PDA

View Full Version : GW got it wrong



Pages : [1] 2

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 06:34
The Cupped Hands of the Old Ones answer in the new Lizardmen FAQ is simply wrong.

The result of a 2 on the miscast table says, and I quote:
"The Wizard is annihilated and immediately removed as a casualty regardless of any protective magic item or special rule he might have."

The Cupped Hands of the Old Ones makes no such exception to this very clear, very precise, very unambiguous statement, so the FAQ answer which states "Yes, you can transfer a 2 to the enemy wizard..." is wrong. It's wrong and it's crap.

How do we go about telling GW that they are wrong on this matter, and how do we get them to change the FAQ?

Lord Yawgmoth
12-07-2009, 07:19
I wholeheartedly 100% agree.


I will follow the FAQ however, no use cheating my LM opponent when every other LM player will get the benefit of this mistake. ^.^

Demz the straights, I believe is the phrase.

WLBjork
12-07-2009, 07:58
Not the first time, and it won't be the last either.

Condottiere
12-07-2009, 08:08
So basically the Toad, if he's unlucky enough to get snake-eyes, is immediately a goner?

Necromancy Black
12-07-2009, 09:01
That was the case, but thanks to the FAQ that's no longer the case.

Which is no where near as weird as what happens when you use it on a 12.

jaxom
12-07-2009, 09:16
Nor is it as weird as what happens when you try and pass the result of an 11 to an Ogre player.

Personally, I just want some of whatever was being passed around the room when they wrote this FAQ.

Arkanthaes
12-07-2009, 09:41
Idk, it depends how you read it. I've seen people say that suggests to them that no armour/ward/whatever svaes may be made.

Imo, it does mean that whe wizard should be killed, but then, this is a Slaan, the children of the Old Ones. Why shouldn't they be powerful enough to redirect that?

Lord Zarkov
12-07-2009, 12:16
If it passed before rolling I would be fine with their ruling, but passing after not so much due to the wording of snake eyes. That said I would still play with the FAQ despite my disagreement.

What I do wan't to know is what happenes to a unit of Horrors that are passed a miscast? If you rolled after then it would make sense, but now...
Does the unit take the effect of the miscast from the table? An individual model in the unit? Or does the Horror rules wrt miscasts count as a 'miscast table' and they unit suffers a number of wounds equal to the dice rolled?

nosferatu1001
12-07-2009, 12:20
the whole unit is a wizard, so the entire wizard must take the effect. Could be kind of interesting!

Lord Zarkov
12-07-2009, 12:29
Well a double 1 would be interesting and sucks to be a herald in that case, 10-11 wouldn't really work (as the magic level is recalculated each magic phase) and most of the rest are single S? hits to 'the wizard'.
3-4 raises interesting questions - do models in a (ranked) unit count as being in base contact with their unit? if so 3-4 would really hurt, if not, not so much.

Reading the Horror rules though this tranfer is not the 'Horror unit rolling a miscast' so the unit would have to accept the table's result.

nosferatu1001
12-07-2009, 12:44
models are in base to base, so presumably the entire unit would get hit - lots of times if each model hits each other model in base contact....

Lord Zarkov
12-07-2009, 13:03
That would be quite amusing to watch - each model taking 3-8 S6 hits and then the cherry on top of the single S10 hit for 'the wizard'

Griefbringer
12-07-2009, 13:34
That would be quite amusing to watch - each model taking 3-8 S6 hits and then the cherry on top of the single S10 hit for 'the wizard'

Let's see, for a unit of 20 in 4x5 formation that would mean:

- 6 models in the centre, 8 hits each
- 4 models in the corners, 3 hits each
- 10 models on the sides, 5 hits each

Total: 6*8 + 4*3 + 10*5 = 110 hits

Meaning that you need quite a bucket of dice to roll. Hmmm, perhaps this is just a cunning plan to make people buy more dice.

nosferatu1001
12-07-2009, 13:53
....and the poor herald in there getting hit by every model around him for another (likely) 5 S6 hits. ouch!

Knowing my luck with tzeentch though they'd lose 3 or 4 models after rolling an obscene number of 4+. sigh.

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 17:02
They have changed their mind (rarely) in the past, how do we get them to do the same this time?

Condottiere
12-07-2009, 17:07
Is it the same in the German version?

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 17:10
I believe it is, from the translations I have seen, yes it is.

Drachen_Jager
12-07-2009, 17:24
Guys, the FAQ is not the rules, it says the FAQ is only to help in the case of unclear rules. In this case the rule is perfectly clear so it takes precedence over the FAQ.

When settling rules disputes;

1) Use the RAW
2) Try to settle it sensibly yourselves
3) Refer to the FAQ

In that order. Read the pre-FAQ statement on the GW website.

Spirit
12-07-2009, 17:29
How do we go about telling GW that they are wrong on this matter,

You e mail them





and how do we get them to change the FAQ?

You dont.


I think that's basically what this thread is going to boil down to, once you get past the "OMG LM FAQ R GAYZ"

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 17:35
They have bent to public pressure before. I remember the old Tyranid FAQ specifically, and I believe there were one or two other instances where they have done the same.

Pavic
12-07-2009, 18:11
The Wood Elf FAQ, which came out recently given how often FAQs are provided, did get a change about 2 to 3 weeks after it initial release. The change involved a magic item that allowed a first turn charge. GW initially said this was fine, then reversed and stated that this could not happen.

Personally, I think every FAQ involving Cupped Hands needs to be looked at and a single solution applied. My personal opinion would be to have the hands activated BEFORE rolling on the miscast table. By making this simple change, I believe the remaining FAQs would remain valid, as enemy spellcasters could then roll on their appropriate charts, and any wizard using the standard chart can still have the FAQ about rolling a 12 applied.

I do agree that passing on a 2 should not be possible, however, that being said, in GWs defense, maybe they felt that since the miscast is hopefully still being allowed to occur, it is ok to transfer the 2. Pretty thin, but hey, I figured I would throw it out.

Dokushin
12-07-2009, 20:47
The Cupped Hands of the Old Ones answer in the new Lizardmen FAQ is simply wrong.

The result of a 2 on the miscast table says, and I quote:
"The Wizard is annihilated and immediately removed as a casualty regardless of any protective magic item or special rule he might have."

The Cupped Hands of the Old Ones makes no such exception to this very clear, very precise, very unambiguous statement, so the FAQ answer which states "Yes, you can transfer a 2 to the enemy wizard..." is wrong. It's wrong and it's crap.

How do we go about telling GW that they are wrong on this matter, and how do we get them to change the FAQ?

That's a pretty strong statement. Let's think about this.

The result of a two on the miscast table implies that the miscast resolved, right? The Cupped Hands prevents you from miscasting, and instead someone else miscasts. Oops, problem solved.

If a magic sword said, "any targets hit by this sword are immediately removed despite all special rules and blah blah blah", it still wouldn't affect a model with something that said "If this model would have been hit, instead the model next to it is hit." See?

The effects of the miscast aren't being prevented -- it's just saying that someone else miscast instead.

Of all the things to take issue with in the FAQ...

Lord Yawgmoth
12-07-2009, 21:18
That's a pretty strong statement. Let's think about this.

The result of a two on the miscast table implies that the miscast resolved, right? The Cupped Hands prevents you from miscasting, and instead someone else miscasts. Oops, problem solved.

If a magic sword said, "any targets hit by this sword are immediately removed despite all special rules and blah blah blah", it still wouldn't affect a model with something that said "If this model would have been hit, instead the model next to it is hit." See?

The effects of the miscast aren't being prevented -- it's just saying that someone else miscast instead.


If they miscast, wouldn't they be the ones rolling on the table? I really think that this is where GW got it wrong. According to the FAQ, the transfer is done after the you roll on the miscast table to find what horrible fate your caster has created for himself.

So, it doesn't prevent the miscast. It prevents the effect, and even then only if you choose to use your magic item to prevent it. The effect says it may not be prevented by any magic item.

haha, although I do like the idea "Even when fate is already written, there's always time to change the names." (just played in a magic pre-release yesterday)

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 21:34
The Slann is the one suffering the miscast. He rolls on the table. No item or special rule can prevent him (the Wizard) from being annihilated.

The FAQ answer would prevent this without an exception being written in the actual rules of the item.

That is wrong.

For the FAQ to be correct, there would have to be a very, very strong exception written into the rules of the Cupped Hands. Something like "Even though every single other magic item and special rule cannot prevent the death of a Wizard by rolling a 2 on the miscast table, this item is the exception."

It doesn't say it, so it can't do it and a FAQ answer does not make it so.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
12-07-2009, 21:58
I love the idea of GW "getting it wrong." Seeing as how they are the ones who write the rules and are, therefore, the final arbiters as far as what is right and wrong, it's pretty much impossible for that to happen. If the BRB says "if A then B" but then there's a FAQ that says "if A then C," FAQ is newer and the BRB was around when the wrote it, so FAQ should take precedence.

I understand some people thinking it is silly, or ridiculous, or stupid. But how can it be wrong when they are the ones who determine what is right and wrong?

Huey Lewis
12-07-2009, 22:07
I understand some people thinking it is silly, or ridiculous, or stupid. But how can it be wrong when they are the ones who determine what is right and wrong?

Because in this instance they're following (successfully or not) their own rules, not creating new ones.

rtunian
12-07-2009, 22:35
But how can it be wrong when they are the ones who determine what is right and wrong?

because there is such a thing as continuity

taking your example one step further...

start with a = b, and a cannot = c
when you add b = c, you have created a contradiction in the rules, because it is already established that a cannot = c

this is how it is wrong

with the cupped hands business, it's "wrong" because it potentially applies inapplicable miscast results to enemies

Tae
12-07-2009, 22:59
I understand some people thinking it is silly, or ridiculous, or stupid. But how can it be wrong when they are the ones who determine what is right and wrong?

Then please be good enough to explain how a miscast roll of 11 can be passed off to an Ogre.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
12-07-2009, 23:13
Then please be good enough to explain how a miscast roll of 11 can be passed off to an Ogre.

I don't have to explain it. I don't write rules for Games Workshop. They need to clarify any issues, or everyone could just behave like reasonable adults and come to a conclusion together.

There has not been one single problem that my gaming group has come upon that we have not been able to solve because ultimately we are all there to have fun playing together. No FAQ or ruleset in the world can ever cover all the possibilities that may arise during every game, and the fact that some people deride GW for writing faulty rules while unable to see their own faults of being unable to compromise is disheartening.

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 23:34
It is not a possibility that can arise in any game, because a roll of a 2 on the miscast table kills the caster. Fullstop. No item or special rule can save him. The Cupped Hands is an item. The Cupped Hands cannot save the Slann.

Necromancy Black
12-07-2009, 23:37
It is not a possibility that can arise in any game, because a roll of a 2 on the miscast table kills the caster. Fullstop. No item or special rule can save him. The Cupped Hands is an item. The Cupped Hands cannot save the Slann.

No **** Sherlock, and the FAQ has made it so it can.

Oh wow, GW did something wrong. If you don't like it agree with your opponents not to the use the FAQ then.

Condottiere
12-07-2009, 23:38
Just remembered - what happens when he passes it on to Teclis?

Grimtuff
12-07-2009, 23:52
Just remembered - what happens when he passes it on to Teclis?

Teclis does what again? Ignore his first miscast or all miscasts?

I forget which. :p

Sarah S
12-07-2009, 23:54
No **** Sherlock, and the FAQ has made it so it can.

Oh wow, GW did something wrong. If you don't like it agree with your opponents not to the use the FAQ then.

Nice attitude dude.

That's not what FAQs do though. FAQs answer questions, Erratas change rules. If they had put in an errata for it, something that provided the sort of specific language necessary, then fair game. As it stands, its crap.

Can you grasp the distinction between the two? It's subtle I know. :rolleyes:

EvC
12-07-2009, 23:59
Yes, this FAQ answers the question of whether or not items that modify, transfer or otherwise ignore miscasts can be used to stop the 1-1 effect from ever happening. It's clear that once that effect happens the caster cannot be saved, but the FAQ clarifies that the items that change the miscast result DO work on it.

Think of it in the same way as a magic weapon that says it always instantly kills anything it hits, and nothing can ever protect from the damage. But you can still have magic items that make the attacks miss, or bounce them back etc.

Sarah S
13-07-2009, 00:01
That's not the same at all. Once you roll the result on the table the caster is dead. No item or special rule can save him.

Using an item to transfer the effect to another wizard is using an item to save him.

That is not allowed by the miscast rules, so the FAQ is in error.

Condottiere
13-07-2009, 00:11
Teclis does what again? Ignore his first miscast or all miscasts?

I forget which. :pFirst per turn, I think.

Drachen_Jager
13-07-2009, 00:40
No **** Sherlock, and the FAQ has made it so it can.

The rules are the rules.

The FAQ is a guideline, it says so right on the GW website, they are suggestions only.

The rules win. The FAQ is wrong and does not count.

Dokushin
13-07-2009, 01:29
That's not the same at all. Once you roll the result on the table the caster is dead. No item or special rule can save him.

Using an item to transfer the effect to another wizard is using an item to save him.

That is not allowed by the miscast rules, so the FAQ is in error.

So I've got a question. If the Slann 'suffers' the 'effects' of the 'miscast' (and therefore can't prevent a 2), where does the miscast that the enemy wizard suffers come from? Thin air? An alternate dimension? Some magic miscast-duplicating device?

It seems obvious to me that the Slann is distinctly not miscasting, and that the enemy wizard is miscasting instead. The roll beforehand can represent any of a number of things, including a millenia-old frog's ability to tell ahead of time just how bad things are about to get.

StarFyreXXX
13-07-2009, 01:46
hehe

We got the crappiest item list in the past 7 or 8 armies... at least we got this...

OR...how about this..

GW, change howthisitem works in a faq 2, but give us our own lore as a trade :P

Sanjay

WodenMHC
13-07-2009, 02:05
Hilarious thread.

Thanks for your time!

Pavic
13-07-2009, 02:14
The rules are the rules.

The FAQ is a guideline, it says so right on the GW website, they are suggestions only.

The rules win. The FAQ is wrong and does not count.

However, one must remember that most tournaments will refer to and stick with the FAQ, so by that logic, these are the new rules, or at least they are in a tournament setting.

Sarah S
13-07-2009, 03:42
They answer questions. The question, "can this magic item save me from a 2 on the miscast table" will never come up because no one would be stupid enough to ask that in light of the actual rule.

Dokushin
13-07-2009, 04:58
They answer questions. The question, "can this magic item save me from a 2 on the miscast table" will never come up because no one would be stupid enough to ask that in light of the actual rule.

Seems to me that since that following the use of the item the Slann doesn't miscast or suffer the effect of the miscast, this rule doesn't apply. The snake eyes claim their victim -- it's the one that miscasts as a result of using the item. The effect says it cannot be prevented, and it's not being prevented. It's still happening.

I'm sorry that some LM player transferred a 2 onto your lord mage, but the ruling has always made sense, and I'm glad to get some backup on it from GW -- although the FAQ does have some dodgy spots.

Sarah S
13-07-2009, 05:14
The Wizard is annihilated and immediately removed as a casualty, regardless of any protective magic item or special rule he might have.

How hard is that to understand?

There is no way to use this "protective magic item."

It's the wrong answer, an answer to a question that should never, ever be asked.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
13-07-2009, 05:54
How hard is that to understand?

There is no way to use this "protective magic item."

It's the wrong answer, an answer to a question that should never, ever be asked.

Sarah, we all get how you feel. You've said it again and again. This is the issue:

Not everyone thinks the same way you do. When there are discrepancies, as you've pointed out many times, the last step is the FAQ after you and your opponent cannot agree. The FAQ disagrees with you. So you'd better work on trying to get along and reach a reasonable agreement with your opponent, because if you get to step 3, things are not going to go your way.

Staurikosaurus
13-07-2009, 06:11
Well, if we all read a little further in the FAQ, we'll learn that Cupped Hands works like this:

1)Slann miscasts
2)roll to use Cupped Hands if Slann chooses. Slann does so and a 2+ is rolled.
3)enemy wizard rolls on THEIR miscast table and suffers the results

Or we could all decide not to use the FAQs as they are filled with such gems as the one being discussed and others. FAQs create more problems than they solve. Stick to the Errata and your own common sense.

Gork or Possibly Mork
13-07-2009, 06:21
Sarah I agree with you but the only thing is armybooks always overrule the BRB.

I honestly thought they would make you choose before ( transferring before and thus being immune to the 2 ) which makes way more sense to me but the ruling went the other way choosing after and you're still:wtf: immune anyway:confused: and since you roll after theres also the point of how do roll on race specific charts if you roll on the normal chart first then transfer. I guess you could match the same results for orcs but what do you do with Ogres. A double 2 turns into a 1 on the ogre chart?

Since that's the way they say it is I guess it overrules the BRB. Stupid I agree but thats how it is.

Personally I won't use the Item cause I don't like it and find other things more worth it, fun an no one else plays LM in my group so I really don't care.

