PDA

View Full Version : Casket of Souls vs MR



PARTYCHICORITA
10-04-2009, 14:38
Well does MR works vs the TK's casket of souls?
The army book says it does but it's a 6th edition army book. My friends says there is a 7th edition mainrule book FAQ that says MR can not be use if the unit with it is not the specific target of the spell but i haven't been able to find that FAQ if it does exists.

thnx

Gazak Blacktoof
10-04-2009, 14:47
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&start=2

You want the BRB FAQ part 2.

This has been discussed several times, if you do a search through I'm sure you'll find a relevant thread.

Bac5665
10-04-2009, 14:49
Casket isn't effected by magic resistance any more. The FAQ stands for the premise that the Casket effects every unit that can see it, thus that it was subject to MR. But now, it no longer matters whether or not other units are affected by it; the test is targeting, which its clear that the casket doesn't do.

Clegane
10-04-2009, 22:04
Casket isn't effected by magic resistance any more. The FAQ stands for the premise that the Casket effects every unit that can see it, thus that it was subject to MR. But now, it no longer matters whether or not other units are affected by it; the test is targeting, which its clear that the casket doesn't do.

Agreed. There are a few snarky dissenters here and there who absolutely refuse to see reason on this point, but for the most part, you shouldn't have any trouble if you just apply the most recent BRB FAQ/errata.

Necromancy Black
11-04-2009, 01:08
I'm on the camp that as long as the the current FAQ stands, you get MR against the casket.

If that FAQ is changed or removed, then no, you won't get MR.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 01:17
I'm on the camp that as long as the the current FAQ stands, you get MR against the casket.

If that FAQ is changed or removed, then no, you won't get MR.

So you're also in the camp that Skaven Weapon Teams cannot be targeted by shooting? Their old, 6th edition FAQ still claims that they cannot be targeted, so long as they are within 5 inches of a Skaven unit.

Of course, if you choose to apply current, 7th edition rules to this, then it becomes pertinent to mention that the rule regarding single models being protected from shooting has been removed from the game's current ruleset. Much like the ability to use Magic Resistance against aoe spell effects.

Oddly enough, I can't seem to find anyone who is willing to let my SAD ratling guns be immune to shooting, just because their outdated FAQ claims that they are.

And yet every day, I have to argue with another player who insists that CoS gets bounced by MR, despite what the recent 7th ed BRB errata claims.

Necromancy Black
11-04-2009, 01:31
Honestly yes, I would play they can't get singled out as that's what the FAQ says.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 01:34
Honestly yes, I would play they can't get singled out as that's what the FAQ says.

Hahahaha. Not exactly the concession I was looking for. ;) But remind me to bring my SAD Skaven instead of my TK against you if we ever meet in the field.

Honestly, I personally feel that the 7th ed BRB and BRB errata overrule both cases. I believe that this is what GW intended. I really only brought the issue of weapon teams up to point out (what I felt to be) the absurdity of dogmatically clinging to the 'Army Book FAQ Trumps BRB/Errata' mantra. The fact that the Casket and Weapon Teams rules are still listed in their respective FAQs is, in my opinion, more a testament to GW's laziness than a declaration of their RAI.

But I guess there's no winning sometimes. :)

Ganymede
11-04-2009, 02:03
These are the most interesting bits from the Casket of Souls FAQ entry.



Magic Resistance does work against the Casket’s
Light of Death, so long as the model/unit with Magic
Resistance would be affected.

What does this tell us? It informs us that, specifically in the situation of the casket of souls Light of death, magic resistance may be used if a magic resistant model is affected by the attack. It is a unique property of the Casket of Souls.


More generally, if one of the
targets for the Casket has a special ability against
spells (Magic Resistance, rebound, dice stealing,
casting score reducing…), does it apply to the whole
Casket’s spell effect?

Interestingly, this part of the FAQ alludes that the casket actually does target with its light of death, but that's more of a digression.

What is more interesting here is that, of the four parenthetical examples of special effects, only rebounding the spell is specifically rebuffed.

Of course, this is all immaterial as the answer is revealed in the first quoted passage. Of course magic resistance can be used against the casket of souls. It is in the FAQ in black and white. Additionally, nothing printed later contradicts the FAQ nor renders it obsolete.

Or, when in doubt, remember that specific trumps general.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 02:47
These are the most interesting bits from the Casket of Souls FAQ entry.




What does this tell us? It informs us that, specifically in the situation of the casket of souls Light of death, magic resistance may be used if a magic resistant model is affected by the attack. It is a unique property of the Casket of Souls.



Interestingly, this part of the FAQ alludes that the casket actually does target with its light of death, but that's more of a digression.

What is more interesting here is that, of the four parenthetical examples of special effects, only rebounding the spell is specifically rebuffed.

Of course, this is all immaterial as the answer is revealed in the first quoted passage. Of course magic resistance can be used against the casket of souls. It is in the FAQ in black and white. Additionally, nothing printed later contradicts the FAQ nor renders it obsolete.

Or, when in doubt, remember that specific trumps general.

The 'Magic Resistance' referred to in the FAQ is obsolete. It no longer exists. Magic Resistance that maintains its effect against AOE spell-effects no longer has any relevance within the confines of Warhammer, because the BRB errata has rendered it non-existent. The FAQ, which is several years old by this point, specifically addresses the Light of Death's effect when applied to the OUTDATED definition of magic resistance. You cannot apply the wording of the OLD FAQ to the NEW rules errata, because the nature of Magic Resistance itself has changed and rendered the original question completely baseless.

How many times do I have to write the same thing in different ways for it to click in your head, Ganymede?

Outdated, obsolete specific does NOT trump clearer, more-recent general.

Ganymede
11-04-2009, 03:36
The 'Magic Resistance' referred to in the FAQ is obsolete. It no longer exists. Magic Resistance that maintains its effect against AOE spell-effects no longer has any relevance within the confines of Warhammer, because the BRB errata has rendered it non-existent. The FAQ, which is several years old by this point, specifically addresses the Light of Death's effect when applied to the OUTDATED definition of magic resistance. You cannot apply the wording of the OLD FAQ to the NEW rules errata, because the nature of Magic Resistance itself has changed and rendered the original question completely baseless.

This is all just idle supposition on your part.

