!

I didn't say you claimed they were a Wizard, however you started going down the road trying to claim that the bound items were spells, so i was heading you off at the pass.

Yes, it is cast exactly like a bound spell - a "bound spell" /= "spell". Ok, got it? So if it tells you that it is cast exactly like a bound spell, please tell me where it says it is a spell. Oh wait, it doesn't. So, MR clever, does that mean it isn't a spell? Why yes! It's told you it isnt a spell! And it uses a rule from the spells section - but then do some bound items. So are you now trying to claim that bound items are now simple spells?

The intention wasn't meant to make me seem smarter, it's just that you are retreading old, old ground; even within the thread you're doing that, and the other thread covers exactly what prayers are very nicely. It was just the most apt word. Oh no, I've used the word "apt", I must be doing that to make myself seem smarter! :rolleyes:

So, any chance of you coming up with an argument that prayers are anything but things that act like bound spells for casting purposes only? Or was this an exercise in you typing things for no reason?

Neckutter
09-01-2009, 02:04
Looks like Harwammer has a point here. I ended up checking the books:

6th edition (page 153): "A character cannot have more than one Bound Spell item."

7th edition (page 121): "A character cannot have more than one bound spell."

kudos to you. i love people who quote pages in the book(let alone both books). :)

however warrior priests already have multiple bound spells. or at least they have access to them. so in effect, they were designed to break the rules. ALSO i think their FAQ says they can have a magic item that has a bound spell.

now back to your regularly scheduled flame war....

Asmodiseus
09-01-2009, 05:46
I was going to type something, but in all honesty I reread through the thread and completely forgot wth point I was trying to make lol. I will say this though. First I beleive the following:

Warrior Priests are not wizards and can not take arcane items

Despite your claim I did in fact read through the whole entire thread and determined that the case was in fact overwhelming against WP's being wizards. So your attempt to read my mind failed.

Second like alot of people on this board I'm sure, I enjoy debating the rules. As everyone knows there are lots of flaws in the rules book and I enjoy discussing and debating them even when I know in the end there really is no point because there is not a conclusive answer. This is why I brought this thread up to begin with, It was not to ask if a Treeman or a WP could take additional bound spells, as the answer is already known per the Empire and WE FAQ. It was to discuss my perceived contridiction in the two rules.

Up until your second post we were having a nice discussion and then you felt the need to insult me, derail my thread with a topic I specificaly made the thread to avoid, and generally just being a major ass. Thank you for this Nosferatu. It shows me that while the GW boards may have died its spirits live on.

To everyone else thanks for the fun discussion:)

nosferatu1001
09-01-2009, 09:52
wow, I derailed it? impressive. Actually noone responded to my mistaken add in about Wizards. You were the only one to directly respond, and that was with insults etc.

The main trouble was you weren't debating rules at that point (the RIP bit) - just making an asinine comment that somehow using RIP made something a spell, despite a direct quote from the army book stating it isn't ever a spell. That isn't debating that is [also] being an ass. You then have a go at my wording, claiming using "obtuse" is meant to make me seem clever. Prod, prod. get hand bitten off in return. anyways...

I also didn't say i was reading your mind - just it seemed like you hadn't read the thread, which already answered cast as bound spell vs actually being a spell. To bring it up again just didnt make sense unless you hadn't read and understood it, which is why i suggested you do so. Prayers NOT being spells is one of the reasons the WP aren't wizards - not the only one, but one. So yes, it IS my contention they aren't spells, just spell like abilities - for all you RP'ers out there :)

I also enjoy debating rules, however when you see the same misconception about a rule come up again and again despite being clearly answered it gets frustrating - to which i apologise for reacting badly to. However you then compounded this by insulting me in return, making stupid comments about me using "clever" words and so on, so dont attempt to take the high ground on this. We both clashed and were both at fault for escalating things.

I apologise if this thread was derailed - slightly - and for getting snippy. I'll just blame tiredness for part of it.

Back on topic:

If memory serves the WE FAQ was recently updated, as they added in the Annoyance vs Dreadlance issue (what takes precendence, autohit vs hit on 6+) to the mix. So it's a mix of 6th and 7th ed at a guess - it could be they looked over the bound spell issue and decided it was still balanced to leave it as it is, unfortunately there is no way to know for sure.