Necromancy Black
13-07-2009, 07:19
This is how this thread and others like it work:

1) Someone bitches about something stupid GW did.
2) People pretty much all agree it was stupid.
3) People all agree that stupid seems to be what GW does these days.
4) People don't agree on how to handle the stupid so the bitching continues.



Oh wow, GW did something wrong. If you don't like it agree with your opponents not to the use the FAQ then.

It's as simple as that. If you don't like the FAQ discuss it with your opponants before the game.

There are plenty of things in the FAQ I don't like, but they do give some explanation to rules that needed explaining (even if they ended up being retarded). For me, I'll play the FAQ word for word because I like a consistent set of rules to play by.

If however you don't want to play by the FAQ, and honestly I couldn't blame you, then follow the advice in my quote above.

You may now continue the bitching.

Dungeon_Lawyer
13-07-2009, 10:51
It is not a possibility that can arise in any game, because a roll of a 2 on the miscast table kills the caster. Fullstop. No item or special rule can save him. The Cupped Hands is an item. The Cupped Hands cannot save the Slann.

And yet it does:evilgrin:

"cant save him" what if your slann is a girl?

I have no problem with the faq-let it go ...Cupped hands saves a slann that rolls a 2 and he can transfer this result. I think its awesome and there are a hell of a lot of things more "broke" in fantasy than this .

Avian
13-07-2009, 10:59
Well, if we all read a little further in the FAQ, we'll learn that Cupped Hands works like this:

1)Slann miscasts
2)roll to use Cupped Hands if Slann chooses. Slann does so and a 2+ is rolled.
3)enemy wizard rolls on THEIR miscast table and suffers the results
That is how I read it too. It would appear that the word "before" has been omitted before "rolling" (why else would it say "rolling"?).

I'm not sure why people are having a problem with this one, though. You only suffer an effect if you get it, not if you could have gotten it but someone else gets it instead.

There are a lot of odd answers on the Cupped Hands questions, though.

On the "What happens on a 12?" questions, my reading would be that it has no effect, since the Wizard wasn't attempting to cast any
spell.

And on the "Do you use alternative tables?" my reading would be yes, but ignore the reference to 5 and 6 in those cases.



But really what the FAQ shows is that items that transfer miscasts is a stupid thing to come up with. It would be far cleaner to have it be something like:
"Roll a d6 after miscasting but before rolling on the table. On a 2+ the miscast is ignored. If any enemy wizard is within line of sight, he will suffer a S6 hit with no armour save."

Tae
13-07-2009, 11:01
I don't have to explain it. I don't write rules for Games Workshop. They need to clarify any issues, or everyone could just behave like reasonable adults and come to a conclusion together.

It's not a question of "behav[ing] like reasonable adults and ... com[ing] to a conclusion together" it's about the fact that GW made a mistake in their FAQ. This is the sole point I was attempting to get accross with my post. I do not need it ot be fixed as I, and the rest of my gaming group, possess enough common sense to be able to work around the issue (i.e. by ignoring the FAQ), however this does not change the fact that the FAQ on the particular issue I highlighted is wrong.


There has not been one single problem that my gaming group has come upon that we have not been able to solve because ultimately we are all there to have fun playing together. No FAQ or ruleset in the world can ever cover all the possibilities that may arise during every game, and the fact that some people deride GW for writing faulty rules while unable to see their own faults of being unable to compromise is disheartening.

I think you're missing the point of some people's posts in this thread. It's not a question of people lacking sufficient common sense to be able to agree with their opponents work-arounds for the issues raised in the FAQ, or that we're all hardcore tournament players who are not here to have fun, merely to win. Neither of these are the case (at least not for me, and, if they'll forgive my speaking on their behalf, probably not for the other replies in here).

We can all find ways around the issues the FAQ raises, however this doesn't change the underlying notion that the FAQ is, on certain points, flat out wrong. It's as simple as that. You can say that it 'cant be wrong as GW write the rules', but when they write it in such a way as you physically cannot follow the rules in certain circumstances (i.e. transfering 7+ miscasts to an Ogre) then it is wrong.

I fully accept that nothing will ever be perfect, or completely comprehensive. But such a fundamental thing (such as the rule not being able to work) should really have simply been thought about a bit before being included in the FAQ.

Dungeon_Lawyer
13-07-2009, 11:07
We can all find ways around the issues the FAQ raises, however this doesn't change the underlying notion that the FAQ is, on certain points, flat out wrong. It's as simple as that. You can say that it 'cant be wrong as GW write the rules', but when they write it in such a way as you physically cannot follow the rules in certain circumstances (i.e. transfering 7+ miscasts to an Ogre) then it is wrong.

I fully accept that nothing will ever be perfect, or completely comprehensive. But such a fundamental thing (such as the rule not being able to work) should really have simply been thought about a bit before being included in the FAQ.

I think I speak for all SLann when I say I will gladly concede any rolls of 7+ on the miscast table when playing ogres, in order to gain immunity to double 1's against every other army. Your example has been solved, case closed.;)

EvC
13-07-2009, 11:17
Didn't we have all this with the Infernal Puppet with the Warriors of Chaos book? I trust that you've all been saying that it can't protect you from a 1-1 in that case too :)

Nicha11
13-07-2009, 11:17
How can GW get it wrong, they write the rules.

What Games Workshop says goes, you can't claim they are wrong, by definition they are always right.

EvC
13-07-2009, 11:34
If what they've written in an FAQ directly contradicts what it says in the rulebook, then one of the two must be wrong, so GW would be by definition wrong (See the WoC FAQ on Warshrine effects expiring for a prime example). In a grey area case like this, then no, they can't really be wrong. They can be stupid, of course :)

Condottiere
13-07-2009, 12:11
Great - Realms of Absurdity.

As regards Slann - do they have a gender, or anything that could be defined as such?

Can they choose when to activate Cupped Hands, either before or after rolling?

Necromancy Black
13-07-2009, 12:33
As regards Slann - do they have a gender, or anything that could be defined as such?


I don't think anything in the Lizardmen army, apart from things like Salamanders and Cold Ones, have a gender or reproductive ability.

rtunian
13-07-2009, 13:09
this thread needs more rage, also more people posting who only read the first post

Condottiere
13-07-2009, 13:32
It takes too much energy to be angry, but GW can always change the FAQ, or at least, be more specific.

rtunian
13-07-2009, 13:53
zen master condo is privy to the secrets of inner peace, yet prone to miss outward sarcasm *oohhmmmmmmmmm*

Griefbringer
13-07-2009, 14:26
this thread needs more rage

Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

Llew
13-07-2009, 14:47
If, indeed, the Slaan must roll to pass the miscast before actually rolling the miscast, then it would seem that GW has a consistent answer.

1) Slaan miscasts.
2) Slaan tries to pass the miscast to another wizard.
3) Other wizard now has a miscast and rolls on the miscast table.

I don't see anything in there that is inconsistent.

EDIT:
Okay...after reading the FAQ directly, and not just commentary here on the FAQ, it is, in fact, quite inconsistent. I spend so much time grousing about GW that I was really hoping for an opportunity to come down on their side. Their ruling makes no sense.

EvC
13-07-2009, 14:50
That bit would be the FAQ telling the player to roll the Slann's miscast, then rolling for the Cupped Hands to pass it on...

gaiaterra
13-07-2009, 15:30
Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

True. But if you use the Cupped Hands of the Old Ones you can pass the suffering onto a nearby enemy.

Condottiere
13-07-2009, 15:31
Since it does hang on the matter of timing (as to when the die get rolled), and if the Magic Item in question doesn't have a caveat that overrules the Miscast table, it would seem that any Snake-eyes result pretty much seals the Slann's fate.

Jetty Smurf
13-07-2009, 15:41
So much rage for this part of the FAQ.

The REAL issue is the fact that the slann does NOT have LoS as per large target when flying solo. I mean come on, really, why even be floating in the air when hes solo, why not just let him sit on his a** if his palanquin refuses to be of any use when hes not surrounded by some temple guard?

Archon.42
13-07-2009, 15:43
i love the way that you're complaining that the Cupped hands ignore the ruling of the miscast tale, but as this is the case, why dont you get so nerd-raged up over the universal special rules which change the rules of the game!
i really want to see someone lose combat at a tournument, then throw a MASSIVE HISSY FIT when his opponent reveals his unit is stubborn and ignores the rules. this in effect is what you're doing, suck it up, i dont like chaos knights but i dont complain
grow up its a game
.42

Wolf 11x
13-07-2009, 16:52
The Slann is the one suffering the miscast. He rolls on the table. No item or special rule can prevent him (the Wizard) from being annihilated.

The FAQ answer would prevent this without an exception being written in the actual rules of the item.

That is wrong.

For the FAQ to be correct, there would have to be a very, very strong exception written into the rules of the Cupped Hands. Something like "Even though every single other magic item and special rule cannot prevent the death of a Wizard by rolling a 2 on the miscast table, this item is the exception."

It doesn't say it, so it can't do it and a FAQ answer does not make it so.

Hah! Might as well move on. You'll never make my Toad vanish into the warp! *holds up FAQ*

I believe Archon put it best. After all, it is just a game, which rules & FAQs you did not write.

Spirit
13-07-2009, 17:33
To be honest Sarah, if your the kind of person that is going to disagree and not use an FAQ regardless of whether you like it or not. Your just going to cause arguments. And arguments that you will not win.

As i predicted at the start, this thread has just degenerated into people moaning about the FAQ. Or moaning at people moaning about the FAQ.




I dont see them changing this one, mainly because its a 45 point one use item that is already pretty useless on 3 or 4 of the miscast table rolls. And might fail. Your changes would cause it to be even less useful than it is now.

This combined with the community being slit on the decision (i like it, so do a few others i believe), the community will be split on the decision, thus not enough support will be gathered to make GW change the decision.

Personally, i think its ridiculous that the slann cannot levitate without the aid of his psy-guard. But it doesn't mean i'm going to play it any other way.


I'm sorry, but I think your flogging a dead horse (slann??) on this one.

jaxom
13-07-2009, 18:25
Regardless about how folks feel regarding the Cupped Hands and the result of a 2 on the miscast table, it is clear that this FAQ was written by someone on drugs. Rulings are not self-consistent within the FAQ itself. What is wrong (aside from the possibility that you are expecting pigs to fly) with expecting a company that publishes games to actually make some attempt at putting together well-written rules which have some modicum of self-consistency? I'm not even asking for definitions of words like "target"... I'm asking for an awareness that with two rulings on the same page you are saying "roll 2d6 and then apply to a table with results numbered 1 to 6."

Regardless of how you feel about whether or not this FAQ is good for LM or agrees with or violates BRB RAW, I think everyone agrees that rulings in this FAQ create as many problems as they solve.

Spirit
13-07-2009, 21:15
Regardless about how folks feel regarding the Cupped Hands and the result of a 2 on the miscast table, it is clear that this FAQ was written by someone on drugs. Rulings are not self-consistent within the FAQ itself. What is wrong (aside from the possibility that you are expecting pigs to fly) with expecting a company that publishes games to actually make some attempt at putting together well-written rules which have some modicum of self-consistency? I'm not even asking for definitions of words like "target"... I'm asking for an awareness that with two rulings on the same page you are saying "roll 2d6 and then apply to a table with results numbered 1 to 6."

Regardless of how you feel about whether or not this FAQ is good for LM or agrees with or violates BRB RAW, I think everyone agrees that rulings in this FAQ create as many problems as they solve.


They solve all the problems fine, what they have done is divide opinion. But any ruling that GW make ever will do this.

If the ruling was the other way round (1,1 killed the slann) there would be an identical thread up, right now, discussing how ridiculous it is, and that the writers were on drugs and should be killed.

It doesnt matter what GW say, someone will always disagree, so your best bet it to go with them regardless, and realise that there are probably FAQ's that you already use, that other people also disagree with, but that doesn't stop you using them.

One example that comes to mind is beasts of chaos having to rank to a minimum of 4 wide. This was only done because it was a rule in the outdated beasts of chaos book, and GW were unwilling to change it. So this was ridiculous because GW stuck to the raw, but the slann ruling is ridiculous because they have not stuck to raw.

It matters not what GW think, it doesn't make any difference either way, get on with it and play the games.

Da GoBBo
13-07-2009, 21:44
no use cheating my LM opponent when every other LM player will get the benefit of this mistake.

Huh, the FAQ is just wrong. No bad in disregarding it. Sometimes I just can't believe you people out here :), clutching to those FAQ's like it it's a mothers tit (isn't that how the saying goes, or did I say something nasty?).

PeG
13-07-2009, 22:04
Well, if we all read a little further in the FAQ, we'll learn that Cupped Hands works like this:

1)Slann miscasts
2)roll to use Cupped Hands if Slann chooses. Slann does so and a 2+ is rolled.
3)enemy wizard rolls on THEIR miscast table and suffers the results

Or we could all decide not to use the FAQs as they are filled with such gems as the one being discussed and others. FAQs create more problems than they solve. Stick to the Errata and your own common sense.

This I could actually agree with ie with the interpretation that Slann rolls on the miscast table and decides whether he wants to take the consequences or try to pass it on. If he passes it to someone else the wizard that receives the miscast will suffer a miscast and then follows his rules for miscasts including if necessary roling on his table (which might mean rolling again on the same table).

This would fix the problems with different miscast tables (which is messy if you try to transfer exact rolls) as well as units with special miscast rules like Teclis, Horrors etc and also not auto killing the vampire lord etc which would make miscast and double ones the best possible result Slann could roll.

In the scenario that Slann would roll double ones he would obviously try to pass it on but he would still not auto kill the enemy wizard. On the other hand in a scenario in which he would get an irrestable force result he might chose to keep the result instead of passing it on.

Griefbringer
13-07-2009, 22:30
True. But if you use the Cupped Hands of the Old Ones you can pass the suffering onto a nearby enemy.

But if you write a FAQ, you can spread the suffering to the whole Interweb community!

Perhaps the minions of the Dark Side have infiltrated the GW design studio FAQ sector? :evilgrin:

Da GoBBo
13-07-2009, 23:12
They solve all the problems fine, what they have done is divide opinion. But any ruling that GW make ever will do this.


"Hahaaaa, I'm putting an effect on you and nothing can help you! Eat that, my young apprentice."

"Can this help me, master?"

"Well yes, if it's nothing it can"

"Well, it's something"

"Even so it can still help you"

"But when something ain't nothing, how is that even possible master?"

"When I walked up the misty mountain, I recieved the 10 FAQ's containing the word of GW, enlightening all on how the big red book works it's awesome power over all that play"

"And that is how something becomes nothing?"

"Well yes, my young apprentice, when the big red book tells us there is nothing, there is abviously something, or else how could one tell? Our feeble minds would do well with a series of FAQ's not to forget it"

"A lesson well learned master. While the brb commands and guides us, one should allways have a FAQ nearby to understand what really must be done"

"Clearly, or else how would you deflect my awesome abilities?"

"Right you are master"

Commodus Leitdorf
13-07-2009, 23:18
I'm sorry....but I've read all the arguments and I've been through My Lizardman book and my BRB....and at no point am I seeing this FAQ ruling as wrong or inaccurate.



The result of a 2 on the miscast table says, and I quote:
"The Wizard is annihilated and immediately removed as a casualty regardless of any protective magic item or special rule he might have."


P. 121 of the BRB under Talismans
"Talismans ,charms, amulets and wards are tokens of Magical Protection..."

Continue reading through the definition of Arcane items, at no point are Arcane items listed as magical protection, they merely "Enhance a Wizard's magical powers..."

Cupped Hands is an Arcane Item, it is not a Talisman. Therefore it is not Magical protection, therefore may be used without violating any rules that im reading.

now Special rules for the Slann are listed as:

Cold Blooded
Discipline of the Ancients
Unit Strength 3
Shield of the Old ones
Guardians

None of these are being used to stop the Miscast either as these are the Slanns Special Rules which are prohibited by the 1-1 rules.

If I'm missing anything please let me know, but as I have said, I'm just not seeing anything wrong with this ruling.

-Commodus

Da GoBBo
13-07-2009, 23:23
An arcane item is a magic item.

This particular magic item offers protection.

How is this not magical protection?

Condottiere
14-07-2009, 00:04
Magic item in Warhammer is a general term for an article that has magic properties, and subcategorized into Enchanted, Arcane, Weapons, etcetera.

Dokushin
14-07-2009, 00:21
An arcane item is a magic item.

This particular magic item offers protection.

How is this not magical protection?

Hey, you're right. So I've got one for you. If you give your general a magic sword, and that sword kills a lot of stuff, and so you win the game without having to cast many spells, and you would have miscast, then the sword 'protected' you from the miscast, right? So really you should have to roll for the miscast that might have happened -- just in case it's a 2 in which case the sword couldn't have protected you!

Let's have another try. The Cupped Hands transfers the miscast. No prevention or protection is involved. Someone else miscasts instead of the Slann. The Slann does not miscast. There is no miscast result to protect against. No miscast. No result. No protection. No problem. Because the Slann isn't miscasting. Because of the item. No miscast means no result means no effect to protect against. Because there is not a miscast for the Slann. Because of the item. Cupped Hands. :D

Spirit
14-07-2009, 00:23
"Hahaaaa, I'm putting an effect on you and nothing can help you! Eat that, my young apprentice."