For one, you are assuming the FAQ rendered the original question baseless in order to build your entire argument. Unfortunately, you fail to realize that this very assumption is not based on anything concrete.

Secondly, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the new Magic Resistance FAQ somehow obliterates the Light of Death FAQ from ever existing. As GW doesn't have a time machine, such isn't the case. Sure, if this new rule existed at the time the TK rule book was written, we might not have needed a Q&A on this topic (the issue is debatable). Alas, we have an official response from GW and we are stuck with it. GW has told us that, despite how Magic Resistance normally works, all models affected by the light of death get their magic resistance dice.

The TK FAQ specifically and unequivocably says that models affected by the light of death may use magic resistance. Changing the Magic Resistance rule does not change this fact. In reality, the Light of Death Q&A addresses how the light of death works, not how magic resistance works. It doesn't matter if GW changed Magic Resistance so that it only worked against spells cast by squigs, it'd still work against the light of death.

You're making the exact same argument that others tried to make regarding 4-wide ranking beastherds and the Hordes of Chaos Khorne mark not affecting mounts. Neither of those arguments panned out.

selone
11-04-2009, 04:06
Too many words, too much magic resistance !

Ganymede
11-04-2009, 04:19
The only thing magical here is clegane's resistance to reason. Awwww... Snap!

Clegane
11-04-2009, 04:59
The only thing magical here is clegane's resistance to reason. Awwww... Snap!

And Bac, and Gazak, and Wildcard, and the UKGT judging staff, and OH WAIT...anyone who doesn't immediately subscribe to your stilted, rhetoric-drenched inability to consider any viewpoint but your own.

It must be comforting to know that you're the only rational being in the world, eh?

rottahn
11-04-2009, 05:15
i think that the most current FAQ trumps the 6 year old FAQ. thank you very much. :)

Clegane
11-04-2009, 05:43
i think that the most current FAQ trumps the 6 year old FAQ. thank you very much. :)

Yeah...you, me, and most of the game-playing western world (in my experience). But some guys'll doubtless be fighting it until the new TK book is finally released-and possibly even then, knowing GW's lack of clarity.

sulla
11-04-2009, 08:14
What's the wording for the casket? Does it 'target' units?

Clegane
11-04-2009, 08:36
What's the wording for the casket? Does it 'target' units?

No, it does not. Any unit that can draw LOS to it is automatically hit by its Light of Death if it isn't dispelled. It doesn't target anything anymore than Wind of Undeath or Rot, Glorious Rot does.

The problem Ganymede has with the idea is that they ruled in the Tomb Kings FAQ several years ago that units with Magic Resistance got to use it if they could draw LOS (thereby being caught in the 'aoe spell effect). He (and some others, obviously) believe that the 6th edition Tomb Kings FAQ from 2007 is somehow more valid than the 2009 BRB Errata, which clearly states that units that are not directly TARGETED do not get to use their MR against a spell with an area-type effect.

Lord Zarkov
11-04-2009, 09:26
He (and some others, obviously) believe that the 7th edition Tomb Kings FAQ from 2008 is somehow more valid than the 2009 BRB Errata, which clearly states that units that are not directly TARGETED do not get to use their MR against a spell with an area-type effect.
Fixed
The TK FAQ is not 6th Ed, and is not 'over 6 years old' as someone suggested, it is a 7th Ed document and barely a year old. (and is noticeably different from the old 6th Ed one, the Poison/KB clarification has been removed for one).

Army Book (and related Errata/FAQ) > Rulebook (and related Errata/FAQ) in any case of a direct contradiction always. Therefore I contend that the TK FAQ grants MR the ablility to try and dispel Light of Death.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 10:45
Fixed
The TK FAQ is not 6th Ed, and is not 'over 6 years old' as someone suggested, it is a 7th Ed document and barely a year old. (and is noticeably different from the old 6th Ed one, the Poison/KB clarification has been removed for one).

Army Book (and related Errata/FAQ) > Rulebook (and related Errata/FAQ) in any case of a direct contradiction always. Therefore I contend that the TK FAQ grants MR the ablility to try and dispel Light of Death.

Whatever about that FAQ may differ from the 6th Ed one, the Light of Death 'clarification' is far more than a year old. That said, it isn't really relevant. The only bearing that age holds on the FAQ is whether or not it pre-dates the 2009 BRB errata. It is indisputably older than that.

As for your adamant insistence on FAQ priority, I suppose then that you're another who cheerfully allows your Skaven opponents to keep their Weapon Teams within 5" of a friendly unit and benefit from the inability to be shot? Hopefully you're remembering that the Almighty Skaven FAQ of Unquestionable Authority prohibits you from targeting those ratling guns. Despite the fact that the concept hasn't been part of Warhammer since 6th edition. Hurray for unflinching resolve regarding FAQ priority!

As long as you're consistent, I suppose. Thankfully, every player within 50 miles of me clearly understands that GW sometimes fails to update their old FAQs properly and plays accordingly-so you play how you want, I'm good either way. :)

Lord Zarkov
11-04-2009, 10:58
The Light of Death clarification might be the same as older versions, but if they had wanted it to change with 7th they would have done so when they updated all the FAQs and put in 7th related questions.

Oddly on the Skaven FAQ I definitely remember there being an earlier 7th Ed FAQ that said quite the reverse - that the rule no longer existed and so they could be targeted. It was only last month or so that I saw the current document says they can't. As such I would play it as per the current FAQ when I play against Skaven.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 11:05
The Light of Death clarification might be the same as older versions, but if they had wanted it to change with 7th they would have done so when they updated all the FAQs and put in 7th related questions.

Oddly on the Skaven FAQ I definitely remember there being an earlier 7th Ed FAQ that said quite the reverse - that the rule no longer existed and so they could be targeted. It was only last month or so that I saw the current document says they can't. As such I would play it as per the current FAQ when I play against Skaven.

The problem is, they didn't need to update the FAQ when 7th was released, because according to the bound BRB, the FAQ ruling still applied. It didn't cease applying until the February 2009 Errata literally changed the way Magic Resistance worked as a whole.