I think it still jsut boils down to Prayers are not bound spell items, they jsut function like bound spells in certain specific ways, whereas the Treeman has a bound spell that is a "full" bound spell and therefore seemingly falls afoul of the only rule that covers bound spells, and so cannot take 2. It does suggest however that an updated WE treeman (whenever that sees the light of day) would probably have wording similar to that of the Priest, i.e. has something that functions LIKE the bound spell to get around the restriction.

It jsut seems massively silly that a "spell" you can use cos you're a stonking great tree talking to other trees stops you from taking a magic toy....but then logic never works when looking at GW rules and the reasons behind some of them....

Griefbringer
09-01-2009, 17:55
Looks like the 7th edition BRB rule got changed in the latest FAQ:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ__PART2_Jan_2009.pdf

According to the revised rule "A character cannot have more than one magic item containing a bound spell".

Wapniak
09-01-2009, 19:35
Can a Wood Elf character take a bound spell magic item and a "bound-spite" (they're not magic items)?

nosferatu1001
10-01-2009, 16:45
You are still bound by the Woodelf FAQ which says you cant have more than 1 bound spell, regardless of where they come from - unless you believe this only counts for Ancients..

Condottiere
10-01-2009, 17:25
I'm just curious how this ruling with multiple bound spells and their effects on normal RIP spells came about.

nosferatu1001
10-01-2009, 18:14
I guess they just wanted to be consistent - that you cant put an RIP and then lose concentration to activate the bound spell

The idea with RIP is you have to keep focussed on keeping the spell going, rather than moving onto the next one

Guanyin
10-01-2009, 22:35
You are still bound by the Woodelf FAQ which says you cant have more than 1 bound spell, regardless of where they come from - unless you believe this only counts for Ancients..

Not if the relevant rule it refers to is changed, and it is.

Chicago Slim
11-01-2009, 00:05
You are still bound by the Woodelf FAQ which says you cant have more than 1 bound spell, regardless of where they come from - unless you believe this only counts for Ancients..

Except that that FAQ is quoting a rule which has since been Errata'd (that is, the underlying rule has literally been changed). That breaks the WE FAQ, IMO.

(Actually, I sort of thought that the WE FAQ was already broken... but the new Errata definitely trumps it).

Anyway, next time I'm running a tourney, Treeman Ancients can have a single bound spell item. *shrug*

Lord Dan
11-01-2009, 01:21
The way I see it, if WP prayers were technically bound spells there would be no need for the inclusion of: "these are cast exactly like bound spells". They would just say: "These are bound spells".

Fellblade
11-01-2009, 01:32
That breaks the WE FAQ, IMO.

Honestly, the Wood Elf FAQ seems like it was written for a different game. There's a ton of stuff in it that don't make any sense and the new errata simply points out more of the faults.

nosferatu1001
11-01-2009, 11:02
The WE FAQ is a definite WTF document; the trouble is that there is no matter of newest trumping oldest, therefore the WE FAQ still states that you cannot have a Bound "spite" - the reason they give may now not be relevant, however the prohibition has not changed.

So Treeman Ancients - no, but not sure about what else. I can see this being fun at tournaments.

Wapniak
11-01-2009, 13:28
I think it wasn't intended, they just forgot about the 'spites' when writing that FAQu. I think they shall be treated just as 'magic items' giving a bound spell and it shouldn't be allowed to put two on a character or a item and spite. But this is just my opinion.

EvC
11-01-2009, 21:35
Here's an interesting side-effect: a Daemon Herald with Staff of Nurgle and Banner of Hellfire (both containing bound spells) was previously illegal, but as Daemonic Gifts are exempt from restrictions that apply to magic items, it is possible for the Herald to take them both now. More power to Daemons, yay ;)

Chicago Slim
12-01-2009, 02:33
I think it wasn't intended, they just forgot about the 'spites' when writing that FAQu. I think they shall be treated just as 'magic items'

Indeed, Spites behave in every way exactly like Magic Items, except that the FAQ actually states that they aren't Magic Items. Personally, I think that's a gross mistake, but there it is.