BLAAAAAAAAA

"Right you are master"




Da Gobbo.

Please bear in mind that their are countless rules within army books that over ride the core rules, even when the core rules state that it is completely impossible to do something, there have been rules that disregard this. This is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be. Just becasue the cupped hands was FAQ'd to do this, does not make it wrong, or anything new.


For example, the rules specifically state that you may not shoot into combat, however skaven are allowed to.

The rulebook also says that the minimum rank and file to get a rank bonus is 5 models, bretonian knights ignore this.

Or even beast herds. Skirmishers that get ranks goes completely against the rulebook also.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 00:26
How is this not magical protection?

Because it is not a Talisman, it is an Arcane Item. Only Talismans grant Magical Protection as per the rules for Magical Items p 120-121 of the BRB.

Drachen_Jager
14-07-2009, 01:01
Please bear in mind that their are countless rules within army books that over ride the core rules, even when the core rules state that it is completely impossible to do something, there have been rules that disregard this.

That's not the point though, the point is that the army book does not over-ride the core rules, it makes no mention of over-riding the core rules, it was just the FAQ that says it trumps the core rules, and FAQs by their own introduction are not allowed to do that.

In conclusion if this situation should arise we may see a quantum singularity which swallows up the entire warhammer universe.

If you wake up in the morning and all your models are gone, you'll know what happened (either that or your wife wanted a little attention paid to her for a change).

Tuch
14-07-2009, 01:15
That's not the point though, the point is that the army book does not over-ride the core rules, it makes no mention of over-riding the core rules, it was just the FAQ that says it trumps the core rules, and FAQs by their own introduction are not allowed to do that.


Was just wondering how you decided that the FAQ can't do this. Regardless of who wrote the rule or answered the FAQ GW put their stamp on it. That means its official whether you, or anyone else for that matter, likes it or not. It doesn't mean its right or wrong, and it doesn't mean you can't play it differently in your own games if your opponent agrees to so I really don't see why everyone gets so excited about this. Its the current ruling, it might get changed but i wouldn't hold my breath. It really ain't that bad considering the odds of frequency that it will come up in a game.

rtunian
14-07-2009, 01:24
FAQs by their own introduction are not allowed to do that.

eh? no, that's not what it says at all.

the errata/faq into says that the faqa are "studio house rules" that would be used to settle disputes in pick-up games or tournament environments.

it then specifically says that if you disagree with a faq ruling, you are free (in fact, encouraged) to come up with your own house rule. remember though, that your whole group has to be in accord with these.

by the very nature of the house rule, it trumps the core rules. it wouldn't otherwise be a house rule. think about it: even if you are just adding a small fluffy rule that doesn't apparantly contradict anything, you are still trumping the core rules by implementing a situation that otherwise wouldn't happen in normal play.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210002&categoryId=500004&aId=3000006

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 01:47
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

And that's why a FAQ answer can't change a rule.

It has to be an errata.

The Cupped Hands does not say it overrides a 2 on the Miscast table. Either rewrite its rules in an errata so that the army book DOES "trump" the rulebook, or change the FAQ answer that has no basis in the rules.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 02:00
That's not the point though, the point is that the army book does not over-ride the core rules, it makes no mention of over-riding the core rules, it was just the FAQ that says it trumps the core rules, and FAQs by their own introduction are not allowed to do that.


The FAQ also says to treat Howdah weapons as war machines. This is not in the army book.
The FAQ also says that Dropped Rocks counts as a shooting attack. This is not in the army book.

FAQ's say a lot of things, and guess what? You don't have to use them.

Complaining about rulings that by their own definitions you are not required to follow just makes this whole damn topic pointless.
Either follow the FAQ or bring it up with your opponent before you start playing you don't want to follow the FAQ or parts of it. Simple.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 02:11
The Cupped Hands does not say it overrides a 2 on the Miscast table. Either rewrite its rules in an errata so that the army book DOES "trump" the rulebook, or change the FAQ answer that has no basis in the rules.

That is unnessary, Cupped Hands does override the 2 on the miscast table because it is an Arcane Item and not a Talisman, and only Talismans provide Magical Protection. In addition the ability is not a special rule (meaning the ability is not listed in the Special rule section of the BRB p 94-96 nor in the Slann's special rules P. 42 of the Lizardmen book).

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 02:12
No it doesn't, because GW has bowed to pressure before. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If we make a big enough stink about this they will realize their error and fix it.

They should anyways.

That is unnessary, Cupped Hands does override the 2 on the miscast table because it is an Arcane Item and not a Talisman, and only Talismans provide Magical Protection
This is so silly, I won't even dignify it with more of a response beyond this snide dismissal.

Ultimate Life Form
14-07-2009, 02:15
this thread needs more rage, also more people posting who only read the first post

All right, you want things to heat up a little, so I'll comply and throw a bone into the arena for the dogs to maul each other over:

In my understanding, the "no saves bla bla bla" part from miscast result 2 refers to the actual damage from miscast result 2, not to miscast result 2 itself. So passing it on is perfectly fine. It's like saying, "ooops, a time bomb fell out of the blue sky into my lap and it's about to explode, annihilating anyone within range. I don't really want it. Here, catch." I think this is actually pretty much what the Slann does with the cupped hands, it's the baseball glove of the Old Ones.

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 02:17
But it says the Wizard is immediately annihilated and can't be saved. Passing it off to someone else is nothing if not saving himself.

rtunian
14-07-2009, 02:28
never gonna give you up, never gonna let you gooo- :rolleyes:

sarah you are misunderstanding what 'errata' means.

errata is not intended to change the way a rule operates, but to replace a typo or mistake, or reword something so that it is clearer. you would know this if you'd ever actually read an errata and faq, because the two are really quite different.

an example errata entry from the vc errata/faq is:
pg.92 - skeleton warriors, options
spears: 1 point
should be changed to
spears: 1 point per model

in case you also don't know what a faq is, a general example would be:
Q: how do you resolve this situation given these rules?
A: this is how we'd resolve it.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 02:29
This is so silly, I won't even dignify it with more of a response beyond this snide dismissal.

*shrug* fair enough, but I'm providing rules and page listing to support my argument. I mean we are asking about following the RAW and the rules as written state that when you roll 1-1 on the miscast table, you Wizard dies, you cant save the wound with Magical Protection (which are Ward Saves that are all listed in the talisman section of any gievn Army books magic item listings) or Special rules like Regeneration. Those are specifically given as things that normally help save a character from harm but cannot be used to protect him from this particular miscast.

However, an Arcane Item (in this case Cupped Hands) is under no such restriction and therefore can be used to send this particularly bad miscast to someone else. The miscast isn't being stopped, it is still occuring...just not to the Slann. Arcane Items do not give Magic Protection but enhance the bearers magic abilitys, which in this case consists of:

Slann - "Oh man I %^#$ed up hard, here you deal with this!"
Skaven Grey Seer - "Wait, what? AHHHHH!"

Anyway, feel free to disagree but I see no rules disputes here. Do I think you SHOULD be allowed to transfer it? No, honestly you play with magic you have to deal with the good and the bad, and that involves the not too likely chance of your big expensive toad getting up close and personal with the Realm of Chaos.

-Commodus

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 02:33
never gonna give you up, never gonna let you gooo- :rolleyes:

sarah you are misunderstanding what 'errata' means.

errata is not intended to change the way a rule operates, but to replace a typo or mistake, or reword something so that it is clearer. you would know this if you'd ever actually read an errata and faq, because the two are really quite different.

an example errata entry from the vc errata/faq is:
pg.92 - skeleton warriors, options
spears: 1 point
should be changed to
spears: 1 point per model

in case you also don't know what a faq is, a general example would be:
Q: how do you resolve this situation given these rules?
A: this is how we'd resolve it.

Yes I do know all that basic, stupid information. And they need to write an errata that says "This item can even protect its bearer from a roll of a 2 on the miscast table" before I will let anyone do so.

They tried to make that change in the FAQ and that's why it is ************



*shrug* fair enough, but I'm providing rules and page listing to support my argument. I mean we are asking about following the RAW and the rules as written state that when you roll 1-1 on the miscast table, you Wizard dies, you cant save the wound with Magical Protection (which are Ward Saves that are all listed in the talisman section of any gievn Army books magic item listings) or Special rules like Regeneration. Those are specifically given as things that normally help save a character from harm but cannot be used to protect him from this particular miscast.

This is crazy. It really is. Enchanted items, Magic ARMOUR, talismen, arcane items, they can all provide protection and by being a magic item, offer magical protection. You are reading too much into nothing, and it is really making you look silly. Magical protection could even be a spell that offers a re-roll or ward save or something like that. There is no definition that "magical protection = talisman." That's just bonkers.

Besides, the second part of the statement mentions "special rule" which is about the most general blanket statement possible in my opinion, and covers just about everything.

Spirit
14-07-2009, 02:46
No it doesn't, because GW has bowed to pressure before. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If we make a big enough stink about this they will realize their error and fix it.

They should anyways.

This is so silly, I won't even dignify it with more of a response beyond this snide dismissal.


Firstly, the squeaky wheel only gets oil if it can be heard, this wheel will not because i'm sure loads of people will be nice and quiet.

Secondly, you bring up points which deserve just as much snyde dismissal, so wind your neck in.

Spirit
14-07-2009, 02:48
This is crazy. It really is. Enchanted items, Magic ARMOUR, talismen, arcane items, they can all provide protection and by being a magic item, offer magical protection. You are reading too much into nothing, and it is really making you look silly. Magical protection could even be a spell that offers a re-roll or ward save or something like that. There is no definition that "magical protection = talisman." That's just bonkers.



Case

And

Point.

Your looking silly because its an FAQ, don't use it, be happy, stop moaning, but when others want to use it, deal with it.

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 02:50
I am dealing with it.

I really wish people would not be happy with crap.

rtunian
14-07-2009, 02:50
Yes I do know all that basic, stupid information. And they need to write an errata that says "This item can even protect its bearer from a roll of a 2 on the miscast table" before I will let anyone do so.

well, since you seem to enjoy giving ruleslawyers a bad name (how dare you?! lol), how about this little gem?



in a game of this size and level of complexity there are bound to be certain occasions where a particular situation lies outside the rules as they are written. warhammer players should feel free to improvise where necessary, resolving such situations in a friendly and mutually agreed manner...

when a situation of contention arises, players should agree on a fair and reasonable solution and get on with the game as quickly as possible. the most common way of resolving any disputes is for a player to roll a d6 to see whose interpretation applies that instance

warhammer is a game played between two people who consent to play each other. when you agree to play a game, you agree to settle disputes that arise in the game in the manner described in the most important rule. in other words, you can't simply decide for yourself whether or not a generally agreed upon house rule (which is exactly what official faqs are, as described in earlier post of mine i'm certain you didn't get), and the rules say that you can't. you have to either compromise or, at worst, dice off every time.

sure, sometimes you might play against someone who will bow to your stubbornness. this doesn't mean that you haven't violated the most important rule, because it's only because of their desire to "get on with the game" and "avoid the hassle that you are becoming" that they placate you. they have a right to their interpretation just as you do, and you don't simply have the right to deny them their interpretation. that's precicely what the dice-off contingency is for

Spirit
14-07-2009, 02:53
I am dealing with it.

I really wish people would not be happy with crap.

I really wish people would allow others to come to their own opinions about things, without trying to force me to have one that i dont.

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 02:53
Are my words forcing you to do anything?

Bad words! Bad!

Spirit
14-07-2009, 03:03
Are my words forcing you to do anything?

Bad words! Bad!


I really wish people would allow others to come to their own opinions about things, without trying to force me to have one that i dont.

Not succeeding.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 03:04
This is crazy. It really is. Enchanted items, Magic ARMOUR, talismen, arcane items, they can all provide protection and by being a magic item, offer magical protection.


No they do not. They are magic Items yes, but magic items are subdivided into several categories. And of those categories only Talimans provide magical protection. Magic armour can provide magic protection, however most wizards cannot wear magic armour anyway (with a few exceptions) and in this case, the Slann, cannot wear magic armour so it wouldn't apply to him to begin with. Arcane Items do not provide magic protection, especially none in the Lizardman book. All they do is enhance the bearers magical power and, in the case of Cupped Hands, allow him to turn a bad thing into a good thing.


You are reading too much into nothing, and it is really making you look silly.
Then you may call me captain Goof Ball :D:D


Magical protection could even be a spell that offers a re-roll or ward save or something like that. There is no definition that "magical protection = talisman." That's just bonkers.

A spell that allows one to re-roll a ward save would require the target in question to have purchased a Ward save from the magic items section, all Ward Saves (bareing the occasional Magical Armour Ward save) are Talismans p. 121 BRB.


Besides, the second part of the statement mentions "special rule" which is about the most general blanket statement possible in my opinion, and covers just about everything.

not a genral blanket statement at all. Special rules are either:

a) the ones listed in the BRB p. 94-96
B) listed on the unit itself. In this case p. 43 of the Lizardmen book in the Slann section.

Its hardly a general blanket statement.

Anyway, I got work tomorrow so im hitting the hay, feel free to disagree. You say the FAQ was dumb and overrides the Core Rules. I say it was unnessary to begin with because I see no core rules broken. To each his own, Night.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 03:05
I am dealing with it.

True. But probably not in the best way possible.



not a genral blanket statement at all. Special rules are either:

a) the ones listed in the BRB p. 94-96
B) listed on the unit itself. In this case p. 43 of the Lizardmen book in the Slann section.

Its hardly a general blanket statement.



Be damn careful. Like Magical Attacks, special rules are never defined in any way shape or form. For all you know GW could be about to release another FAQ that says magic item abilities are special rules.

Drachen_Jager
14-07-2009, 05:10
Was just wondering how you decided that the FAQ can't do this. Regardless of who wrote the rule or answered the FAQ GW put their stamp on it. That means its official whether you, or anyone else for that matter, likes it or not. It doesn't mean its right or wrong, and it doesn't mean you can't play it differently in your own games if your opponent agrees to so I really don't see why everyone gets so excited about this. Its the current ruling, it might get changed but i wouldn't hold my breath. It really ain't that bad considering the odds of frequency that it will come up in a game.

"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'."

In other words they are not the rules, they are intended to clarify the rules. In this case the rule was perfectly clear, ergo the FAQ is irrelevant.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 05:17
In other words they are not the rules, they are intended to clarify the rules. In this case the rule was perfectly clear, ergo the FAQ is irrelevant.

Kinda like this whole topic, since nothing forces you to have to use the FAQ's at all.

And if you agree with that and your simply talking about how can people accept an FAQ like the Lizardmen's one, get out of rules and move to general.

Mercules
14-07-2009, 05:54
This is so silly, I won't even dignify it with more of a response beyond this snide dismissal.

Does this loosely translate into, "Hmmm... I can't think of anything pertinent right now."?

Drachen_Jager
14-07-2009, 06:02
Kinda like this whole topic, since nothing forces you to have to use the FAQ's at all.

And if you agree with that and your simply talking about how can people accept an FAQ like the Lizardmen's one, get out of rules and move to general.

No, that doesn't make any sense, this is a place for debating the rules and since the FAQs are intended to help clarify rules they are valid source material in these debates. The issue here is whether they carry the same weight as the RAW and it says in the preamble to the FAQs that they do not, so in this case the FAQ is simply wrong and should be ignored. I don't think the whole Lizardman FAQ should be thrown out or that FAQs should be ignored in general but when they run contrary to the rules the rules take precedence.

Mercules
14-07-2009, 06:22
Why don't we actually look at the rules.

"One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a D6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy Wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6."

So on a 2+, you simply IGNORE the entire miscast. It never happened, the special rule for rolling 1-1 on the Miscast table is never triggered... unless there happens to be an enemy Wizard within line of sight, in which case he gets the 1-1 Miscast.

Basically, you roll the dice and on 1+ you consult the table and apply it to the Slann. On a 2+ you either just ignore it, or consult it and apply it to an enemy Wizard in LoS.

I don't see how this FAQ got that wrong.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 06:32
I don't think the whole Lizardman FAQ should be thrown out or that FAQs should be ignored in general but when they run contrary to the rules the rules take precedence.

The rules always take precedence. The rules take precedence over every single FAQ written, that's the nature of the FAQ's.

Before you can debate rules you must first decide if you are going to use the FAQ's or not. By default most people (if not all) say yes. Then if you disagree on parts of the FAQ, talk to your opponents about it before the game.

The only difference between house rules and the FAQ's is that the FAQ's are available free to everyone in text so they are the same at all times. For this reason people are happy to use them.

So if you don't want to play parts of the FAQ or the FAQ at all, simply take it up with your opponent before game as it's safe to assume that by default people play by the FAQ's. If you both disagree on not using the FAQ's in full then it's not really that different to disagreeing on certain house rules.