They haven't yet updated ANY older FAQs since releasing that Errata. If they had updated a couple, but left the TK one unmodified, I'd be inclined to agree with you that it was by design. But the fact that none of them have been touched since the Feb 2009 release makes it seem, to me, to be far more likely that they just 'haven't gotten around to it.' I continue to find it highly unlikely that the GW design staff intentionally allowed the Casket of Souls to be the ONLY area-spell-effect in the entire game that the new rules simply do not apply to. When the TK FAQ was written, Magic Resistance meant one thing. As of Febraury 2009, it means something entirely different. It just seems like such folly to utterly disregard that the nature of MR itself has changed.

Necromancy Black
11-04-2009, 11:12
Where does it say that different FAQ's trunk each other? Where does it say that is 2 current FAQ's say something different, the newer one wins.

I always thought you people said the more specific rule trunks.

While it may seem folly to you that the the TK FAQ still applies when some rules have change, it seems folly to me to think that because the FAQ hasn't change we should treat it as though it has.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 11:17
Where does it say that different FAQ's trunk each other? Where does it say that is 2 current FAQ's say something different, the newer one wins.

I always thought you people said the more specific rule trunks.

While it may seem folly to you that the the TK FAQ still applies when some rules have change, it seems folly to me to think that because the FAQ hasn't change we should treat it as though it has.

I'm going with what makes the most sense to me, to the people in my immediate gaming environment, and the rulings from the 2009 UKGT. *shrug* You go with whatever you want. The disagreement is not between two conflicting FAQs, but rather between an FAQ and conflicting official Errata to the rules themselves.

Here is an excerpt from GW's web page, explaining the differences between FAQs (the 2008 Tomb Kings question on Light of Death) and Errata (the Feb 2009 ruling on Magic Resistance):

"The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

Interpret that however you wish...but it sure seems to me like the 2009 Errata trumps the 2008 FAQ.

rottahn
11-04-2009, 16:50
well as far as "which FAQ trumps another" id go with the FAQ that was released about 2 months ago(FAQ V.2) rather than the 6 year old FAQ that was written another edition ago(and 6 years ago).

as it stand now the casket isnt targetted, so going by the newest FAQ, you dont get MR.

Urgat
11-04-2009, 17:18
I tend to agree that the newer faq should overrule the older one, which was written for the previous edition. And there goes the only use I've ever had for stone trolls btw. I don't know about other armies, but those trolls being the only occasion I've ever had of using it, I feel it's a pretty useless thing to have, and the rule is frankly idiotic anyway. It's magic resistance, why doesn't it just grant the unit some special ward save against all things magical? You know, to resist magic, with that resistance?

Ganymede
11-04-2009, 18:34
That's just the thing, the new FAQ doesn't contradict or nullify the TK faq. That's the essential error that Clegane is buikding his entire case upon.


as it stand now the casket isnt targetted, so going by the newest FAQ, you dont get MR.

That doesn't even matter. Despite the fact that the casket of souls doesn't target those affected, the TK FAQ still tells us to apply MR. This is despite the rules for MR, not because of them.

Lord Zarkov
11-04-2009, 18:50
well as far as "which FAQ trumps another" id go with the FAQ that was released about 2 months ago(FAQ V.2) rather than the 6 year old FAQ that was written another edition ago(and 6 years ago).

as it stand now the casket isnt targetted, so going by the newest FAQ, you dont get MR.

It is not 6 years old! it is 1 year and 2 months old.
And, along with all the FAQs at the time, was edited to comply with 7th Ed.
True most of the answers were the same between editions, but that's because the book has also remained the same.

selone
11-04-2009, 19:29
On a more serious note if/when the TK's get rereleased I'd be suprised if MR applied on the casket of souls. For hosue rules I'm tempted to say that you try to dispell its light of death if you fail all units with MR can add their MR to the dispell roll to see if they suffer the effects of the spell.

Clegane
11-04-2009, 21:19
That's just the thing, the new FAQ doesn't contradict or nullify the TK faq. That's the essential error that Clegane is buikding his entire case upon.



That doesn't even matter. Despite the fact that the casket of souls doesn't target those affected, the TK FAQ still tells us to apply MR. This is despite the rules for MR, not because of them.

You just don't get it. The MR spoken of in the FAQ is not the MR in the game today.

Two different MR's.

The old version of MR applied to the Casket. The new version does not. The FAQ was correct and viable when it was written. It is no longer so. The clarifying answer that GW gave in the FAQ was included to insure that people were playing the Casket the correct way, by applying MR to it AS IT APPLIED TO ALL AOE SPELL-LIKE EFFECTS AT THE TIME!

Now you're trying to EXCLUDE the Casket from new MR ruling, all on account of an ancient FAQ answer(and yes, Zarkov, the answer is ancient even if the FAQ is only a year old) that was only intended to bring it into line with every other god damned magical effect in the game. Persisting in this line of 'reasoning' is abusing the FAQ.

Personally, I feel that individual units SHOULD get to use their MR against AOE spell effects. I think the new ruling on MR sucks. Magically resistant units should get the benefit of not being affected by aoe spell effects, but you should NOT be able to 'save' 5 magically-defenseless units from the Ark of the effin' Covenant just because you have a unit of Flesh Hounds all alone on the right flank that happens to be glancing in the TK's direction. But that gets into the realm of house rules and out of the realm of this argument anyway. Play it however the hell you want at your own table. I'll use the same ruling that they applied at the 2009 UKGT.

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 21:43
If they put out a new rulebook, the old FAQs would no longer apply.
By making an errata on the rule they have, essentially, put out a new rulebook for the Magic Resistance rule.

FAQs that were based on the old MR rule no longer apply.

sulla
11-04-2009, 22:51
Play it however the hell you want at your own table. I'll use the same ruling that they applied at the 2009 UKGT.

I think that best sums up your case. You can't really justify your decision by rules because the TK FAQ still exists. GW had a chance to correct it and haven't so going by their FAQ's, you play that it does give MR because it specifically says it does.

Is it stupid and outdated? Yes. Obviously wrong? Yes. But so is the BoC answer about greater daemons not being monsters when their very army book says they are.