But, I still think that the specific wording in the WE FAQ:

Q. Can Treeman Ancients have spites that are
bound spells as they already have the Tree
Singing bound spell?
A. They cannot, as a character can only have
one bound spell.
is now broken, since the second clause of the answer ("... a character can only have one bound spell.") is actually not true, anymore.

If the answer was simply "They cannot." then that'd be one thing, but since the logic for the decision was explained, and is no longer valid, it becomes... problematic... to enforce that answer.

So, no bound spell spites on Treeman Ancients in tournaments run by Nosferatu1001. Yes in tournaments run by Chicago Slim.

GW maybe ought to fix this, and I've sent a note (per their invitation in the general FAQ Part 2) about it...

Fellblade
12-01-2009, 03:11
It may be "broken", but that's what the FAQ says. Sames goes for the TK's casket, its the only non-targeted spell I'm aware of where MR works. Unless GW updates the WE or TK FAQs, you're stuck with that ruling. Just be thankful WEs still have plenty of other "broken" ruling (in their favor) in their FAQ.

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 08:02
I seem to recall plenty of times where the reason given was flawed - but they stil state you cannot do something, therefore it could be because pink elephants fly and you still shouldn't do it. Again, they never indicate newer > older at all, it always seems to be armybook > BRB when they conflict - here there is a conflict between Armybook FAQ and BRB FAQ (part II) therefore Armybook has priority.

EvC - blimey, didn't spot that one - completely forgot that Daemons were already exempt from pretty much every rule, now they gert anohter? Ok it's not grossly overpowered, but then thats cos the army is already fairly broken.....

As for forgetting stuff: I tihnk GW armybooks / codexes have gotten so large that the design studio no longer knows all the details, hence seemingly forgetful. Or theyre so busy on new books that they don't all get together on the FAQs, meaning less chance of people spotting these.

On the whole though the FAQ is overall "good" just gives a few more niggles to sort out....

Guanyin
12-01-2009, 08:15
I seem to recall plenty of times where the reason given was flawed - but they stil state you cannot do something, therefore it could be because pink elephants fly and you still shouldn't do it. Again, they never indicate newer > older at all, it always seems to be armybook > BRB when they conflict - here there is a conflict between Armybook FAQ and BRB FAQ (part II) therefore Armybook has priority.



So skaven weapon teams cant be singled out then? HE ASF work differently than others ASF?

Its obvious to anyone not oblivious that a FAQ answer refering to a rule that is changed cant hold any ground.

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 08:59
HE ASF was changed by FAQ, they then changed it back after about a day! They then also specificlaly answered it in this FAQ ;) So no, HE ASF is the same as anyone elses. Also, if you will recall, it was actually a question about one specific case - GW - and so therefore would only have applied to that case: Not all "HE ASF" - if they hadn't changed it.

Skaven weapon teams can't be singled out because they are a different size [the question the FAQ actually answers by the way, or were you being oblivious?], they can be singled out because 7th ed states that seperate units can always be picked out, regardless of size. So the FAQ answer isn't wrong, it is just irrelevant ;) Do you see the difference? So no, skaven weapon teams can be singled out. If you're still oblivious I can explain further.

It is "obvious" to someone who isn't oblivious that a FAQ answer that gives a categorical "you cannot do this" has removed permission for something to be done. it is obvious to anyone not oblivious that you fail epically on showing that permission has been restored by the reason given now not holding true. It states you cannot do something, now find out where it says you can do it. It will only hold for this specific case, and cannot be extended, but it still holds.

[btw, saying someone is "oblivious" for not agreeing with you is annoying, isn't it? Try making arguments without making bald statements of opinion and insults mixed in, you may get listened to then]

Guanyin
12-01-2009, 10:31
Skaven weapon teams can't be singled out because they are a different size [the question the FAQ actually answers by the way, or were you being oblivious?], they can be singled out because 7th ed states that seperate units can always be picked out, regardless of size. So the FAQ answer isn't wrong, it is just irrelevant ;) Do you see the difference? So no, skaven weapon teams can be singled out. If you're still oblivious I can explain further.