People are free to play the game how they want. I won't play against someone not following the FAQ, that's my decision.

But this still isn't a rules debate because you either
a) accept the FAQ and debate how to handle parts of it
or
b) don't accept parts of the FAQ (or any of it) at which point there's no point in debating the legality of the rulings in it. Instead you should be focusing on coming up with another form of house rule or some other form of play regarding the issue in the FAQ you don't agree with.

This thread isn't about a and really there's been none of b either.

WLBjork
14-07-2009, 07:58
And of those categories only Talimans provide magical protection.

The rules don't say this.


A spell that allows one to re-roll a ward save would require the target in question to have purchased a Ward save from the magic items section, all Ward Saves (baring the occasional Magical Armour Ward save) are Talismans p. 121 BRB.

They don't say this either.




not a genral blanket statement at all. Special rules are either:

a) the ones listed in the BRB p. 94-96
B) listed on the unit itself. In this case p. 43 of the Lizardmen book in the Slann section.

Plenty of other special rules. Many Magic Items have special rules. Armies have special rules. Spells have special rules. Not just units and those in the BRB on pages 94-96.

How about Psycology? The effects from Psychology modify normal behaviour, so are a form of special rule.

Spirit
14-07-2009, 11:10
"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'."

In other words they are not the rules, they are intended to clarify the rules. In this case the rule was perfectly clear, ergo the FAQ is irrelevant.

If the rule was so clear, why was opinion divided on it and why did they make the FAQ in the first place?

The FAQ can certainly be ignored, but it is far from irrelevant.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 12:25
The rules don't say this.
Yes, under the description of different categories of magic items in the BRB


They don't say this either.

Not completely no, fair enough but the rules for Ward saves are classified as magic protection.



Plenty of other special rules. Many Magic Items have special rules. Armies have special rules. Spells have special rules. Not just units and those in the BRB on pages 94-96.
Magic item rules do indeed have special rules. However the rules for magic Items also specifically say they take precident over the BRB. SO in the case of Cupped hands it can transfer the 1-1. Army special rules would be listed in the unit entry and are labelled "special rules". Spells have spell effects that we generally label as "special rules" though they are just spell effects.



How about Psycology? The effects from Psychology modify normal behaviour, so are a form of special rule.

Psychology rules only ever become special rules if they are listed in the "Special Rules" section of a unit entry in any given Army book. FOllowing the Lizardmen example, Carnosaurs cause Terror, a psychology rule, because it as listed as a "Special Rule" in their unit entry.

The confusion comes I think because we as gamers label EVERYTHING as special rules when really, as hard and fast definitions, go Special Rules are actually quite specific.

-Captain Goof Ball :angel:

Da GoBBo
14-07-2009, 12:30
[I]sarah you are misunderstanding what 'errata' means.

errata is not intended to change the way a rule operates, but to replace a typo or mistake, or reword something so that it is clearer. you would know this if you'd ever actually read an errata and faq, because the two are really quite different.

No, that's not true at all. It's the other way around. A FAQ is a rulesclarification and is not supposed to alter the way a rule works. It is supposed to clearify an existing rule. An errata on the other hand can indeed be used to correct a typo, but will also allways change the way a rule works. In my opinion this particular FAQ is altering the rule, and is therefor not a FAQ. A lot of FAQ's out there should be erata's because they alter the way a rule works, and therefor a lot of FAQ's should be disregarded. Your own example supports this by the way.

As for what is and what is not magical protection or a magical attack, if a magical source hurts ye I would call it a magical attack (unless specificly said otherwise) and if a magical source prevents you from being harmed I would call that magical protection. Not counting an arcane item as magical protection reeks after ruleslawering if ye ask me (which ye don't have to of course ;) ).

Griefbringer
14-07-2009, 12:41
However the rules for magic Items also specifically say they take precident over the BRB.

Actually, they don't quite say that, they say:

"In cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules."

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 12:42
Not counting an arcane item as magical protection reeks after ruleslawering if ye ask me (which ye don't have to of course ;) ).

:cries::cries: No! What have I become!!!!

Yeah I get what you mean, but I still dont see Cupped Hands as protection.. Just playing Hot Potato with a screw up.

Agree to disagree?

TheDarkDaff
14-07-2009, 13:34
Well, if we all read a little further in the FAQ, we'll learn that Cupped Hands works like this:

1)Slann miscasts
2)roll to use Cupped Hands if Slann chooses. Slann does so and a 2+ is rolled.
3)enemy wizard rolls on THEIR miscast table and suffers the results

Or we could all decide not to use the FAQs as they are filled with such gems as the one being discussed and others. FAQs create more problems than they solve. Stick to the Errata and your own common sense.

You need to read the FAQ again. The order it gives us is:

1) Slaan miscasts
2) Roll on miscast table to determine result
3) Decide if you will use cupped hands
4) Use enemy miscast tables (if they have one)


Declare the use of Cupped Hands of the Old Ones after determining that a miscast has occurred and rolling on the miscast table.

This is even backed up by the ruling just above that the Slaan gets to cast his spell with Irresistable force then the enemy wizard forgets the spell. Your table actually makes sense but would invalidate the answer at the top of the column.

I think the dumber ruling for cupped hands is at the top of the page about results of 12. Either take the miscast or pass it on rather than this half and half garbage. The 3 answers work in isolation but when you combine them they contradict each other (how can you determine the result of a miscast before passing it on if you are required to roll on a different miscast table for the enemy?).

Staurikosaurus
14-07-2009, 13:54
Sun Standard of Chotec - offers protection, not a talisman
Standard of Arcane Warding - offers protection, not a talisman
Mark of Tzeentch - offers protection, not a talisman
Mark of Nurgle - offers protection, not a talisman
Infernal Puppet - offers protection, not a talisman
Blasted Standard - offers protection, not a talisman

or the corollary

Blasphemous Amulet - talisman that offers no protection

Your "rule" is a misreading; I learned this by skimming a couple of army books in 5 min, though to be honest I didn't believe you to begin with and this is more for your benefit Commodus

rtunian
14-07-2009, 14:17
i've only read the 7th errata, the o&g errata and the vc errata. sorry, i haven't read the other army books erratas.

can anyone refer to an actual errata entry that does anything besides clarify a point or fix a typo? can anyone point to an actual errata entry that literally changes the way a rule works?

if not, then i think this mallarchy about "oh only erratas can change rules and not faqs" needs to be flushed. adding "per model" is not a fuggin change to the rules gdi lol-

also people are ignoring what a house rule does, which is funny to me. house rules change the way you play the game. faq's are listed as house rules on the gw website. a = b, b = c, but somehow a /= c in the opinions here lol... help me understand your logic people...

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 14:34
can anyone refer to an actual errata entry that does anything besides clarify a point or fix a typo? can anyone point to an actual errata entry that literally changes the way a rule works?

You mean like the TK FAQ letting you use general's leadership against the Casket? Or like the DE one saying that the magical range weapon doesn't do magical attacks (and yet our does even though it's treated as a bow???)

rtunian
14-07-2009, 14:35
no, those are faq's.
i want an errata entry that changes a rule.

that is what so many people are hung up on here. "oh oh only errata's can change rule not faqs!"

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 14:56
People need to remember that the FAQ is not breaking the rules, the magic item is (and magic items that break the rules are common). The FAQ is just saying when the item takes effect (after the miscast result instead of before). In other words: clarifying how the magic item works.

You can say what you want about GW's decision (good or bad) from the FAQ; however, no errata is needed because the FAQ clarified how (or more importantly when) the item worked and did not change how the magic item worked.

Now let us get back to arguing about if the FAQ should have stated to transfer the miscast before or after rolling on the miscast table. :-)

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 15:01
can anyone refer to an actual errata entry that does anything besides clarify a point or fix a typo? can anyone point to an actual errata entry that literally changes the way a rule works?

Only errata I can think of off the top of my head is the change to how magic resistance works. The errata changed "affected" to "targeted." While you could argue this just clarified the rule, that errata changed which spells where affected by magic resistance.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 15:28
Oh, an erreta to change the rules? Best damn example is Mark of Nurgle in the Warriors of Chaos Book and also Magic Resistance.

nosferatu1001
14-07-2009, 15:33
Second on those two - the errata for MoN totally changes the way it works, from both-ways to one-way....

Lordmonkey
14-07-2009, 16:02
So... where does this leave Cupped Hands of the Old Ones?

Are some choosing to ignore the FAQ and others follow it? Doesn't this basically make a GW FAQ pointless?

Griefbringer
14-07-2009, 16:14
can anyone refer to an actual errata entry that does anything besides clarify a point or fix a typo? can anyone point to an actual errata entry that literally changes the way a rule works?


6th edition used to have quite some errata that seriously changed things - I think the most drastic one was the grapeshot rules for the cannon. But there was also a bunch of other stuff, like the point cost of DE spearman.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 18:29
Very Well I will yield the point. I could go on :evilgrin: But I will still say I see no rules violation. Since if Cupped Hands was meant to not work on a roll of double 1 it would mention it like it mentions it does not work on a roll of 5 or 6.

Now to discuss the FAQ answer that we should all be annoyed with



Now let us get back to arguing about if the FAQ should have stated to transfer the miscast before or after rolling on the miscast table. :-)

Seriously! How did they come up with THAT ruling? Thats really what we should be up in arms about.

Da GoBBo
14-07-2009, 18:31
Your looking silly because its an FAQ, don't use it, be happy, stop moaning, but when others want to use it, deal with it.

Just a question in relation to this particular FAQ. Would you have ever played it according to the FAQ if it didn't exist? I'm guessing not, so where does that leave the FAQ? The FAQ changes the rule and I'm still of the opinion a FAQ is not supposed to do that.

I looked up the claim that only talismans offer magical protection. The section says "Talismans, charms, amulets and wards are tokens of magical protection. A character cannot have more than one talisman."
This merely means a talisman probably gives magical protection, but since there is no true definition of what magical protection is, we can only assume. I think you assume wrong if ye think only talismans give magical protection.

edit: Damn, yielded allready :) Ah well, it's allways nice to stab one in the back.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2009, 18:43
edit: Damn, yielded allready :) Ah well, it's allways nice to stab one in the back.

Well you are a gobbo, I expect nothing less!

rtunian
14-07-2009, 18:54
ooh, he gets +2 str on that too... sneaky sneaky skewerer!

Mercules
14-07-2009, 18:56
Just a question in relation to this particular FAQ. Would you have ever played it according to the FAQ if it didn't exist? I'm guessing not, so where does that leave the FAQ? The FAQ changes the rule and I'm still of the opinion a FAQ is not supposed to do that.


Actually... I would have.. I looked at the rule and it states IGNORE the miscast. It then goes on to say if a Wizard is in LoS he gets it instead.

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 19:03
Just a question in relation to this particular FAQ. Would you have ever played it according to the FAQ if it didn't exist? I'm guessing not, so where does that leave the FAQ? The FAQ changes the rule and I'm still of the opinion a FAQ is not supposed to do that.

There are always multiple ways to interpret a rule / item / etc; there would be no need for FAQ's or a Rules Discussion forum otherwise. Have you ever seen this place when a new book is released? Armchair generals FTW!

Just because a person reads the function of an item one way (and they and their friends agree to play it that way) does not mean the rules change when the FAQ is released and tells them they misinterpreted the item. All it means is GW needs to be more clear when writing rules so less people misinterpret the rules which can cause confusion until a FAQ is released.

Da GoBBo
14-07-2009, 19:05
ooh, he gets +2 str on that too... sneaky sneaky skewerer!

Hehe, they should make a FAQ of this.

"if my goblin, which has no apparent related special rules, attacks someone in the back, does it get a bonus besides +2CR?"

"Sure, C times R equals S, goblins get a +2 Strength bonus for being übernitwits, couldn't you tell?"

edit:

Just because a person reads the function of an item one way (and they and their friends agree to play it that way) does not mean the rules change when the FAQ is released and tells them they misinterpreted the item. All it means is GW needs to be more clear when writing rules so less people misinterpret the rules which can cause confusion until a FAQ is released.

Oh yes, I agree. But I just can't understand people would read it as written in the FAQ in this particular case, hench my question. Besides, a lot of people seem to support the FAQ on account of it being a FAQ, not because it makes sense.

Griefbringer
14-07-2009, 19:34
I thought the super-back-stab rule only applied to hobgoblins, not to normal goblins!

jaxom
14-07-2009, 19:55
Maybe it was FAQ'd, Grief. You just haven't been using that FAQ.

rtunian
14-07-2009, 20:42
sigh :rolleyes:

goblins have a magic item that gives +2 str on the rear attack (backstabber blade). i figured, since da gobbo is such a character, that he probably has a few magic items on him. has nothing to do with the real game :p

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 20:50
Oh yes, I agree. But I just can't understand people would read it as written in the FAQ in this particular case, hench my question. Besides, a lot of people seem to support the FAQ on account of it being a FAQ, not because it makes sense.

Think I am confused now...

Why would people not read the FAQ as written? Before the FAQ was released people asked when cupped hands took effect: before or after rolling on the miscast table. GW answered the question in the FAQ (answer: after).

People support the FAQ because it gives players a common guideline to play games with. Not because they agree with the FAQ. That should be a given, after all if there was no difference of opinion there would not be a reason for the FAQ to begin with.

What needs to be discussed: should the miscast be transferred before or after the player roles on the miscast table. Not what rule was broken because of cupped hands. After all magic items break or bend the rules in the rulebook to some extent already. So arguing a magic item breaks the rules is like arguing that ice is cold... that is to be expected.

Da GoBBo
14-07-2009, 21:26
Think I am confused now...

Why would people not read the FAQ as written?

Ah yes, it could have been worded more clearly. Even though it has only been asked ones, I will release an FAQ on the matter. As opposed to usuall FAQ's, this one is perfectly legit and if one does not consider it true to the original text, one should disregard the original text, stop whining like a GoBBo, and regard this FAQ as the official ruling/statement.

Q: "When Da GoBBo, almighty stabber of backs and, well, a bit anoying from time to time, stubborn as hell and sometimes downright unpleasant, used the wording "But I just can't understand people would read it as written in the FAQ in this particular case" what did he refer to by writing "...read it as ..."
A: "By "it" the weedy one meant the BRB. In this particular example he explained he cannot understand people that read the brb, and explain the matter discussed on this thread the way the FAQ explains it."

Q: "I don't understand the previous, eleborate!"
A: "He considers the FAQ to be a wrong explanation of the brb. He thinks the brb forbids the use of the arcane item in question. The FAQ allows it and is thus conflicting with the rule it is supposed to enlighten. He cannot see why people would read both brb and FAQ, and not see the contradiction. He thus cannot understand people would read the rule in the brb and understand it as it is written in the FAQ."


People support the FAQ because it gives players a common guideline to play games with. Not because they agree with the FAQ. That should be a given, after all if there was no difference of opinion there would not be a reason for the FAQ to begin with.

:) I guess that's what I'm saying. Why is this FAQ even there? Second question, why is the FAQ conflicting with the BRB?

I think it's stupid to agree to FAQ you don't agree with. Not even for the purpose of a common guideline. The brb is your common guideline and I think it's perfectly clear on this matter.

Condottiere
14-07-2009, 21:28
I'm satisfied - Cupped Hands takes place after the Slann rolls on the Miscast Table; on that 3% chance it happens, my Lizzie opposing number may not be.

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 22:10
:) I guess that's what I'm saying. Why is this FAQ even there? Second question, why is the FAQ conflicting with the BRB?

Easy questions to answer.

1. The FAQ is there to give an answer to commonly asked questions because a rule was not described well in the army book or rulebook. In the case of cupped hands GW answered the question: when do you use cupped hands, before or after you role on the miscast table? Answer: after.

2. The FAQ does not conflict with the BrB. All the FAQ does is clarify how the magic item works. If any rule was broken, the magic item broke the rule, not the FAQ.

So we are back to square one again. The Lizardmen FAQ did not change any rules in the BrB (Think ASF in HE FAQ, which got rewritten because the ASF rule was changed not clarified).

Just as a reminder, Army books trump the BrB when they differ in rules. The Stegadon is the perfect example of this. A ridden monster is supposed to be the sole target of impact hits; however, the stegadon gets impact hits randomized. Army book > BrB when rules differ.

Since rules differ between cupped hands and the BrB which rule takes precedence? I will give you a hint: cupped hands is inside an army book...

edit: forgot to add...

P.S. enjoyed your FAQ write up, made me giggle like the Pillsbury dough boy...

TheDarkDaff
14-07-2009, 22:38
The Faq does however contradict the Lizardmen Armybook.


One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a D6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy Wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6.


Q. Page 102. For Cupped Hands of the Old
Ones, how do you solve a result of a 12 on the
Miscast table?
A. The Slann casts the spell with irresistible
force. The wizard to whom the miscast is
applied can only ‘forget’ the spell that was
miscast if he knows it himself. For example, if a
Slann miscast the Burning Head spell from the
Lore of Fire and the miscast was applied to an
Empire Fire Wizard in his line of sight, and a
12 was rolled on the miscast table, the Fire
Wizard would forget the spell if he knew it.
The spell being cast with irrestable force is part of the miscast the cupped hands tells you to ignore:wtf:. The way i see it is the best way to resolve cupped hands is the following.