Your best bet is to talk it through with your opponent or tourney organiser and hope they see common sense because RAW (assuming you accept FAQ's as RAW), it should be played as in the TK FAQ.

rottahn
11-04-2009, 23:56
It is not 6 years old! it is 1 year and 2 months old.
And, along with all the FAQs at the time, was edited to comply with 7th Ed.
True most of the answers were the same between editions, but that's because the book has also remained the same.

when did the TK army come out? 6 years ago. when did the FAQ come out taling about MR and casket of souls? 6 years ago. for all those that want to know, it was early in 2003(or late 2002) when the TK army came out. i bought mine in march of 2003, but i believe the actual release date might have been in february.

back to the matter at hand: as of the newest FAQ, spells that dont actually target things you dont get the MR. the TK FAQ says that you get the MR, but was written for another edition of the game, and is way older. which one would you think is valid?

Clegane
12-04-2009, 00:43
when did the TK army come out? 6 years ago. when did the FAQ come out taling about MR and casket of souls? 6 years ago. for all those that want to know, it was early in 2003(or late 2002) when the TK army came out. i bought mine in march of 2003, but i believe the actual release date might have been in february.

back to the matter at hand: as of the newest FAQ, spells that dont actually target things you dont get the MR. the TK FAQ says that you get the MR, but was written for another edition of the game, and is way older. which one would you think is valid?

Which one you think is 'valid' is, unfortunately, entirely dependent on your perception of FAQs and how they stand. The common opinion here seems to be that 'Army FAQ trumps BRB/errata.' I have never seen this stated anywhere by GW and I am hoping to disabuse people of this notion until such time as GW publicly and clearly states that Army FAQs are the 'be-all end-all' in authority on the game.

If you read back up in this thread, you will see that I included an excerpt from GW's Design team, taken directly off of their webpage.

That excerpt states VERY clearly that Errata are 'hard rules' that are meant to be authoritative and should be read and followed by all players.

FAQs, on the other hand, are very 'soft' rules, answering questions about things for which GW CLEARLY STATES there may not be a 'right' answer. They even go so far as to qualify the FAQs as 'the studio's house rules' and nothing more than that.

I, frankly, have absolutely no idea how anyone in a rational frame of mind could assume that the studio's 'soft house rules' from a question-and-answer document could POSSIBLY ever trump the 'hard rules' of errata.

Yes, some competitive events do take FAQs as RAW. But not all. And, in fact, it is clear from their webpage that GW's design team did not INTEND for their FAQs to be used as RAW 'hard rules.' They even go so far as to say that you are free to skip the FAQs altogether and dice-off for disagreements.

Can one of you ARMY FAQ TRUMPS EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN zealots please provide some sort of evidence or documentation to support your claim that an outdated Army FAQ should somehow take precedence over official rules errata? If it was Army Book Errata you were talking about, I would grant you the point.

But it isn't errata. Its a FAQ.

rottahn
12-04-2009, 01:53
i dont know who you are adressing, really.
im in the camp of "no MR against the casket"

Clegane
12-04-2009, 02:40
i dont know who you are adressing, really.
im in the camp of "no MR against the casket"

Addressing the general forum, really. I was only quoting your text to provide context for my statement and to answer your question.

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 05:32
Can one of you ARMY FAQ TRUMPS EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN zealots please provide some sort of evidence or documentation to support your claim that an outdated Army FAQ should somehow take precedence over official rules errata? If it was Army Book Errata you were talking about, I would grant you the point.

This is just a red herring.

The issue here is that both FAQs work together perfectly fine. Neither of them contradict the other. The Magic Resistance answer gives us a baseline as to how magic resistance works. The Light of Death answer informs us of a situation that allows magic resistance, even when it would normally not be allowed.

It doesn't matter if you changed magic resistance so that it only worked against spells cast by people named Captain Steve, the Light of Death still allows magic resistance.

Clegane
12-04-2009, 05:42
This is just a red herring.

The issue here is that both FAQs work together perfectly fine. Neither of them contradict the other. The Magic Resistance answer gives us a baseline as to how magic resistance works. The Light of Death answer informs us of a situation that allows magic resistance, even when it would normally not be allowed.

It doesn't matter if you changed magic resistance so that it only worked against spells cast by people named Captain Steve, the Light of Death still allows magic resistance.

How many times you want to dance around this? There aren't two FAQs.
There is one FAQ and one Errata document.

The Errata document (and the unarguably more important of the two) redefines Magic Resistance.

The FAQ was written at a time when Magic Resistance WAS allowed. It was clarifying the Light of Death's interaction, not excluding it. It was letting everyone know that the Casket received no special modification that prevented standard MR from functioning.

STANDARD MR NO LONGER FUNCTIONS THE SAME WAY. The Casket still interacts with Magic Resistance normally, as it always has. But 'normal' magic resistance now means something entirely different.

It isn't a 'red herring' argument. I am attacking your goddam source. Your source isn't credible. The FAQ is old, outdated, and no longer valid under the current ruleset. Not to mention that the Design Team themselves plainly stated (in my above excerpt) that their FAQs are no more ironclad than dicing off to resolve conflicts.

Necromancy Black
12-04-2009, 05:54
It isn't a 'red herring' argument. I am attacking your goddam source. Your source isn't credible. The FAQ is old, outdated, and no longer valid under the current ruleset. Not to mention that the Design Team themselves plainly stated (in my above excerpt) that their FAQs are no more ironclad than dicing off to resolve conflicts.

So you can't use your general's leadership against the casket of souls? The rules around this haven't change but according to you there's some use-by-date on the FAQ which has expired and should now be totally disregarded.

I think I'll continue to play under the guidelines of the FAQ. ALL of them. Not just the ones I decide are relevant.

If they change the, no be it. Until then I say it stands until a new book comes out, it's change, removed and stated as out of date by GW themselves.

Clegane
12-04-2009, 06:01
So you can't use your general's leadership against the casket of souls? The rules around this haven't change but according to you there's some use-by-date on the FAQ which has expired and should now be totally disregarded.

I think I'll continue to play under the guidelines of the FAQ. ALL of them. Not just the ones I decide are relevant.

If they change the, no be it. Until then I say it stands until a new book comes out, it's change, removed and stated as out of date by GW themselves.