Oblivious was indeed a very poor choice of word from me. I apologize if I offended someone. NOT OBJECTIVE would be a better choice of wording.

Yes, please explain further what the difference is between claiming my weapon teams cant be targeted, and saying MR works against LoD?

Your argument on LoD is, "because FAQ says so", despite the rule "Magic Resistance" is changed, specifically the part that describes what can MR be used against. The same argument can be used with weapon teams, FAQ says they cant be singled out. Sure, the Rule that prevents them from being so is long gone, but it's still in the FAQ! And CLEARLY a armybook FAQ must be correct over a BRB FAQ, no matter if the rule it is using for its base to answer isnt there anymore? The reasoning behind the answer is not important, according to your earlier post.

Note: I do not play TK, aint planning to do so, and is playing low Ld armies, so dont think I'm arguing for my own sake here.

chivalrous
12-01-2009, 16:08
I wonder if the new warhammer FAQ clears this up. The rule has been corrected to read
‘A character cannot have more than one magic item
containing a bound spell.’.

Prayers are not an item so a Warrior priest, so long as he's not riding the war altar can take a bound spell item (so long as it isn't Arcane ;) )
In the case of the treeman, would this new rule override the Wood Elf FAQ, Since the Tree singing bound spell doesn't come from an item?

Asmodiseus
12-01-2009, 16:28
[btw, saying someone is "oblivious" for not agreeing with you is annoying, isn't it? Try making arguments without making bald statements of opinion and insults mixed in, you may get listened to then]

I agree saying people are oblivious, obtuse, etc. for not agreeing with you is indeed annoying isn't it Nosferatu.

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 16:31
Sigh.

The FAQ for Skaven teams is that they cannot be picked out due to their difference in size - a 6th ed rule that you couldn't pick out if the models were the same size. This does not preclude me saying that they *can* be picked out because 7th ed allows you to pick out units regardless of size

So no, my argument is NOT that "the FAQ says so", it is that the FAQ gives an answer that is no longer relevant, i.e. yes the team is counted as being the same size, no this does not matter in 7th ed. Think of targetting as a set of rules - [can't target due to no size difference] is a subset of the set of targetting rules; they removed this rule therefore while it is true that the weapon team is no different in size, 7th ed could care less.

Phew, I think that explains it - the FAQ answers a very very specific question; can they be picked out due to their size. Answer: no they can't. 7th Ed addendum: but that means diddly cos we don't care if you are 1mm x 1mm, if i can see you I can target you. The trouble comes from you applying that ruling too broadly. Not my fault...

My argument is the FAQ states - the Ancient cannot take bound item spites, with a now irrelevant ruling as to exactly why. However "you cannot take this item" does not allow any room for manouver, unlike "you cannot target due to size difference" which allows for you to target if other conditions are met. Do you see the difference between an irrelevant rule and an irrelevant reason for a rule?

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 16:33
I agree saying people are oblivious, obtuse, etc. for not agreeing with you is indeed annoying isn't it Nosferatu.

As is derailing other threads with something completely off topic.

Almost pot, kettle, black on this. Oh, by the way I at least had the courtesy to apologise and explain my reasonings. You just escalated things and now troll in other threads. You're really showing who is the bigger person.

Guanyin
12-01-2009, 16:49
Sigh.

The FAQ for Skaven teams is that they cannot be picked out due to their difference in size - a 6th ed rule that you couldn't pick out if the models were the same size. This does not preclude me saying that they *can* be picked out because 7th ed allows you to pick out units regardless of size

So no, my argument is NOT that "the FAQ says so", it is that the FAQ gives an answer that is no longer relevant, i.e. yes the team is counted as being the same size, no this does not matter in 7th ed. Think of targetting as a set of rules - [can't target due to no size difference] is a subset of the set of targetting rules; they removed this rule therefore while it is true that the weapon team is no different in size, 7th ed could care less.

Phew, I think that explains it - the FAQ answers a very very specific question; can they be picked out due to their size. Answer: no they can't. 7th Ed addendum: but that means diddly cos we don't care if you are 1mm x 1mm, if i can see you I can target you. The trouble comes from you applying that ruling too broadly. Not my fault...