1) Slaan miscasts
2) Decides if they want to use cupped hands
3) Roll on appropriate miscast table
4) All effects of the miscast are passed on (ignoring a 5-6 Result)

Evil-Lite
14-07-2009, 23:11
The Faq does however contradict the Lizardmen Armybook.

The spell being cast with irrestable force is part of the miscast the cupped hands tells you to ignore:wtf:. The way i see it is the best way to resolve cupped hands is the following.

1) Slaan miscasts
2) Decides if they want to use cupped hands
3) Roll on appropriate miscast table
4) All effects of the miscast are passed on (ignoring a 5-6 Result)

But does the FAQ contradict the army book or clarify how the magic item works?

What happens if you role a 12 on the miscast table and there are no casters in range to transfer the miscast to? The miscast is ignored. You do not get to cast the spell with irresistible force, you also do not lose the spell. Check, no FAQ needed.

However, if there is an enemy caster in range what happens on the result of a 12 (since only a 5 or 6 can not be passed on to an enemy caster)? The FAQ answered this question, the miscast is no longer ignored because the enemy caster suffers the result. But nobody knew how to handle a result of a 12. Now we know.

So did the FAQ contradict the Army book or clarify how the magic item worked?

As to how you think cupped hands should work. I agree, it would cause a lot less problems if that is how GW would have ruled on the issue. But they did not.

Da GoBBo
14-07-2009, 23:15
P.S. enjoyed your FAQ write up, made me giggle like the Pillsbury dough boy...

:) Sweet! Thanks.


2. The FAQ does not conflict with the BrB. All the FAQ does is clarify how the magic item works. If any rule was broken, the magic item broke the rule, not the FAQ.

But does the items rule break the rule for miscastresult snakeeyes? "One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a D6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy Wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6."
I can't find anything here that circumvents the 1-1 result stating magical protection can't help you out here. This brings us back the question whether this arcane item is magical protection. I think it is and therefor you can't use it versus the 1-1 result. If the FAQ says you can, they probably assume the item does not count magical protection. I would like to get some brb proof for that. It can't be found. There is no rule stating what magical protection is however, so we can only guess. My guess is any form of protection from a magic source is magical protection, which would make the arcane item useless against snakeeyes.

Sarah S
14-07-2009, 23:38
It is a magic item, so if you roll snake-eyes, and the item tells you to ignore it, the item can not help you, so you die.

Every item should be useless on snake-eyes. That's the whole point of that result on the miscast table! That's why that entry goes out of its way to say that no magic item or special rule can save you!

rtunian
14-07-2009, 23:45
... and we're full circle :)

Necromancy Black
14-07-2009, 23:48
"One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a D6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy Wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6."


Plenty of room for ignoring a 2+ on the miscast table right here. This makes the FAQ a clarification (on this question at least)

Now where the hell does the answer about a 12 come from?

Condottiere
14-07-2009, 23:51
... and we're full circle :)Be honest, you did expect a revolution.

Skyth
15-07-2009, 00:07
There is nothing wrong with the FAQ in this case...It follows the RAW. Nothing can prevent a wizard from taking the effect of a 2 miscast once it goes into effect. If things happen before the miscast goes into place (Transfer, reroll, modify die result) then all's good.

The question is, since it requires LoS, can it be used from inside a Temple Guard unit? If he only has LoS while casting spells, does this apply from the miscast table also?

Evil-Lite
15-07-2009, 00:12
:) Sweet! Thanks.
you are welcome.




But does the items rule break the rule for miscastresult snakeeyes? "One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a D6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy Wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6."
I can't find anything here that circumvents the 1-1 result stating magical protection can't help you out here. This brings us back the question whether this arcane item is magical protection. I think it is and therefor you can't use it versus the 1-1 result. If the FAQ says you can, they probably assume the item does not count magical protection. I would like to get some brb proof for that. It can't be found. There is no rule stating what magical protection is however, so we can only guess. My guess is any form of protection from a magic source is magical protection, which would make the arcane item useless against snakeeyes.


Lucky for us GW clarified clasped hands in the FAQ stating that snake-eyes on the miscast table can be transferred from the Slann to an enemy caster in range. There is no reason to try and find a loophole stating you can not. Because even if there is one (as small as it may or may not be), the army book trumps the BrB if the rules contradict or disagree with one another. That means you will need to find your rule to disallow the cupped hands effecting a result of 2 in the Lizardmen army book. Since that is the book which allows cupped hands to trump the snake-eyes miscast rule. Good luck on that endeavor.

Dungeon_Lawyer
15-07-2009, 00:16
No it doesn't, because GW has bowed to pressure before. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If we make a big enough stink about this they will realize their error and fix it.

They should anyways.

This is so silly, I won't even dignify it with more of a response beyond this snide dismissal.

good luck to you!-Ill be squeaking in the other direction. May the squeakiest wheel get the grease! Oh wait-I already got it....:cool:

And its quite inane to dismiss a thread you started once you realized the feedback you hath received in thread is less than what you imagined for your argument. Thats a major loss of "street cred yo!"

Bac5665
15-07-2009, 01:30
There is nothing wrong with the FAQ in this case...It follows the RAW. Nothing can prevent a wizard from taking the effect of a 2 miscast once it goes into effect. If things happen before the miscast goes into place (Transfer, reroll, modify die result) then all's good.

This.

I thought we had this conversation a few months ago and came to this conclusion then too.

Nocculum
15-07-2009, 01:38
Skyth's got it in the bag, it's how we've played it, it causes too many headaches for it to be the other way around!

Sarah S
15-07-2009, 03:34
There is nothing wrong with the FAQ in this case...It follows the RAW. Nothing can prevent a wizard from taking the effect of a 2 miscast once it goes into effect. If things happen before the miscast goes into place (Transfer, reroll, modify die result) then all's good.

The question is, since it requires LoS, can it be used from inside a Temple Guard unit? If he only has LoS while casting spells, does this apply from the miscast table also?

So we can use re-rolls, and other modifiers to avoid it as well?

So the Warpstone Charm can avoid it?
The Infernal Puppet can avoid it?
Teclis can avoid it?
Tzeentch's Will can avoid it?

I guess no protection from magic items and special rules means a lot of protection from lots of different magic items and special rules... :wtf:

Necromancy Black
15-07-2009, 03:46
The Infernal Puppet can avoid it?


You obviously haven't read all the rules your using for examples and so I'm going to assume your just blowing smoke.

The Puppet specifically states that it can change a 2. Read up the rules before trying to make a point.

decker_cky
15-07-2009, 03:46
And that's why a FAQ answer can't change a rule.

It has to be an errata.

Beasts of chaos players begs to differ. Along with any number of other rules changes that were found in FAQs.

Yes...the answers for this were stupid. But really....it's not THAT bad, and it holds the rules together in it's own way. I don't consider it any worse than the "Monstrous character are monsters but aren't affected by things targeting monsters" FAQ that was tossed out. Same thing. It was clear that either they were or weren't monsters. GW decides to take another direction entirely.

Sarah S
15-07-2009, 04:08
You obviously haven't read all the rules your using for examples and so I'm going to assume your just blowing smoke.

The Puppet specifically states that it can change a 2. Read up the rules before trying to make a point.

How about you try reading:



A Sorcerer with an Infernal Puppet may opt to modify any rolls on the Miscast table made by any Wizard on the battlefield by up to D3. For instance an enemy wizard miscasts, and the Puppet's owner rolls a 2 on his D3, allowing the Chaos player to add or subtract up to 2 from the miscast result the enemy Wizard rolled.

Pot, meet kettle. Note that the original sense of this phrase, which I now invoke, did not refer to a situation where both parties to the exchange share the same characteristic (in this case a failure of reading comprehension). In its original meaning, the pot went in the fire and so was black on all sides. The kettle went on the coals and so was black on the bottom, but shiny and reflective on the surface, so that the pot sees only its own reflection. This means that the quality that the first party ascribed to the second party is not only the very quality that the first party has, but one which the second party lacks. There has been a failure of reading comprehension here. It was not my failure. Good of you to point it out though.

None of that crap should be able to modify, edit, avoid or change a 2 on the miscast table. Not without specific exception, and a FAQ is not good enough.

EDIT: Note that Teclis may actually be able to avoid it by NOT ROLLING ON THE TABLE at all. Depends on your interpretation, but that is the one I lean toward. Each and every time you actually roll on the table and get an actual snake-eyes, it should be BOOM for the Wizard. I have seen some good-natured High Elf players roll on the table to see if a snake-eyes comes up, fully ready to remove their Teclis - their reasoning is that he ignores the effect, not the miscast itself and if the effect of the miscast is a snake-eyes then his ability is insufficient to avoid it.

Necromancy Black
15-07-2009, 04:34
Hahaha, I'll pay that one. Now i have a WoC player who needs to be killed. Man, I read that rule 3 times over.

I do agree with you that nothing should be able to stop a 2 on the miscast table.

But I'm playing the FAQ. You can't stop me and I can't make you.

I still don't see the point of this thread apart from bitching (apart form me making stupid mistakes and having a good read of people arguing)

Evil-Lite
15-07-2009, 04:41
Teclis can avoid it?


How many Teclis players do you know that role on the miscast table just in case they role snake-eyes? Every tournament I have been to, every friendly game I have played, every battle report I have read and the grand total is still zero.

Sarah S
15-07-2009, 04:44
I said I did, but it was not how I would play it myself. It is possible to go either way on Teclis, but my gut feeling is that no roll is made. But like I said, if you interpret the "effect" to be what you roll on the table, then you would have to roll, and explode on snake-eyes.

I have seen it done by two different players at large events, so it's not that uncommon and it's not unique.

nosferatu1001
15-07-2009, 09:48
The words for Puppet do say they can modify any roll on the table, would htat not be sufficient to override a 2?

TheDarkDaff
15-07-2009, 11:09
But does the FAQ contradict the army book or clarify how the magic item works?

What happens if you role a 12 on the miscast table and there are no casters in range to transfer the miscast to? The miscast is ignored. You do not get to cast the spell with irresistible force, you also do not lose the spell. Check, no FAQ needed.

However, if there is an enemy caster in range what happens on the result of a 12 (since only a 5 or 6 can not be passed on to an enemy caster)? The FAQ answered this question, the miscast is no longer ignored because the enemy caster suffers the result. But nobody knew how to handle a result of a 12. Now we know.

So did the FAQ contradict the Army book or clarify how the magic item worked?

Contradict. The Cupped hands say you ignore the miscast and an enemy wizard in range and LoS suffers the effects. Casting the spell with irresistable force and forgeting it are both "effects" of the miscast that the Cupped hands tell you to pass on. The FAQ tells you to only pass on 1 of the 2 effects when cupped hands tells you to pass on all the effects.


The question is, since it requires LoS, can it be used from inside a Temple Guard unit? If he only has LoS while casting spells, does this apply from the miscast table also?
That is genius sir! Is transferring a miscast considered spell casting. Would have to be a resounding no. So Cupped Hands would only be useful on a Slaan on his own or in a units front rank.

maaksel
15-07-2009, 13:59
You act as if this is the first time they fubar'd a rule up... Welcome to the real world.

N810
15-07-2009, 14:29
"Nothing can prevent a wizard from taking the effect of a 2 miscast"

if you transferr the roll... a wizard is still taking the full effect of a 2 miscast...

something to think about.

Tuch
15-07-2009, 14:33
The question is, since it requires LoS, can it be used from inside a Temple Guard unit? If he only has LoS while casting spells, does this apply from the miscast table also?

Since he has to be casting in order to miscast I would tend to believe that it is happening at the same time with the same LOS he has when casting. Of course I'm sure 50% of the people will agree that he does and the rest that he doesn't so they can argue about it for the next 2 weeks. :angel:

TheDarkDaff
15-07-2009, 14:33
You act as if this is the first time they fubar'd a rule up... Welcome to the real world.

Stuffing up in the past is no excuse for stuffing up again. If this childish comment is aimed at my post then you should have a read of the thread (and try growing up a bit). I was responding to Evil-lite and his points by trying to explain my position.

Lordmonkey
15-07-2009, 16:15
So the conclusion of all of this hinges essentially upon whether an FAQ is considered 'official'.

I know that in every tournament i've been to, the FAQ's stick despite daft rulings such as this. At the end of the day, it's a common set of answers that all can refer to and is most useful in situations where players barely know one another.

If you are playing in you're living room, feel free to ignore the FAQ (or part thereof). Roll D8's if you want to. Go crazy. The next Lizardman general you play in a public event can and will use the official FAQ and they're only being fair in doing so.

Da GoBBo
15-07-2009, 19:38
I'v got another question for some people. We all try to play by the rules I hope, and some parts are very vague. To avoid discussions during the game, these FAQ's have been released to clarify certain unclear situations that often arise. This is nice, I like that. GW often scews up with their books and thus they often screw up with their FAQ's as well. Why don't lots of you ever discuss a FAQ? "Hey, I don't like the FAQ and don't agree with it, but I do play with it." What sort of crap is that? A FAQ is supposed to clear things up. If it doesn't, disregard it or try to make a better one. Most arguments I heard in favour of allowing the cupped hands to reflect a 1-1 result is "because the FAQ says so". Every rule in the brb gets turned upsidedown on this forum, but a FAQ is holy. :wtf:

Mercules
15-07-2009, 20:27
Don't look at me, I was defending the FAQ without resorting to the FAQ. Self referencing logic is never valid. "Why is so-and-so infallible?" "Well, he said he is and he is never wrong." ????

Da GoBBo
15-07-2009, 21:16
You defended so indeed :D. Please note I pointed the question at some and lots of people, not all.

Maybe I'm missing something. I thought it was said the item kicks in after the roll on the miscast table. I say it can't help you out then since nothing can. I can find no ruling in the lizardmen book overulling this. If it kicks in before you roll on the table, I say it works and the other spellcaster, even a slann with the cupped hands, is helpless. That's pretty sweet actually. Not that the cupped hands could help versus a redirected miscast anyway....

Drachen_Jager
15-07-2009, 21:16
Since he has to be casting in order to miscast I would tend to believe that it is happening at the same time with the same LOS he has when casting. Of course I'm sure 50% of the people will agree that he does and the rest that he doesn't so they can argue about it for the next 2 weeks. :angel:

Maybe they'll put that in a FAQ?

Da GoBBo
15-07-2009, 21:22
Question, I thought slanns could not miscast, so whats the use of this item?

edit: rephrase question. I thought a slann could not miscast, which would make the item rather useless. In what cases can a slann not miscast?

N810
15-07-2009, 21:26
In 7th edition Slann Miscast like everyone ealse.
(excetp lord Kroak and Lord Maz)

eyeolas
15-07-2009, 23:33
another example, can you use general's leadership vs casket of souls. The FaQ answer, yes, the RaW answer, definately no (you may use the general's leadership when YOU make a ld based test, not when your opponent rolls dice and subtracts your leedership)

a third example, the empire flagelants gaining hatred due to martyrdom in the 2nd or further round of combat, whether they can use the re rolls. FaQ, yes, RaW, no (it isn't the first round of combat no matter how you want to think it)


This issue isn't new, FaQs tend to be prety bad at answering questions, as so many more are raised


As for the question at hand, I'd personally say that the toad goes pop, as the rule is 'the wizard is annihilated and immediately removed as a casualty, regardless of any protective magic item or special rule he may have' (which is slightly different to N810's quote. Mine's from the SRB so it may be different...)


As a side note, I seem to remember the 2 miscast being reworded in the brb errata, or am I making things up?

(forgive me if any of this has turned up before in this thread, I didn't read much of it)

Necromancy Black
15-07-2009, 23:35
So the conclusion of all of this hinges essentially upon whether an FAQ is considered 'official'.

I know that in every tournament i've been to, the FAQ's stick despite daft rulings such as this. At the end of the day, it's a common set of answers that all can refer to and is most useful in situations where players barely know one another.

If you are playing in you're living room, feel free to ignore the FAQ (or part thereof). Roll D8's if you want to. Go crazy. The next Lizardman general you play in a public event can and will use the official FAQ and they're only being fair in doing so.

This.

Also whoever thinks that FAQ's never get talked about are wrong. The reason they get talked about less is that usually they have a clear ruling instead of an unclear one (even if it appears to be utter ********). Unclear rules generate a lot of questions and answers, clearer rulings generate less. And usually just more complaints.

Staurikosaurus
16-07-2009, 04:21
The next Lizardman general you play in a public event can and will use the official FAQ and they're only being fair in doing so.

Not if the next Lizardmen general is me. I prefer to follow the printed rule and errata, rather than an FAQ written by a freelancer whom had difficulties reading the Lizardmen army book and main rulebook.

If a rules dispute occurs, we'll consult the rulebook and relevant army books and come to an agreement.