As I stated earlier, you play however you want. I didn't need an FAQ to explain that the enemy gets their General's leadership for CoS tests. It says right there in the TK book that the affected units roll 2D6 and subtract their Leadership. Why wouldn't you get the General's bonus? You get it for any circumstances that force leadership based tests, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Most of the issues that GW mentions in their FAQs are to quiet the whining of idiots and rules-lawyers who refuse to use common sense and courtesy in the course of their play.

It is common sense to let the General's Leadership apply to the test. It is also, however, common sense that the CoS doesn't get bounced by MR, now that the very nature of MR has changed.

Again, shame on you for using the FAQs as a crutch. Use your brain and your sense of gentlemanly conduct instead and you'll get further in life. The FAQs were not written to be indisputable, ironclad documents, preserved for all time for the sake of propriety.

They're a publication of studio house rules to clarify muddied points and answer questions that any drunken halfwit would be able to reason out for themselves, if they were more interested in playing a game than they were in screwing their opponent at every possible turn.

As for an 'expiration date' on the FAQs, the relevant question in the TK FAQ expired the moment that GW made an official Errata ruling to the MR rule and how it works.

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 06:57
It is common sense to let the General's Leadership apply to the test. It is also, however, common sense that the CoS doesn't get bounced by MR, now that the very nature of MR has changed.

You keep saying such, but you never demonstrate such. As I've said many times before, this refrain of yours scaffolds the rest of your argument, but it is based on a wholly incomplete understanding of the situation.

The new MR FAQ does not contradict or override the previous TK FAQ, so there is no reason to think that the TK answer is now invalid.

Clegane
12-04-2009, 07:27
You keep saying such, but you never demonstrate such. As I've said many times before, this refrain of yours scaffolds the rest of your argument, but it is based on a wholly incomplete understanding of the situation.

The new MR FAQ does not contradict or override the previous TK FAQ, so there is no reason to think that the TK answer is now invalid.

"The speed limit is 55 miles per hour. No automobile may drive faster than 55 miles per hour." *law posted*

"But what about my Jaguar XJ8? Its such a cool car, surely it gets to break the speed limit?"

"No, even Jaguar owners must obey the universal speed limit of 55 miles per hour." *law remains, addendum inserted in XJ8 owner's manual*

State votes. Law changed. Legal speed limit on state highways is now 65 mph.

"Ah, I can finally get a little more pull out of that V8. Excellent!" *flashing lights* *HWP halts vehicle*

"Hah, sucker. Too bad for you that you bought a Jaguar. You can only go 55 miles per hour. Here's your ticket." *hypo laughs*

"But...the law has changed! The speed limit is now 65 mph! How can you ticket only me?"

"Fool! The law has changed for everyone but YOU! It says in the addendum to your owner's manual that you can only drive 55 miles per hour, damn the law! Now, be on your way before I cite you for slowing traffic on the highway!"


Aside from that silly little analogy that fairly accurately demonstrates your position, I will AGAIN reiterate that this is not an issue between two conflicting FAQs, as you INSIST on maintaining. It is an issue between an official ERRATA (hard rules) and an FAQ (soft rules, suggestions, guidelines).

Let us say that pre-2009 Magic resistance is represented by X.
2009 Magic Resistance is represented by Y.

The SUGGESTION in the TK FAQ states that X applies against the casket.

Y does NOT apply against the Casket. It cannot. X is already in application there. Or was, because X no longer exists at all within the confines of this game. When you apply Y against the Casket, you do not get to add the dice to the Dispel roll, because Y, by its very nature, disallows such an application. The TK FAQ was written with X in mind. Now that X is gone, replaced by Y, that portion of the FAQ is no longer valid, because X SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

Necromancy Black
12-04-2009, 09:04
As I stated earlier, you play however you want. I didn't need an FAQ to explain that the enemy gets their General's leadership for CoS tests. It says right there in the TK book that the affected units roll 2D6 and subtract their Leadership. Why wouldn't you get the General's bonus? You get it for any circumstances that force leadership based tests, unless specifically stated otherwise.

As you said, you get the General's Leadership for leadership based test.

Casket of souls does not in any way cause a leadership based test. Therefore there is no reason why units should benefit from the general's leadership (unless the general is apart of their unit). However the FAQ changed this and TK players got gimped.

Now, et us say that pre-2009 Magic resistance is represented by X.
2009 Magic Resistance is represented by Y.

The TK FAQ refers to MR represented as Z, where Z is any previous instance of X, Y, etc that is the current rule for MR.

If you say this doesn't hold any bearing with the rules at all, then right back at you.

The "Law" has change in some places, in others it hasn't. MR in general is different, but for the casket of souls the old "law" is still in legislation.

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 15:46
"The speed limit is 55 miles per hour. No automobile may drive faster than 55 miles per hour." *law posted*

"But what about my Jaguar XJ8? Its such a cool car, surely it gets to break the speed limit?"

"No, even Jaguar owners must obey the universal speed limit of 55 miles per hour." *law remains, addendum inserted in XJ8 owner's manual*

State votes. Law changed. Legal speed limit on state highways is now 65 mph.

"Ah, I can finally get a little more pull out of that V8. Excellent!" *flashing lights* *HWP halts vehicle*

"Hah, sucker. Too bad for you that you bought a Jaguar. You can only go 55 miles per hour. Here's your ticket." *hypo laughs*

"But...the law has changed! The speed limit is now 65 mph! How can you ticket only me?"

"Fool! The law has changed for everyone but YOU! It says in the addendum to your owner's manual that you can only drive 55 miles per hour, damn the law! Now, be on your way before I cite you for slowing traffic on the highway!"

This isn't exactly the preposterous situation you make it out to be.

Secondly, this analogy isn't even accurate. To ba analogous to the situation at hand, you need to change the third step. It shouldn't say that Jaguars must follow the posted speed limit, no matter what it is. It should say that Jaguars are limited to 55 mph. The TK FAQ is not a reminder that we follow the rules for magic resistance, as normal. Instead, it is a reminder that we do indeed get magic resistance.




Aside from that silly little analogy that fairly accurately demonstrates your position, I will AGAIN reiterate that this is not an issue between two conflicting FAQs, as you INSIST on maintaining. It is an issue between an official ERRATA (hard rules) and an FAQ (soft rules, suggestions, guidelines).

I don't think you have really been understanding my posts.