Nope, I'm very much not cleared out what the difference between the very specific questions regarding:

a) weapon teams (pointless due to rule it refers to aint there anymore)
and
b) Light of Death (pointless due to rule it refers to is severly altered)

Both uses rules that is obsolete.

With the old wording on MR, it was obvious it should be applied to the LoD, dont even see why it was in the FAQ. Now, please try to imagine that the errataed Magic Resistance rule exist, read both rules sections, and say a reason to why MR should be applied on LoD, where the reason aint:
"- The outdated FAQ refering to a rule that is changed says so"

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 18:08
a) pointless FAQ ruling as has no actual effect - so apply it all you want, it doesn't have an effect
b) useful specific ruling as it does have an effect - even if the underlying rule has changed, this still gives a change in game as you are told it does

Do you see the difference now? I'm saying that you apply both rulings - it's just one has an ingame effect, the other doesn't. You are told very specific things, however the Skaven one is irrelevant - the rule doesnt effect the game. LoD does affect the game, so when you apply it the fact the reason for the ruling has changed, you are still told to do something.

I agree that it is quite silly, however strict RAW means you should apply both, as BRB < army book.

Guanyin
12-01-2009, 18:44
a) pointless FAQ ruling as has no actual effect - so apply it all you want, it doesn't have an effect
b) useful specific ruling as it does have an effect - even if the underlying rule has changed, this still gives a change in game as you are told it does

Do you see the difference now? I'm saying that you apply both rulings - it's just one has an ingame effect, the other doesn't. You are told very specific things, however the Skaven one is irrelevant - the rule doesnt effect the game. LoD does affect the game, so when you apply it the fact the reason for the ruling has changed, you are still told to do something.

I agree that it is quite silly, however strict RAW means you should apply both, as BRB < army book.

Lets asume the errata changed MR to: "MR can only be applied against spells cast by Purple dragonOgre skavens mounted on steamtanks"

Would you still argue that MR can be applied?

Strictly RAW a Gyrocopter cant fly either, but I dont see many claims for it.

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 19:11
Yes.

I'm at least consistent - until they change the FAQ (more errate by this point) MR would still work on LoD; it still has an ingame change. I am also applying Skaven weapon teams FAW, it just doesnt actually change how you treat them in the game.

Strict RAW a gyro copter can fly; in its rule section it states it can. Any other silly examples? quote: In all other respects it is treated as a Flying monster

If you had instead said "MR doesn't do anything against LoD" was a new MR rule, then you would apply LoD FAQ (MR can be used against LoD) and then look at the BRB which says MR doesnt do anything - so you have consistenly applied both rules, however no in game effect.

Guanyin
12-01-2009, 19:39
Strict RAW a gyro copter can fly; in its rule section it states it can. Any other silly examples? quote: In all other respects it is treated as a Flying monster


Strictly RAW, a model needs to have the Fly rule attatched to it to fly (BRB p 68). There is ALOT of silly examples to what RAW can claim within the rules, but is obviously NOT intended.

I try to apply RAW as long its not clear intention is otherwise. I dont see this as a RAW vs RAI thing at all though, in my eyes, the rule answered in the FAQ is changed, it can hold no ground. Come to think of it, that question was answered in 6th edition? Outdated aswell.

But lets agree to dissagree shall we? Aint going anywhere, and hogging a thread for no appearent reason. If we happen to find ourselves at a table to play, we can bring out the old red meassuring sticks and have a duel over it!:evilgrin: (I hope you play TK, otherwise it would be a pretty pointless duel)

If you want to argue over stationary gyrocopters or the like, feel free to message me!

nosferatu1001
12-01-2009, 19:44
If it is treated "in all ways as a Flying monster" it therefore has the Fly rule through inheritance. Much like a Bolter thrower has the move or fire rule, through inheriting the rule from the War machine section.

I agree, we should disagree; and it's my boyfriend who plays TK not me ;) and damnit, I just threw out my red sticks! And to be honest, I probably wouldn't play that LoD still affects everything, as it does seem silly - however by strict RAW it still does.