Evil-Lite
16-07-2009, 12:12
Contradict. The Cupped hands say you ignore the miscast and an enemy wizard in range and LoS suffers the effects. Casting the spell with irresistable force and forgeting it are both "effects" of the miscast that the Cupped hands tell you to pass on. The FAQ tells you to only pass on 1 of the 2 effects when cupped hands tells you to pass on all the effects.

Q: When a 12 is rolled on the miscast table what happens if the miscast is transferred to an enemy caster?

Possible answers could be (let me know if I left any out):

1) Nothing happens. No spell is cast, no spell is lost.
2) The enemy caster chooses a spell (or randomize). That spell is cast with irresistible force then lost.
3) The enemy caster gets to cast a spell of his choice (or randomize). No ill effects.
4) The enemy caster gets to cast the spell the Slann miscast on. Enemy caster will lose the spell if they knew the spell.
5) The enemy caster can only cast the spell if they already knew the spell. Spell is lost.
6) The Slann casts the spell and the enemy player loses the spell if known.
7) Role a D6 who ever gets highest wins the game.

Regardless of which option GW selected there could be arguments for or against. We know what to do now though. Before hand? Unclear. Know? Clear. Hence clarified the rules. Remember, the FAQ did not break the rules. The item does.

Evil-Lite
16-07-2009, 12:31
Not if the next Lizardmen general is me. I prefer to follow the printed rule and errata, rather than an FAQ written by a freelancer whom had difficulties reading the Lizardmen army book and main rulebook.

If a rules dispute occurs, we'll consult the rulebook and relevant army books and come to an agreement.


Regardless if the FAQ was written by Bobo the monkey. GW authorized the FAQ when they published it. The FAQ is official and any tournament that uses GW rulings will side with the FAQ (If they agree or not, and trust me there are a lot of rulings people do not agree with in the multiple FAQ's).

Why will the tournament organization side with the FAQ you ask? Because when a player is creating an army list to take to the tournament they will expect the organization to follow the guidelines GW has published (the FAQ being part of the guidelines) and create an army list accordingly. To do differently would be cheating the player, without prior notification of course. And we all know the best way to get repeat business is for players to feel like they have been cheated by the tournament organization...

Condottiere
16-07-2009, 12:36
We need to feel that rules and clarifications that we follow are published by an impartial source.

Staurikosaurus
16-07-2009, 21:40
The FAQ is official

That's funny, their own website says it isn't

N810
16-07-2009, 23:25
The FAQ is Better Than Nothing

Which is what we had before. :p

Sarah S
16-07-2009, 23:32
No it's not. At least "nothing" made sense and wouldn't cause arguments when someone comes in waving some stupid piece of paper covered in nonsense.

N810
16-07-2009, 23:39
Come on there must be at least ruling you agree with...
(go ahead and re-read it)

Dokushin
17-07-2009, 04:50
No it's not. At least "nothing" made sense and wouldn't cause arguments or allow official rulings in tournaments or other official play when someone comes in waving some stupid piece of paper covered in nonsense endorsed and produced by the very same company that produces the game you're playing in the first place.

FTFY.

By the way, I've decided that that business about only being able to bring one of each type of magic item is junk -- the page it's on in the BRB is clearly wrong, so no one wave that page full of nonsense in my face when I take plaque, cube, and cupped on my Slann! So glad we've come to this understanding.

Staurikosaurus
17-07-2009, 05:04
No it isn't. Perhaps to some people it may be better than the alternative but something is not always better than nothing.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
17-07-2009, 20:16
And that's why a FAQ answer can't change a rule.

It has to be an errata.

The Cupped Hands does not say it overrides a 2 on the Miscast table. Either rewrite its rules in an errata so that the army book DOES "trump" the rulebook, or change the FAQ answer that has no basis in the rules.

Of course the Cupped Hands overrides a 2 on the miscast table. I can't see how any person could interpret it any other way. The Cupped Hands does not change the effect of the miscast at all, just who it is occurring to. Thus, the wizard is still wiped out, but the wizard is no longer the Slaan [or other bearer of the Cupped Hands] but instead a wizard within its LOS. There is no violation of the rule at all. GW got it right.

[Note the above post was written in an inflammatory style meant to match the originally poster. I do see how people could believe the FAQ is wrong, but would like to point out there are probably a similar number of people who never even thought the question would come up because the Cupped Hands obviously overrode the miscast the table].

Note* When I first read the item it always made more sense to me that you chose and rolled to see if the item worked before you rolled the effect of the miscast [which would of course completely clear up this question] and will still continue to play that way within friendly groups as it just makes more sense [to me at least] and the honours GW's prime directive "It is your [ie the players] hobby, enjoy it."

Sarah S
17-07-2009, 23:52
A rule as straight forward and clear (how many times can we say that about GW rules) requires just as a straight forward exception to be ignored.

Lacking such exception, it continues to operate and the Cupped Hands does not.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-07-2009, 00:22
Second question, why is the FAQ conflicting with the BRB?I do not think that conflict is absolutely necessary, even though pre-FAQ I was in agreement with your position IF the cupped hands took place after rolling (...which I thought it didn't...). It is possible to interpret that, if the result of 2 is not applied to the Slann, the corollary that 2 is inescable also does not apply to the Slann. The fact that that interpretation is kind of weak IMO is not sufficient to displace a direct ruling to that effect.


I think it's stupid to agree to FAQ you don't agree with.I have disagreed quite strenuously with FAQ's in the past, although I usually (...not always...) played along with them anyway. This case really is not nearly as egregious as some past cases (for instance the re-roll all hits/re-roll misses interactions, which are now FAQ'd to be in line with RaW but at one point had a rather bizarre official interpretation). I think you overstate the case against the FAQ, and I would require a much stronger case against the FAQ before I would even consider ruling against a GW FAQ.

Of course, I also remember clearly a time when FAQ and errata had no distinction whatsoever, so I'm prepared to accept certain "FAQ" items as de facto errata, anyway, especially given that they still tend to under-correct erratas IMO.

EDIT:
Note* When I first read the item it always made more sense to me that you chose and rolled to see if the item worked before you rolled the effect of the miscast [which would of course completely clear up this question] and will still continue to play that way within friendly groups as it just makes more sense [to me at least] and the honours GW's prime directive "It is your [ie the players] hobby, enjoy it."When I first read the item I came to the conclusion that there is no choice involved in using it, and that it simply applies to your first miscast whether you want it to or not.

Dungeon_Lawyer
18-07-2009, 04:11
wow 10 pages?! Its been FAQ'd kiddies, the horse is dead. Movealong. Nothing left to see here.

sulla
18-07-2009, 23:45
wow 10 pages?! Its been FAQ'd kiddies, the horse is dead. Movealong. Nothing left to see here.Yeah, but two of the FAQ answers seem in contradiction to each other. How can I transfer the miscast after rolling it first and still use the opposition's miscast table? How can it overpower a miscast result that says no abilities or items can prevent it? Neither is answered by the FAQ clearly.

riotknight
19-07-2009, 20:50
HAving read this entire thread, I have come to the conclusion that Sarah S. likes to argue, even if people have given her multiple arguments, with references, to debunk her claim, and she is still only referencing one line of text from the miscast chart.

The Slann nominates to use the Cupped Hands after the result, Am I the only one to which this makes perfect sense? Why would you use a 45pt item without knowing the result? No one would ever take it if that were the case. The FAQ has clarified that this is not the case. If you enter a tournament and are going to throw a hissy fit over it, you'll likely be asked to leave, because they will abide by the ruling given in this FAQ.

Or they won't. It's up to the organizer.

Cupped Hands states the Miscast is ignored on a 2+. IGNORED thats part 1 of the effect, and it goes directly in contradiction to The miscast chart. Except that it doesn't because the miscast NEVER HAPPENED. Part 2 of the effect is If in LoS of an enemy wizard or another Wizard, they suffer the miscast AND THE RESULT. Theres no vague reference here. The miscast never happened to the Slann, it was, to use a legal term, stricken from the record. No amount of arguing on your behalf will change that. It says IGNORED, Not "It happens, but to someone else" IT says specifically the Slann ignores it. Period.

As a side note; My slann usually takes soul of stone, So this isn't likely to happen, but if it happens, I will simply ask my opponent which way he prefers it to work, and abide by that, if there is any discussion for it, my group usually uses the FAQ as our guidelines.

Edit: For the record, i do feel the other ruling is off base aswell, I think it should be ignored, flat out, like a 5 or 6.

Sarah S
19-07-2009, 22:11
So you're agreeing with me then? :eyebrows: I can't tell.

Because ignoring something because of a magic item is certainly a form of magical protection - precisely what snake-eyes on the miscast table ignores.

The item would function just fine if it kicked in before a roll on the table was made. So the Slann doesn't roll on the table, and the enemy Wizard does. Hell, the enemy Wizard could then use their own miscast table - so then that other really stupid question and answer would make a bit of sense.

Masque
20-07-2009, 02:38
Let's say a Slann with Cupped Hands only has one wound left. He attempts to cast a spell but miscasts. He rolls on the miscast table and gets a 3. He takes a strength 6 hit, which wounds him, and fails his ward save. He dies. Then he uses Cupped Hands to ignore the miscast and save himself.

Anything about that sound wrong? Oh, I know what it is. Cupped Hands should be used before you apply the result of the miscast, either in whole or in part. Why should it be different for a 2 on the miscast chart?

Sarah S
20-07-2009, 03:30
Let's say a Slann with Cupped Hands only has one wound left. He attempts to cast a spell but miscasts. He rolls on the miscast table and gets a 3. He takes a strength 6 hit, which wounds him, and fails his ward save. He dies. Then he uses Cupped Hands to ignore the miscast and save himself.

Anything about that sound wrong? Oh, I know what it is. Cupped Hands should be used before you apply the result of the miscast, either in whole or in part. Why should it be different for a 2 on the miscast chart?

Because none of the other results say that nothing can save the Wizard? :eyebrows:

Apply it immediately, nothing should save you once you roll the deuce.

Ultimate Life Form
20-07-2009, 03:59
Sarah S, it is really not that hard to understand. The "no saves" text is part of the miscast effect's description, not part of the miscast table description. As others (and myself) have pointed out at tedium, the EFFECT (of anything btw) is not resolved until the miscast result stands. It's really easy:

Step 1:
Roll on the miscast table to generate provisoric result.

Step 2:
Modify result (Puppets and stuff, also, Soul of Stone spring to mind) till it is clear who suffers which result. It is quite obvious that this is a separate step because otherwise, the miscast result could NEVER be changed.

Step 3:
Apply effects of the result to model. Now the person currently in possession of the miscast result 2 suffers the "no saves" part of the effect's description. He may have a 1+ Ward Save and an item that says he can never die but it doesn't matter because he's simply annihilated.

Now this isn't my guesswork, the FAQ actually states it has to be played that way. That means the following:

1. Result 2 CAN be transferred (as the FAQ backs up).

2. Soul of Stone CAN reroll result 2 (because what happens when you reroll something? Right, the first result isn't applied because the second overides it. Otherwise, a rerolled AS would still cause a wound.)

Obviously, your problem is with not understanding WHEN the "no saves" part kicks in. It's behind door number 2 and it only kills you if you actually go through door number 2 and not if you decide to go through a different door in the last second. But in the room you're in, there is no signpost reading, "if you choose door #2, you cannot reconsider anymore and MUST go through it". I feel you have a weakness understanding menu trees and stacks and the subtle differences between "source" and "effect" and therefore recommend learning how to play Magic: the Gathering.

Sarah S
20-07-2009, 04:48
I don't think re-rolls or the Infernal Puppet can modify it either for what it's worth.

Ultimate Life Form
20-07-2009, 05:04
I don't think re-rolls or the Infernal Puppet can modify it either for what it's worth.

Not to sound rude, but what you may be thinking or not is completely irrelevant. There are rules and there are FAQs and they tell us what to do. You can think all you like, but if your opponent doesn't approve of it, you're screwed. It's a game of two (or more players) and if at least one of your opponents finds the solid written rules more convincing than your disturbing thought patterns, there is probably nothing left to do but quitting and packing.

Sarah S
20-07-2009, 05:11
And like I have said a couple times now, it would take an ERRATA (note I did not say "FAQ") for any of these items to be usable against a snake-eyes.

That said, I don't think there is even an FAQ that says that re-rolls or Infernal Puppet can be used to prevent a snake-eyes explosion. I believe there was some discussion about the Puppet when it rolled out, and the consensus was that it could not be used, so I'm actually with the group on that one.

riotknight
20-07-2009, 06:06
I'm partially agreeing. But it still saves him. I tried very very hard not to troll you so It may be a bit muddled.

Yrrdead
20-07-2009, 08:50
My only contribution is the following question :P

I was under the impression that army book specific items and abilities override the BRB, is this not correct?

I only ask because it seems that the crux of Sarah S 's argument is that the BRB overrides army books.

Condottiere
20-07-2009, 09:07
The AB does over-ride, but it has to be clear that it over-rides, because the wording can still leave loopholes.

Lordmonkey
20-07-2009, 10:49
The AB does over-ride, but it has to be clear that it over-rides, because the wording can still leave loopholes.

A good example would be the wording of the Dwarf 'always march' rule, which I sadly cannot quote at present (at work).

kroq'gar
20-07-2009, 11:11
The item doesnt protect the slann, it changes the definition of 'the wizard'. Instead of the slann being referenced in the miscaste chart it is the one transfered to.

Eg slann miscastes and rolls a two. His cupped hands then change the subject of the miscaste result from the slann, to the other wizard. The wizard cannot use any protection against the result suffered.

Dokushin
20-07-2009, 18:28
And like I have said a couple times now, it would take an ERRATA (note I did not say "FAQ") for any of these items to be usable against a snake-eyes.

That said, I don't think there is even an FAQ that says that re-rolls or Infernal Puppet can be used to prevent a snake-eyes explosion. I believe there was some discussion about the Puppet when it rolled out, and the consensus was that it could not be used, so I'm actually with the group on that one.

You are, of course, free to run your own tournament with your own house rules. However, those of us out here wanting to play to at least some common standard will be in almost all cases using the rules as printed by GW, and the FAQs provided by GW as the recommended way of resolving conflicts.

What you are basically saying is your way of interpreting the book is more correct than that of the source of the book. It's not your game. You can make it your game -- i.e. play with rules no one else uses -- but then any notion of sport is gone.

I'd love to ignore some stuff in FAQs -- but since I'm trying to play a fair and sporting game, I abide by the rules provided rather than trying to make up my own. Your desire to play a different game so that you might achieve some advantage (or to justify an advantage you have granted yourself in the past) is pretty shallow.

Bah, I don't know why I'm bothering.

Da GoBBo
20-07-2009, 19:09
No, you shouldn't bother. All you do is advocate that a FAQ can never be wrong and that doesn't help.

The only way for the FAQ to be right is to apply the item before you role on the miscast. You can give any reason you want and all sorts of analogies about door number 2 and silly trees etc. you want, but ones you'v rolled the result, you apply it. There is nothing in the rulebook that gives you any time to see if result number 2 suits your purpose and if you would want to do something about it. Time like that should be generated by other rules. In this case the rules for the cupped hands. The item ... DOES ... NOT ... DO ... SO ... You can release any FAQ you want, but the only way it can make the item work versus snakeeyes is for it to let the item take affect before you role on the miscast table. Nowhere is this allowed or disallowed, so a FAQ can do this I guess, though an actuall an errata would be much better. Now we look at the FAQ. It says to apply the item AFTER rolling on the miscast table. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If they want the item to work like that, the FAQ needs a lot more wording than it has now. Now the FAQ is more like this.

Q: "what's 1 and 1?"
A: "1 and 1 equals 11"

Something fundamental has changed and for it to be true, it needs more explanation than just stating it is so. This change needs an errata, because they want to add an extra rule to this item.

I also came across this:
Q. There are several items that can affect miscasts, such as Cupped Hands of the Old Ones, Soul of Stone and Infernal Puppet. In what order should the effects of these item be applied?
A. There are many such combinations of rules and magic items in the game, and we handle it by discussing what we think should happen, and then rolling off if an immediate answer isn’t forthcoming.

GW doesn't know, GW doesn't care. Please stop this "the ones who made the game know better than you" They don't and this "FAQ" exposes that very fact.

riotknight
20-07-2009, 19:12
No, you shouldn't bother. All you do is advocate that a FAQ can never be wrong and that doesn't help.

The only way for the FAQ to be right is to apply the item before you role on the miscast. You can give any reason you want and all sorts of analogies about door number 2 and silly trees etc. you want, but ones you'v rolled the result, you apply it. There is nothing in the rulebook that gives you any time to see if result number 2 suits your purpose and if you would want to do something about it. Time like that should be generated by other rules. In this case the rules for the cupped hands. The item ... DOES ... NOT ... DO ... SO ... You can release any FAQ you want, but the only way it can make the item work versus snakeeyes is for it to let the item take affect before you role on the miscast table. Nowhere is this allowed or disallowed, so a FAQ can do this I guess, though an actuall an errata would be much better. Now we look at the FAQ. It says to apply the item AFTER rolling on the miscast table. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If they want the item to work like that, the FAQ needs a lot more wording than it has now. Now the FAQ is more like this.