The Two bits of rules in the respective Q&As do not conflict, and I am not trying to say that they conflict. They can work together side by side. Both can be applied without contradicting or nullifying eachother. It is much the same way that a universal speed limit could be 65 while there also exists a special speed limit of 55 for Jaguars.

Skyth
12-04-2009, 16:04
FAQ's regularly go against the existing RAW, so saying that Because of an errata, a ruling in a specific FAQ is wrong holds no water.

The FAQ is specific to Casket of Souls and as such is still valid until the rules for the Casket change (Not the rules for MR).

Mooglemen
12-04-2009, 16:59
I really did not know what I was getting into when I clicked this thread for the first time 20 minutes ago. One cup of coffee, a cigarette and 44 posts later, I think I have read and comprehended the arguments of both sides of this debate.

All I can say is... I want my 20 minutes back. So, I am going to play Judge here and render my verdict so as to prevent more poor unsuspecting souls from falling into the trap I just fell for.

"Ahem... court is now in session!"

"The rule lawyers have presented their arguments for and against the issue of Magic Resistance applying to The Light of Death spell as it pertains to one Casket of Souls.

The Plaintiffs, (Ganymede et. al.) argue that the TK FAQ provides a special exemption for the light of death which overrides the current MR rules to allow (as is written in the TK FAQ) units to add their MR dice to the dispel attempt.

The Defendant, (Clegane et. al.) counter that the FAQ in question was written based on outdated MR rules. Rules which, while correct at the time, have now changed and thus the FAQ no longer applies. Ergo, Light of Death is not effected by Magic Resistance since the unit itself is not specifically targeted.

The cases have been made, and after lengthy deliberation with myself, I am now prepared to render a verdict.

The central question of this debate lies in the temporal nature of rules. Rules are written. Then rules change. This change can be part or all of a rule. Such is the fluid nature of the ruleset we have all paid good money to follow.

As such, it is the verdict of this court that the RULES shall be interpreted as a CURRENT snapshot of what is official and what is not. As of today, April the 12th, 2009, the current rules state that Magic Resistance does NOT apply when said unit is not directly targeted. Since the Light of Death does not directly target units, they logically do not get to apply their Magic Resistance to any relevant dispel attempt.

The controversial FAQ ruling is based on OUTDATED rules and is therefore invalidated. Were such and FAQ to be published today, it would surely be written with current rules in mind and expressly forbid the application of Magic Resistance to this spell.

As precedent, I cite the State of Missouri, where until recently it was still legal to kill Mormons and take their possessions. While the law was still on the books, it was an omission that it had not been removed, and newer laws clearly superseded it. Anyone trying to base their defense on said law was clearly in the wrong.

Therefore, by the vested in me by... me, I hereby rule in favor of the Defendant.

I hereby sentence the Plaintiffs to save their dispel dice/scrolls for the end of the Hieratic order, or alternatively, turn their units asses to face the Casket instead of their faces.

Court is adjourned!

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 17:08
If it pleases the court, I would like to bring up the previous precedences in "GW vs. The Mark of Khorne Applying to Mounts" and "GW vs. Beast Herds Ranking Five Wide."

You're bound by the precedents established by the highest court of the land, GW. Appeal!

Gazak Blacktoof
12-04-2009, 17:27
Neither of those "precedents" apply as the FAQs in those cases merely said to follow the rules in the army book. They provided clarification as to which rules should be followed when the underlying rules are amended but the army book defines the rule differently, they instructed players to follow the rule in the army book. The tomb king book doesn't provide a definition for MR.

The tomb king FAQ provided clarification as to how the light of death interacted with the rules for MR which existed at the time. Those rules are no longer current, the FAQ answer answer is therefore also no longer applicable.

The situations are dissimilar.

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 17:56
The tomb king FAQ provided clarification as to how the light of death interacted with the rules for MR which existed at the time.

That's baseless supposition; you don't actually know that.

The only thing the FAQ does for sure is confirm that Magic Resistance indeed does work against the light of death.


The situations are dissimilar.

So? What do such superficial dissimilarities even matter when, at their core, the cited situations are similar where it counts?

I mean, what is your point in bringging up cosmetic dissimilarities that have no bearing on the accuracy of the comparison?

Gazak Blacktoof
12-04-2009, 20:21
My last post in this thread.

1. It not supposition, that's what FAQs do, as you say, "confirm" existing rules.

2. You cited them as precedent, if they're dissimilar (ie not similar)circumstances they're not precedent.

I'm not going to get dragged into a debate as I don't use the GW tomb king rules, just informing those that might not be aware that your comparisons are not accurate.

Ganymede
12-04-2009, 20:37
My last post in this thread.

1. It not supposition, that's what FAQs do, as you say, "confirm" existing rules.

The only rule that the FAQ confirms is that magic resistance may be used against the casket.




2. You cited them as precedent, if they're dissimilar (ie not similar)circumstances they're not precedent.


They are only dissimilar in cosmetic, superficial ways. Another example of such a superficiality is that they are not composed of the exact same letters.

The two examples I cited are analogous to the situation in question. All three are situations in which the changing of a broad rule might change the reasoning underpinning how a specific rule was designed(khorne mark, beast herd ranking, TK magic resistance), but that specific rule still exists and is still played as written.

Lord Zarkov
12-04-2009, 21:38
when did the TK army come out? 6 years ago. when did the FAQ come out taling about MR and casket of souls? 6 years ago. for all those that want to know, it was early in 2003(or late 2002) when the TK army came out. i bought mine in march of 2003, but i believe the actual release date might have been in february.

back to the matter at hand: as of the newest FAQ, spells that dont actually target things you dont get the MR. the TK FAQ says that you get the MR, but was written for another edition of the game, and is way older. which one would you think is valid?

When did 7th Ed come out and all the FAQs were overhauled to comply with it? 2006 (according to my BRB copyright info)
When was this issue of the FAQ released? 2008
So the answer is not for the last edition, it is quite clearly for 7th since the FAQ has been reissued twice since 7th was released (and some changes have clearly been made, the loss of the KW/poison question in the TK one, the complete reversal of the position on Skaven weapons teams between the original 7th Ed Skaven FAQ and the current one, etc)

Also, as said by Necromancy Black, the reply to 'can you use the general's Ld for light of death' hasn't changed since the original 6th answer despite the 7th Ed rules saying that it may only be used for 'leadership based tests', should be ignore that one too?

rottahn
13-04-2009, 06:18
When did 7th Ed come out and all the FAQs were overhauled to comply with it? 2006

if you call not changing the TK FAQ at all "overhauling" then i guess your correct.
the FAQ, in its current form, has not changed. that means it is essentially a 6 year old FAQ with a 2008 stamp on it.


and the light of death vs general's leadership has always went against RAW(even in the last edition), but it doesnt have a newer FAQ to contradict it.

Mooglemen
13-04-2009, 06:59
OK, so it took me as long to compose my response as it did to read the whole damn thing. So, here is my addendum...
Ganymede, it does not please the court! Save your dice or fight new armies only.
I hereby propose the WWTRWIITWTRN (What would the rules writers intend if they wrote the rules now) addendum to my ruling. All further rules debates shall be argued from the point of view that any ruling shall be made as if the CURRENT rulings were in effect when any previous rulings were made. This allows the court of public appeals to call into question anything that was previously considered cannon as of a date preceding this very moment as it applies to CURRENT rules.

Thank you all, I have to go apply for the BAR exam now...

Necromancy Black
13-04-2009, 07:58
I move that the court has no authority to decide what the writers did and would intend, as the court is not the writers.

Further more I move that the only proof of intent the court has is the existing FAQ themselves.

WWTRWIITWTRN = casket triggers MR.

Clegane
13-04-2009, 08:50
I move that the court has no authority to decide what the writers did and would intend, as the court is not the writers.

Further more I move that the only proof of intent the court has is the existing FAQ themselves.

WWTRWIITWTRN = casket triggers MR.

Mooglemen has as much authority as the FAQs themselves. As I have stated numerous times, the GW design team specifically stated that the FAQs were no more than loose guidelines and house rules. They have no more 'authority' in the gaming world than any one player's interpretations.

The BRB has 'authority'. The official errata to the BRB has 'authority.' The Army Books themselves have 'authority.' Army Book ERRATA has 'authority.' Army Book FAQs, in and of themselves, have no 'authority' whatsoever. They aren't canon, they aren't official, they aren't RAW, they aren't required. This is the published stance of the GW Design Team themselves, straight from their webpage.

If you and the people you play with choose to use the FAQs, in part or in whole, then fine.

If the coordinator for a tournament wishes to use the FAQs, in part or in whole, then fine.

But stop trying to assert that the FAQs somehow have more 'authority' than Bobo Billy Lumpkin's own house rules, because they do not. They have only as much authority as the players are willing to give them, and GW states very directly that you are allowed (and in fact ENCOURAGED) to disregard the FAQs altogether.

If you earnestly believe that the 280+ point Casket of Souls is grossly overpowered and undercosted when used with the current BRB Errata, then feel free to apply the FAQs as you wish. But stop trying to lord the FAQs over everyone else. That is VERY CLEARLY not GW's intent regarding them.

Atrahasis
13-04-2009, 09:08
They have only as much authority as the players are willing to give them, This is true for all the material, not just FAQs.

The section saying that FAQs are "soft" was added very recently, and changes nothing - FAQs are the closest we have to an indication of intent, and they DO have more authority than a house rule from any other source.

You're pissing against the wind.

Clegane
13-04-2009, 09:17
This is true for all the material, not just FAQs.

The section saying that FAQs are "soft" was added very recently, and changes nothing - FAQs are the closest we have to an indication of intent, and they DO have more authority than a house rule from any other source.

You're pissing against the wind.

I am generally fine with using FAQs. I am also fine with event coordinators modifying the parts of them that do not make sense, as that is obviously what GW intended you to do with them.

What I am not fine with (and why I continue to call the validity of the FAQs into question) is this insistence by some parties that an old FAQ somehow means more than a recent ERRATA.

By GW's own admission, FAQs are far less impacting on the game than Errata. This rallying cry of "Army FAQs trump everything under the sun!" is pure folly, utter *********, and an exceptionally clear case of defying GW's intent in publishing the FAQs.

That said, who are you to determine that FAQs have more 'authority' than House Rules? I don't care how recently it was added to the webpage, I've got the GW Design Team on one side here, with a VERY clear statement of intent regarding their FAQs. And nowhere within that statement do they say anything about their FAQs trumping all other rulesets, let alone their own BRB and Errata.

Again, give the FAQs as much weight as you wish. But this community misconception that everyone HAS to use the FAQs and apply them, to the letter, in every instance is utterly ridiculous. Yes, they make a handy 'standard guideline' in regard to certain muddied rules and the disputes that arise around them...but GW has clearly drawn a line of distinction between FAQ and Errata. If they didn't want that line to exist, it wouldn't.

Atrahasis
13-04-2009, 09:28
Who are you to claim that they do not have more authority?

Your own argument depends on the design team being authoritative. An FAQ issued by that authority, even with a disclaimer that it should be taken with a pinch of salt, by its very provenance has more authority than an FAQ/House Rule issued by Random Gamer #347

I don't think there's a community misconception about FAQs and their use, I suggest that perhaps you have misconceived the nature of community. In order for there to BE a community, there needs to be a negotiated level of discourse and a clear basis for that discourse. The clear basis for that discourse, the common ground if you will, is the FAQs and Errata issued by the creators of the game.

Sure, you can agree not to use the FAQ in any of your games, just as you could agree to ignore the shooting phase entirely. Do not be at all surprised if your opponent says that the DT have ruled it this way and they think it's best to do what the DT think is right.

Necromancy Black
13-04-2009, 09:42
Well said Atrahasis.

I'll also add that if your not going to use the common guidelines given, why come here and argue about their authority?

Clegane
13-04-2009, 09:44
Who are you to claim that they do not have more authority?

Your own argument depends on the design team being authoritative. An FAQ issued by that authority, even with a disclaimer that it should be taken with a pinch of salt, by its very provenance has more authority than an FAQ/House Rule issued by Random Gamer #347

I don't think there's a community misconception about FAQs and their use, I suggest that perhaps you have misconceived the nature of community. In order for there to BE a community, there needs to be a negotiated level of discourse and a clear basis for that discourse. The clear basis for that discourse, the common ground if you will, is the FAQs and Errata issued by the creators of the game.