Q: "what's 1 and 1?"
A: "1 and 1 equals 11"

Something fundamental has changed and for it to be true, it needs more explanation than just stating it is so. This change needs an errata, because they want to add an extra rule to this item.

I also came across this:
Q. There are several items that can affect miscasts, such as Cupped Hands of the Old Ones, Soul of Stone and Infernal Puppet. In what order should the effects of these item be applied?
A. There are many such combinations of rules and magic items in the game, and we handle it by discussing what we think should happen, and then rolling off if an immediate answer isn’t forthcoming.

GW doesn't know, GW doesn't care. Please stop this "the ones who made the game know better than you" They don't and this "FAQ" exposes that very fact.

For the record; 1 and 1 is 11. 1 + 1 is 2.

Da GoBBo
20-07-2009, 19:22
Maybe in Mississauga (?), but in Europe ... ;)

PeG
20-07-2009, 20:27
I would say that the main problem with the FAQ on cupped hands is that it contradicts itself clearly showing that at least parts of it are wrong ie for example it is not possible to roll on the miscast table, then transfer the result and use the opponents miscast table.

These contradictions makes it difficult to trust the other parts especially since it does cause some strange situations and contradicts other parts of the rules. If they would fix the obvious problems with the FAQ people (including me) would have an easier time accepting the other parts.

Condottiere
20-07-2009, 20:41
1+1 = 10

Anyway, I agree the sequence of what takes effect first is important.

N810
20-07-2009, 20:43
at least now 2x2=4 :D
instead of... 2x2=3 :wtf:

(see Bane Head+Parana Blade faq)

Dokushin
20-07-2009, 21:09
No, you shouldn't bother. All you do is advocate that a FAQ can never be wrong and that doesn't help.

The only way for the FAQ to be right is to apply the item before you role on the miscast. You can give any reason you want and all sorts of analogies about door number 2 and silly trees etc. you want, but ones you'v rolled the result, you apply it. There is nothing in the rulebook that gives you any time to see if result number 2 suits your purpose and if you would want to do something about it. Time like that should be generated by other rules. In this case the rules for the cupped hands. The item ... DOES ... NOT ... DO ... SO ... You can release any FAQ you want, but the only way it can make the item work versus snakeeyes is for it to let the item take affect before you role on the miscast table. Nowhere is this allowed or disallowed, so a FAQ can do this I guess, though an actuall an errata would be much better. Now we look at the FAQ. It says to apply the item AFTER rolling on the miscast table. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If they want the item to work like that, the FAQ needs a lot more wording than it has now. Now the FAQ is more like this.

Q: "what's 1 and 1?"
A: "1 and 1 equals 11"

Something fundamental has changed and for it to be true, it needs more explanation than just stating it is so. This change needs an errata, because they want to add an extra rule to this item.

I also came across this:
Q. There are several items that can affect miscasts, such as Cupped Hands of the Old Ones, Soul of Stone and Infernal Puppet. In what order should the effects of these item be applied?
A. There are many such combinations of rules and magic items in the game, and we handle it by discussing what we think should happen, and then rolling off if an immediate answer isn’t forthcoming.

GW doesn't know, GW doesn't care. Please stop this "the ones who made the game know better than you" They don't and this "FAQ" exposes that very fact.

Note that I never claimed that the people who make the FAQ (and the game) are better at logic, or at interpretations. They could make a FAQ (or a supplement, or an errata) that said: If you roll a 6 for a Killing Blow but your model is not painted, it doesn't work and it wouldn't make any sense, of course, it wouldn't be logical or consistent -- but we're not playing "Warhammer Fantasy Battles + Community Logic Patch", we're playing WHFB, as published and maintained by GW.

It's not a question of logic or interpretation -- not when it's spelled out. Again, it may be more externally (or even internally) consistent to play via rules determined by people not affiliated with the company, but that will always be unofficial.

When I meet someone that I'm playing for the first time, I don't want to have to go down a gigantic list of items to discuss beforehand. ("Ok, Cupped Hands. I believe, blah blah blah. Ok, marching Salamanders. I believe, blah blah blah." When I want that I come to WarSeer :p) When I want a game there have to be a set of rules that are agreed upon, and that is what the FAQs are trying to provide.

No one cares how your circle of friends play, and it's good for the game to adapt to personal environments. But "in the field" against unknown people, it's foolish to argue that your interpretation carries more weight than the FAQ, just because the FAQ is a heck of a lot less partial than you are.

If GW released a FAQ (or whatever) stating treat rolls of 1 as 11, then that's what I would expect people to play by, since they're playing GW's game. It would be reasonable, after meeting and learning play styles, to discuss the possibility of houseruling 1's as 1's (lol), but then it would no longer be WHFB, but a derivative work.

Your particular interpretation of what you think the double 1's mean on miscast and what you think that implies in its interactions with other items and what you think that should mean for the Cupped Hands is -- if you missed the emphasis -- your opinion. And it is because of people like you that I'm glad GW provides FAQs -- so that there are a common, acceptable set of impartial interpretations. It goes both ways -- I had been playing Skink Chief BS for howdah weapons, but now that there is an official stance on the matter I abide by that, because it's not my game.

Sarah S
20-07-2009, 23:54
They could make an ERRATA that said that, but not a FAQ.

Even if they did, I would hope that people with sense would throw that crap out and play a game that makes sense.

Following GW off a cliff won't help to make the game any better, holding them responsible to get their own rules ******** right will.

kramplarv
21-07-2009, 00:03
well, If we two played a game Sarah, and we have an disagreement about the rules. Then we would/should follow the FAQ. Since it is how the company supporting the game decided was the best way to solve that particular situation. :)

TheMav80
21-07-2009, 01:56
They could make an ERRATA that said that, but not a FAQ.

Even if they did, I would hope that people with sense would throw that crap out and play a game that makes sense.

Following GW off a cliff won't help to make the game any better, holding them responsible to get their own rules ******** right will.

So your only hang up is that they didn't put the ruling for cupped hands under a different heading entitled "Errata"?

That is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

Sarah S
21-07-2009, 03:28
No, my hangup is that they did not decide to change the rule of the item, and without such a change the answer to the question is wrong.

Nezmith
21-07-2009, 04:40
Tomb King's Liche Priests can't suffer from Miscasts. So does this mean I shouldn't have to worry about Cupped Hands?

:D

Ultimate Life Form
21-07-2009, 04:46
Tomb King's Liche Priests can't suffer from Miscasts. So does this mean I shouldn't have to worry about Cupped Hands?

:D

That is absolutely right; TK don't need to be afraid of the Cupped Hands as is the case with any army not containing a wizard. The Dwarves have a right to exist all of a sudden with this new item!

Sarah S
21-07-2009, 04:51
Actually, that is absolutely wrong.

The Tomb King Liche Priests and High Liche Priests are Wizards, and they do not have any immunity to miscasts.

What the rules actually say is that:

The rules for Irresistible Force and Miscasts do not apply to Incantations, but the rules for automatic failure do apply to DIspel attempts made in the enemy Magic phase.
Tomb Kings army book, page 34.

When they are casting Incantations, they do not normally trigger miscasts - they don't have any other ability relating to them.

So they would get hammered just like any other Wizard.

Ultimate Life Form
21-07-2009, 05:03
Whoops, If this is the case, let them be hammered!

I don't have the book ready, just the guy I regularly play against claimed they weren't wizards or something... looks like I got it mixed up.:(
I'll check it and promise to be good from now on.

Die Tomb Kings!!!

Sarah S
21-07-2009, 05:06
Princes and Kings aren't Wizards - they are more like Warrior Priests. Priests and High Priests are Wizards and are hurt by everything that hurts Wizards.

sulla
21-07-2009, 06:15
So your only hang up is that they didn't put the ruling for cupped hands under a different heading entitled "Errata"?

That is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

No, it's really not. See this is the problem with so many of the contentious FAQ answers that cause debate. GW answer the question but in doing so, break there own rules, either from the main rulebook or in the armybook in question. In those cases, they should, instead, have issued an errata changing what the original rule said, instead of publishing a solution that is in direct contradiction to the published rules of the game. Not doing so only makes players more reliant on FAQs because they can't rely on logic to solve the problems at hand.

Da GoBBo
21-07-2009, 08:06
Note that I never claimed that the people who make the FAQ (and the game) are better at logic, or at interpretations. They could make a FAQ (or a supplement, or an errata) that said: If you roll a 6 for a Killing Blow but your model is not painted, it doesn't work and it wouldn't make any sense, of course, it wouldn't be logical or consistent -- but we're not playing "Warhammer Fantasy Battles + Community Logic Patch", we're playing WHFB, as published and maintained by GW.

I cannot agree to this. If you give an answer to a question, you have to work within the rules you set yourself. If you do not, I'm not gonna take your ruling as true, not even if you are GW. With this FAQ they do not abide by their own rules. They give an explanation that cannot be true, not without extra explanation. They just give a bogusanswer and expect you to live by it. Even this is not true, a FAQ is by no means official.


It's not a question of logic or interpretation -- not when it's spelled out.

That's just the problem. It's not spelled out at all. There is just a false statement.


When I meet someone that I'm playing for the first time, I don't want to have to go down a gigantic list of items to discuss beforehand. ("Ok, Cupped Hands. I believe, blah blah blah. Ok, marching Salamanders. I believe, blah blah blah." When I want that I come to WarSeer :p) When I want a game there have to be a set of rules that are agreed upon, and that is what the FAQs are trying to provide.

I agree to this. That's why we roll off problems that take to long and take a closer look at it afterwards.


No one cares how your circle of friends play, and it's good for the game to adapt to personal environments. But "in the field" against unknown people, it's foolish to argue that your interpretation carries more weight than the FAQ, just because the FAQ is a heck of a lot less partial than you are.

Now your calling me a rulebender? What sort of a thing is that to say? I would never interpret a rule to suit my own means.


If GW released a FAQ (or whatever) stating treat rolls of 1 as 11, then that's what I would expect people to play by, since they're playing GW's game.

Most people I know would pack up their stuff and leave if you would do this.


Your particular interpretation of what you think the double 1's mean on miscast and what you think that implies in its interactions with other items and what you think that should mean for the Cupped Hands is -- if you missed the emphasis -- your opinion. And it is because of people like you that I'm glad GW provides FAQs

People like me roll it off and discuss it afterwards, using our own insight. This allways results in a sound agreement, sometimes even in a houserule because certain stuff doesn't make sense. We are on a rulesforum now though, so I discuss as long as I want. Shame you can't keep the 2 apart. As for what I think. I abide by the rule "if it isn't there, it can't be done". If GW would do that too they wouldn't come up with such faulty FAQ's.


-- so that there are a common, acceptable set of impartial interpretations. It goes both ways -- I had been playing Skink Chief BS for howdah weapons, but now that there is an official stance on the matter I abide by that, because it's not my game.

I'm glad for you and you ability to disregard your own reasoning over a set crap. Good job. I really enjoy a good discussion though and since this one hasn't settled yet, I will continue to participate untill it either dies out or all you people ask me to drop it. As you can see though, there are still people out there who do not agree with you and yours. Well worth continuing this debate for. Now if you would come with someting else besides "GW is awesome, they have the best game and their FAQ's are the most infallible set of ruling I ever laid eyes on", you could participate as well. If you do that, I will try to lay of the "it should be an errata" argument. I think I tried to do so, but I don't know it can't be done now that I think of it. If GW wants to change a rule without explanation, it should be and errata. I can agree to a FAQ that changes a rule if some explaining is done, but this is just nonsense

Nurgling Chieftain
21-07-2009, 08:15
See, I remember a time when they didn't publish errata at all and virtually all FAQ answers were de facto errata. In fact, if a FAQ answer back then was merely a reiteration of existing rules people got annoyed at it for redundancy. So, the idea that a FAQ answer might constitute an errata doesn't bother me so much.

...Even if that was the case here, which strictly speaking, it's not, as the FAQ interpretation is merely odd rather than being completely unsupportable as many erroneously claim.

Condottiere
21-07-2009, 08:21
The problem is, as I see it, sequence and priority. Priority is not established, so you have to go by sequence, and the FAQ says Cupped Hands happens after Miscast is rolled, which means Mr. Toad goes to Hell immediately on snake-eyes.

Da GoBBo
21-07-2009, 10:39
I agree with Condottiere.

I see what you are saying on the errata-FAQ thing Chieftain. But as it is now, a FAQ is supposed to explain an existing rule. This FAQ is not really satisfying and leaves as many questions as it solves (224 posts sort of proves that). In doin so, I see no reason to abide by it, even if it does give you something solid to play by. This FAQ should have stopped at stating the cupped hands would be used after rolling on the miscast table (which is indeed how the item worked before this FAQ). It does not stop there. It goes further than that and states the item can be used to avoid a snakeeyes. I truly can't see how this is according to the rules before the release of this FAQ. Chieftain, you seem to think it did work like that. Could you please try again to explain that to me one more time, using solid ruling?

Evil-Lite
21-07-2009, 12:40
The problem is, as I see it, sequence and priority. Priority is not established, so you have to go by sequence, and the FAQ says Cupped Hands happens after Miscast is rolled, which means Mr. Toad goes to Hell immediately on snake-eyes.

Until you read the FAQ and realize you can transfer the miscast to an enemy wizard. Is it not wonderful that GW let the players know how to use the cupped hands so we would not have a disagreement if you can transfer a result of a 2 or not... Errr... Never mind.


I agree with Condottiere.

I see what you are saying on the errata-FAQ thing Chieftain. But as it is now, a FAQ is supposed to explain an existing rule. This FAQ is not really satisfying and leaves as many questions as it solves (224 posts sort of proves that). In doin so, I see no reason to abide by it, even if it does give you something solid to play by. This FAQ should have stopped at stating the cupped hands would be used after rolling on the miscast table (which is indeed how the item worked before this FAQ). It does not stop there. It goes further than that and states the item can be used to avoid a snakeeyes. I truly can't see how this is according to the rules before the release of this FAQ. Chieftain, you seem to think it did work like that. Could you please try again to explain that to me one more time, using solid ruling?

The way I see it: anything that specifically effects the miscast table can be used on any of the miscast results (unless otherwise noted). Ignore miscasts, re-rolls, adjust the miscast result, transfer, etc can all be used on the miscast result of a 2.

Items (or special rules) that do not specifically effect the miscast table can not be used if a 2 is rolled on the miscast table: armor saves, ward saves, regeneration, etc.

And that is more then likely the crux of the disagreement. Some people think nothing can be used to effect the result of a 2 on the miscast table; while others think certain items can be used to effect the result.

Have not been to a single GW sponsored tournament where characters that ignored a miscast still rolled on the miscast table "just in case." You would think if nothing could effect the miscast result of a 2 they would still have to role. Just goes to show that there are items / special rules that ignore the result of a 2.

P.S. Anybody good with probability know the chance of this even coming up in a game?

nosferatu1001
21-07-2009, 12:52
Well, chance of a miscast 2 is easy - 1/36.

If you cast 4 spells a turn on 2 dice for 6 turns you have a (1/36*4*6) = 2/3 chance of a miscast in the entire game, giving 1/54 chance of a miscast 2. If playing someone with infernal puppet it gets complicated....

Casting using more dice gets a lot more complicated!

Edit: looking at it I've probably got this wrong, I'll have another think....

Dokushin
21-07-2009, 16:26
(sigh) we can do quote-by-quote.


I cannot agree to this. If you give an answer to a question, you have to work within the rules you set yourself. If you do not, I'm not gonna take your ruling as true, not even if you are GW. With this FAQ they do not abide by their own rules. They give an explanation that cannot be true, not without extra explanation. They just give a bogusanswer and expect you to live by it. Even this is not true, a FAQ is by no means official.

If I'm reading the rulebook for chess, and I come across the section for en passant, where a pawn can capture another pawn that moved two squares, it doesn't make any sense -- it's just the rules of chess. The rulebook for WHFB never explains why rank bonus is for five wide, and yet I'm sure you abide by that daily. How would you feel if you played someone who said that it "wasn't explained enough" and "didn't make sense" and so insisted that he got his rank bonus for 3 wide?



That's just the problem. It's not spelled out at all. There is just a false statement.
It's stated, full stop. There was ambiguity in the rulebook/armybook, there is none in the FAQ. Ballgame.



I agree to this. That's why we roll off problems that take to long and take a closer look at it afterwards.
So, any time you feel like you don't like a rule that GW publishes, you want to try to make a 4+ ward save, eh? The roll-off system is there to resolve conflicts that have not been addressed. Again, what about the guy who wants rank bonus for 3 wide? Roll off? What about next game?



Now your calling me a rulebender? What sort of a thing is that to say? I would never interpret a rule to suit my own means.
That's what you're doing right now. GW has stated without ambiguity what a rule is, and you are refusing to abide by it. It may or may not be to your advantage, but the burden is on you to prove that. Just like if I wanted to roll off for Skink Chief BS for howdah weapons, and had some in the game.