Sure, you can agree not to use the FAQ in any of your games, just as you could agree to ignore the shooting phase entirely. Do not be at all surprised if your opponent says that the DT have ruled it this way and they think it's best to do what the DT think is right.

Sure, I'll grant you that for a community to be operative in a productive fashion, they require some baseline standard. I am even somewhat comfortable with using the published FAQs as this standard. Despite the DT's assertions that their FAQs are optional and malleable, there has to be some consistency, right?

What I don't like seeing is people saying "Well, I agree with you in principle. It IS stupid that a flaming cannonball bounces off of the dragon's hide, just because its tiny little rider is wearing a certain piece of armor. But the FAQ has decreed it to be so, so I guess we'll be playing with a stupid rule just because we have to."

No, you don't have to. If the guideline is stupid and all parties agree with that fact, then why would you want to play with a 'stupid' suggestion? I would argue for playing with a stupid 'rule', because the DT cared enough to make it an official 'rule' so there must be some balancing reason for it. But FAQs aren't 'rules.' Only suggestions and guidelines.

As far as me questioning an FAQ's authority on general principle, well...again...the DT specifically states that many of their FAQ questions don't even have a 'right or a wrong answer.' They deal primarily with grey areas. If you NEED the clarity, then sure, use it. But you shouldn't feel -bound- to it, as a player or as an event coordinator.

But this is all really just tangential to the actual discussion at hand. My main beef, once again, is with members of the community using old FAQs as a 'fallback' when they decide they aren't fond of a new rule or errata.

In other words, even if you do give FAQs equal weight and gravity to the rules themselves (something which the DT specifically advises against doing), a much newer errata should always take precedence over an older FAQ.

Just because they haven't bothered updating ANY FAQs to fall in line with the 2/09 errata doesn't mean that you should impose an antiquated and inapplicable FAQ guideline to the new ruleset.

rottahn
13-04-2009, 09:47
Your own argument depends on the design team being authoritative

this made me laugh out loud. saying the the designers of the game have no authority on the rules of their own game is quite ludacris. :)

Necromancy Black
13-04-2009, 09:48
this made me laugh out loud. saying the the designers of the game have no authority on the rules of their own game is quite ludacris. :)

Gav Thorpe.
Manbane and Rendering Stars.

Enough said :p

Clegane
13-04-2009, 09:50
I actually think you misconstrued Astrahasis' meaning with that statement.

He was conveying that the FAQs are more valid than house rules, BECAUSE of the DT's inherent level of authority.

But its sort of a double-edged sword, as they also exert that 'authority' to tell you that their FAQs are so much ********* and shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all. ;)

rottahn
13-04-2009, 09:51
he wasnt a designer when the DE FAQ was released.

(about the manbane and rending stars)

and as far as FAQs being RAW, i think its a total cop-out for GW to say "we're gonna release these FAQs, but they dont mean anything" as far as im concerned they are as close to RAW as you can get, since some things and situations just arent covered if you exclude the FAQs.

Atrahasis
13-04-2009, 10:10
he wasnt a designer when the DE FAQ was released.

(about the manbane and rending stars)True, but he did write the book, and I'm sure if they'd asked him he would have told them his intent. I'm sure because we did ask him, and he told us.

If FAQs are to be taken as an indication of what the rule was meant to be then they should have asked him. As they stand, they offer nothing more than an agreed standard. They could be so much more.


and as far as FAQs being RAW, i think its a total cop-out for GW to say "we're gonna release these FAQs, but they dont mean anything" as far as im concerned they are as close to RAW as you can get, since some things and situations just arent covered if you exclude the FAQs.I couldn't agree more. That disclaimer is exactly that - it disclaims ("abdicates" would be my choice of word) responsibility for the rules that pay their wages.

Clegane
13-04-2009, 10:19
Well, upon re-examining my stance, I have determined that you are correct. I am, indeed, just pissing into the wind. It is obvious that I am in a very isolated minority in regard to FAQs' authority, so I'll cede that point. FAQs make a decent standard for the community to agree on. Certainly a better one than I could provide. ;)

That said...my position on CoS vs MR still holds quite strongly. However ironclad an FAQ may be, there is no way that a dated FAQ should trump recent Errata.

The Errata changed the base nature of MR.

The incarnation of MR that applied to the TK FAQ is no longer extant in the GW world.

You cannot apply a ruling based upon a non-existent foundation. When viewed in the context of the new rules, the Casket of Souls obviously fits all of the criteria for denying MR dice being added to the dispel attempt.

Mooglemen
13-04-2009, 17:10
Wow, I was just having a bit of fun with that whole court thing, but it seems to have sparked a whole new and interesting debate which has somehow drawn the conflicting parties closer together.
I can now add "The Great Reconcolliator" to my titles of "Judge" and "Jury". I just keep getting more and more awesome.

Someone get Israel and Palestine on the phone for me...

Ganymede
13-04-2009, 21:33
That said...my position on CoS vs MR still holds quite strongly. However ironclad an FAQ may be, there is no way that a dated FAQ should trump recent Errata.

The Errata changed the base nature of MR.

The incarnation of MR that applied to the TK FAQ is no longer extant in the GW world.

You cannot apply a ruling based upon a non-existent foundation. When viewed in the context of the new rules, the Casket of Souls obviously fits all of the criteria for denying MR dice being added to the dispel attempt.

To play devil's advocate, GW has done such several times. They did it first when they didn't allow the mark of khorne to affect mounts despite the fact that 7th edition frenzy rules removed this limitation and the fact that khorne mark was referring to the oudated 6th edition rules.

Morglum5780
17-04-2009, 19:19
i really dont understand this debate. Ive read the entire thread, PMed some people , etc. Then i went and actually read the faqs. i thought what was being argued was conflicting faqs. but that isnt the case. the MR change was errata (which is literary a change to the rules as per GW), they intentionally and defiantly changed the wording from affect to target. there is no reason, in my eyes, why anyone should be fighting over this fact. Dates absolutely do matter, as when the TK faqs were made they were made to coincide with specific rules (from last edition) that have since been changed...twice. This is the reason so many people dont respect GW faqs, because they are done half assed and no where near official.

Ganymede
17-04-2009, 21:44
They are official enough.