Most people I know would pack up their stuff and leave if you would do this.
Most people I know enjoy playing a game with rules everyone knows and agrees on.



People like me roll it off and discuss it afterwards, using our own insight. This allways results in a sound agreement, sometimes even in a houserule because certain stuff doesn't make sense. We are on a rulesforum now though, so I discuss as long as I want. Shame you can't keep the 2 apart. As for what I think. I abide by the rule "if it isn't there, it can't be done". If GW would do that too they wouldn't come up with such faulty FAQ's.
I don't have anything against your ability to discuss. I don't have a problem with people saying, "that doesn't make sense." I have a problem with people saying "The FAQ is wrong and you are stupid if you use it."



I'm glad for you and you ability to disregard your own reasoning over a set crap. Good job. I really enjoy a good discussion though and since this one hasn't settled yet, I will continue to participate untill it either dies out or all you people ask me to drop it. As you can see though, there are still people out there who do not agree with you and yours. Well worth continuing this debate for. Now if you would come with someting else besides "GW is awesome, they have the best game and their FAQ's are the most infallible set of ruling I ever laid eyes on", you could participate as well. If you do that, I will try to lay of the "it should be an errata" argument. I think I tried to do so, but I don't know it can't be done now that I think of it. If GW wants to change a rule without explanation, it should be and errata. I can agree to a FAQ that changes a rule if some explaining is done, but this is just nonsense

I've never said GW was awesome, or infalliable. They've made bad decisions, IMO, and I don't agree with some of their rules and rulings -- but I still play by them. When you have a tabletop wargame big enough to be played at clubs around the world, let me know, and then your decisions on what should and shouldn't be used will carry weight, but until then if it's a choice between your FAQ and GW's FAQ, I can tell you which one I'm going to be planning on using.

It's not about who is better, or smarter, or whatever. The fact is, it's GW's game and GW's rulings, and when they publish documents they carry some authority. Discussion, debate? Sure. But when I'm pulling out my army there has to be a common standard to prevent people from making up rules or playing to different ideas of how the game should run. That's what makes it a game two people can participate in. You're suggesting a game that has nothing to do with war and everything to do with who can talk the fastest and win the most rule disagreement roll-offs.

Condottiere
21-07-2009, 16:35
(sigh) we can do quote-by-quote.



If I'm reading the rulebook for chess, and I come across the section for en passant, where a pawn can capture another pawn that moved two squares, it doesn't make any sense -- it's just the rules of chess.The conditions are specific.

You have to be on your opponent's side of the board.
Your opponent's pawn jumps two squares in it's initial move, bypassing your pawn's ability to eat him. The rule was brought in to give you the option as to whether you wish to or not.

N810
21-07-2009, 16:43
Well, chance of a miscast 2 is easy - 1/36.

If you cast 4 spells a turn on 2 dice for 6 turns you have a (1/36*4*6) = 2/3 chance of a miscast in the entire game, giving 1/54 chance of a miscast 2. If playing someone with infernal puppet it gets complicated....

Casting using more dice gets a lot more complicated!

Edit: looking at it I've probably got this wrong, I'll have another think....

Also you have to roll (what was it a 2+) to see if the Cuped Hands even works :(,
and it's a one use only item... :wtf:

EvC
21-07-2009, 16:54
The conditions are specific.

You have to be on your opponent's side of the board.
Your opponent's pawn jumps two squares in it's initial move, bypassing your pawn's ability to eat him. The rule was brought in to give you the option as to whether you wish to or not.

I've read a dozen descriptions of en passant before, and used to play chess at school a fair bit, and I've never had anyone explain it that well before- I didn't even know that was the exact rule, and certainly never understood why! If only all games could be written with such clear thinking as the way you did there... but no, not for chess, and certainly not for warhammer.

Condottiere
21-07-2009, 17:46
I play Warhammer, because Chess bored the hell out of me. Chess rules are clearer, however.

Da GoBBo
21-07-2009, 18:55
It's stated, full stop. There was ambiguity in the rulebook/armybook, there is none in the FAQ. Ballgame.

It is indeed stated, very clearly. To bad it doesn't agree with the ruling which was allready there. Like I said, a false statement. Perhaps you forgot what this thread was all about. It was stated by the OP that the FAQ does not represent the ruling which was allready there. The OP is correct. This is strange to him/her and strange to me as well.


So, any time you feel like you don't like a rule that GW publishes, you want to try to make a 4+ ward save, eh?

Again you imply I try to alter rules to suit my own means. Please don't. You are also mistaken about my intents when I talked about the roll off. Sometimes none of us know or understand the rule. When that occurs, we roll it of. None of us really uses FAQ's or errata's. When somebody does know the rule that's sweet, and at the moment we often look it up anyway because lots of us havn't been playing a lot since early 6th ed.


That's what you're doing right now. GW has stated without ambiguity what a rule is, and you are refusing to abide by it.

I am merely doing so because the FAQ is incorrect in my opinion. I think I'v made a good case to support that view and feel confident it is more true to the rules than GWs own FAQ. Which brings me to this ...


I have a problem with people saying "The FAQ is wrong and you are stupid if you use it."

It's a bit different, read back my posts if you want. You probably don't :) I'v said it's stupid to play by FAQ's you dont agree with. I have also said I don't understand why people think the FAQ is right. I truly can't. I do understand that people would play by them in that case.


I've never said GW was awesome, or infalliable. They've made bad decisions, IMO, and I don't agree with some of their rules and rulings -- but I still play by them. When you have a tabletop wargame big enough to be played at clubs around the world, let me know, and then your decisions on what should and shouldn't be used will carry weight, but until then if it's a choice between your FAQ and GW's FAQ, I can tell you which one I'm going to be planning on using.

Well, we have houserules but abviously I wouldn't use them on a tourney or at another place. I would abviously play by all of their rules on those occasions. But that's not really what we are talking about here. I'm just asking you why you think the FAQ is correct. You admit GW makes mistakes, why can't this be one of them? How did you play it before the FAQ was released? Why did you play it like that? You seem to think GW can write down anything they want in a FAQ. They can't. A FAQ is an inquiry about the workings of an existing rule. You can't change that rule while you answer that question. Please note that my answer is in line with the OPs intent. I couldn't care less if GW were to change this or any other rule. I do think they should make it perfectly clear they are doing so. Whether they do so by calling it an errata, which is easier because that way they can write down whatever they want, or by stating what was the old rule and what is the new rule in the FAQ itself. It would save us from a 240+ post thread. It would cost us a lot of fun though too :D


It's not about who is better, or smarter, or whatever.

Yeh, sorry about that. T was a bit low. Apologies.

Evil-Lite
21-07-2009, 20:06
I'v said it's stupid to play by FAQ's you dont agree with.

What is the purpose of a FAQ then if you are not going to follow the FAQ except for the parts you agree with? After all FAQ's are not released because everybody agrees on how something works.

2 sides (or more) disagree with how an item works. GW releases a FAQ to clarify how the item works. 1 side likes the ruling and wants to use the FAQ (because GW was on their side this time) while the other side does not like the ruling and refuse to follow the FAQ because GW made no sense with the FAQ ruling. :wtf:




A FAQ is an inquiry about the workings of an existing rule. You can't change that rule while you answer that question.


How did the FAQ change the rules of how cupped hands worked?

Does cupped hands still ignore the miscast on a 2+? Yes
Does cupped hands still transfer the miscast result to an enemy wizard if they are in LoS to the Slann (except for a 5 or 6 result) if they role a 2+? yes

The FAQ clarified how the item works, nothing more.

If you want the item to not transfer the result of a 2 on the miscast table you would need an errata because you would be changing the rules of cupped hands and not clarifying how the item operates at that point.

Da GoBBo
21-07-2009, 21:46
How did the FAQ change the rules of how cupped hands worked?

I'll gladly point that out again.
-A snakeeyes forbids the use of magical protection
-cupped hands is magical protection
-if you want to use this item versus snakeeyes, it has to be specifically allowed in the items description, because you use the item after you rolled on the miscast table
-it doesn't specifically allow this in the items description
-the FAQ does allow it

Thus the FAQ changed the working of the item.

sulla
21-07-2009, 22:07
See, I remember a time when they didn't publish errata at all and virtually all FAQ answers were de facto errata. In fact, if a FAQ answer back then was merely a reiteration of existing rules people got annoyed at it for redundancy. So, the idea that a FAQ answer might constitute an errata doesn't bother me so much.

But just because something has been done poorly/inconsistently before, that doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about it or point out that it could be done better? (Okay, so the interwebs are full of complaining, but surely this is one of the more valid things to complain about?) Errata rewrite rules to take away the interpretaion problem/shore up a hole in the rules.

Personally, I really liked the cut&paste errata they did in the 6th ed compendiums.

Evil-Lite
21-07-2009, 22:32
I'll gladly point that out again.
-A snakeeyes forbids the use of magical protection
-cupped hands is magical protection
-if you want to use this item versus snakeeyes, it has to be specifically allowed in the items description, because you use the item after you rolled on the miscast table
-it doesn't specifically allow this in the items description
-the FAQ does allow it

Thus the FAQ changed the working of the item.

1) Snake eyes is a BrB rule. Cupped hands breaks the rule not the FAQ. Remember, only a 5 or 6 can not be transferred to the enemy caster according to cupped hands. Arm book > BrB.

2) Cupped hands is a magic item that affects the miscast table.

3) The item breaks the rule of snake-eyes on the miscast table not the FAQ. The FAQ does not change how cupped hands works (transfer a miscast on a 2+ except for a 5 or 6).

4) Cupped hands will transfer the result of a miscast on a 2+ with the exception of a 5 or 6. No where do I see cupped hands not allowing a 2 to be transferred. Since we disagree on this point let us ask GW for clarification. What do you know, they have already clarified the rule and cupped hands does transfer a snake-eyes on the miscast table. Note this is a clarification from the FAQ and does not change how cupped hands works.

5) The FAQ clarifies how cupped hands works. No rules where changed. If GW said a 2 could not be transferred then the item would have changed how it works. Why? Because then the item would transfer a miscast on a 2+ except for a 2, 5, or 6. That would be changing how an item works.

No the FAQ does not change how the item works. The item still allows the user to ignore a miscast on a 2+. The item still transfers the miscast to an enemy caster in LoS with the exception of a 5 or 6. The item has not changed.

N810
21-07-2009, 23:04
Wow I am just sick of all the rules lawyering in this thread....

[unsubscribed]

Sarah S
21-07-2009, 23:24
What is the purpose of a FAQ then if you are not going to follow the FAQ except for the parts you agree with? After all FAQ's are not released because everybody agrees on how something works.

What indeed.

We're better off without. GW should either do it right, or not at all. I would argue that some of their recent FAQ efforts (outside of this single issue, there are several others in the Lizardmen FAQ that are real head-scratchers) have made things worse.

Before this FAQ, it was much easier to get an opponent to agree that nothing can save them if they roll a 2 on the miscast table. This FAQ muddies the waters and leads many people to the wrong conclusions - they are wrong, even if they are printed on GW letterhead.

EvC
21-07-2009, 23:57
Yes, this FAQ makes it clear that all effects that can stop or otherwise modify miscasts can indeed save the bearer from experiencing the effects of a 1-1. Staff of Solidity, Tendrils of Tzeentch, Infernal Puppet, Cupped Hands and the other Slann ability- all good. Makes it kinda obvious at this point that when they refer to "protection" they mean direct protection that directly protects the bearer- like ward saves, regeneration, Carstein rings, etc. - rather than things that stop miscasts from happening or change the result.

Sarah S
22-07-2009, 00:05
I disagree. And so now we're screwed.

The rules say one thing, the silly FAQ says another, who will prevail?

EDIT:
Also, saying this stupid answer should be used as a precedent for a whole SERIES of stupid answers is precisely the wrong reaction. If GW has shown us anything at all, it's that reason, precedent and logic are completely valueless when it comes to their rules.

Evil-Lite
22-07-2009, 00:36
I disagree. And so now we're screwed.

The rules say one thing, the silly FAQ says another, who will prevail?


The army books! ;)

Nurgling Chieftain
22-07-2009, 00:41
The problem is, as I see it, sequence and priority. Priority is not established, so you have to go by sequence, and the FAQ says Cupped Hands happens after Miscast is rolled, which means Mr. Toad goes to Hell immediately on snake-eyes.The flaw is that that sequence is an assumption rather than a necessity. There is no necessity in the rules for there to be no gap between physically rolling the dice and applying the effect. It's a reasonable assumption, but as an assumption, the claim that it necessarily overrides the FAQ falls apart.


But just because something has been done poorly/inconsistently before, that doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about it or point out that it could be done better?If this thread consisted merely of "we don't like this answer" rather than "we consider this answer impossibly contradictory" than I wouldn't have responded to it. I don't like that particular ruling much, either.

sulla
22-07-2009, 06:50
If this thread consisted merely of "we don't like this answer" rather than "we consider this answer impossibly contradictory" than I wouldn't have responded to it. I don't like that particular ruling much, either.Fair enough. I usually set my idiot filter quite high for the internet and pass straight over the dross to the actual coherent and well thought out arguments (the ones worth responding to, like yourself.) :D

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
22-07-2009, 07:39
So basically the Toad, if he's unlucky enough to get snake-eyes, is immediately a goner?

Can't slaans get the ability to re-roll miscasts?

Da GoBBo
22-07-2009, 07:52
1) Snake eyes is a BrB rule. Cupped hands breaks the rule not the FAQ. Remember, only a 5 or 6 can not be transferred to the enemy caster according to cupped hands. Arm book > BrB.


You are missing one major point here. The 5-6 result does not tell you you can't use certain forms of protection, so it has to be noted in the items description. A 2 however allready tells you you can't use magical protection, so why bother about putting that down in the items description? It is not needed, it has not been done. The item does not break the rule, and so the FAQ does.


The flaw is that that sequence is an assumption rather than a necessity. There is no necessity in the rules for there to be no gap between physically rolling the dice and applying the effect. It's a reasonable assumption, but as an assumption, the claim that it necessarily overrides the FAQ falls apart.

But if there was a gap between phiscally rolling the dice and applying the effect, shouldn't that have been noted anywhere? If not somewhere basic, somewhere specific, like in the itemdescription. The gap being there is also an assumption, only this time it is an assumption something is there, which is usually a bit more unsafe.


Wow I am just sick of all the rules lawyering in this thread....


Well, youv got to hand it to GW, they give us good material for doing so ;) Luckily this is a forum and not a game, that would be terrible.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-07-2009, 08:28
(the ones worth responding to, like yourself.)Why thank you. :cool:


The gap being there is also an assumption, only this time it is an assumption something is there, which is usually a bit more unsafe.Absent the FAQ, I agree with this (quite literally in this case, as pre-FAQ I actually argued that position). With the FAQ, I find the assumption that works with the FAQ preferable to the assumption that contradicts it.

Condottiere
22-07-2009, 08:45
As always, doesn't someone proofread the material at GW before they publish it? Someone who understands and plays the game, that is.

EvC
22-07-2009, 13:36
I disagree. And so now we're screwed.

You sure have an odd definition of the word "screwed"... it's not like this is the first time GW have answered a query with something not entirely within the rules, and it won't be the last. I'm sure that if we all pull together we can deal with it and get on with our lives.

Evil-Lite
22-07-2009, 19:06
You are missing one major point here. The 5-6 result does not tell you you can't use certain forms of protection, so it has to be noted in the items description. A 2 however allready tells you you can't use magical protection, so why bother about putting that down in the items description? It is not needed, it has not been done. The item does not break the rule, and so the FAQ does.

Nope not missing anything. Cupped hands states that on a 2+ a miscast is transferred to an enemy wizard except for a 5 or 6. There is nothing unclear about this, a 2-4 and 7-12 will be transferred to the enemy caster in LoS according to how cupped hands works.

Now we look at the BrB and see that a 2 on the miscast table says that no protection can be used to prevent the annihilation of the caster. So now we have a magic item that says one thing (only a 5 or 6 can not be transferred) and the BrB that states another (no protection if a 2 is rolled). They can not both be correct. Think of the Pit of Shades / steam tank debates.

GW informed us that cupped hands can transfer the miscast result of a 2. The FAQ did not break the rule, simply clarified how the item works. The item breaks the rule.




But if there was a gap between phiscally rolling the dice and applying the effect, shouldn't that have been noted anywhere? If not somewhere basic, somewhere specific, like in the itemdescription. The gap being there is also an assumption, only this time it is an assumption something is there, which is usually a bit more unsafe.

When I (or my opponent) miscast and have the ability to re-roll miscasts we should first apply the result then re-roll the miscast if we choose? Is that what you are saying? I have never seen anybody roll to wound (because of a miscast result) then decide if they want to re-roll the miscast because they took a wound or not.

Da GoBBo
22-07-2009, 22:45
(only a 5 or 6 can not be transferred)

The rule does not say only a 5 or 6 result can't be transfered. It says a 5 or 6 result can't be transfered. Big difference.