PDA

View Full Version : Steed of Slaanesh 360 LOS for magic?



TMATK
24-06-2010, 18:13
Playing 7th ed this weekend, and my buddy read somewhere that the Steed of Slaanesh grants 360 LOS for magic. I'm thinking, as fast cav, it only has 360 LOS for shooting.

Am I right or wrong?

Thanks.

Deus Mechanicus
24-06-2010, 18:31
Q. Can a Sorcerer on a Steed of Slaanesh cast
magic missiles with 360 arc of sight, as the
Steed itself has the Fast Cavalry rule?
A. Yes, that seems fine (and rather spectacular
too!).

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350036_WarriorsofChaosFAQFeb2009.pdf

Kalandros
24-06-2010, 18:33
That is an error on GWShop's part, disregard that rule as it is completely wrong.
360 sight applies only to the shooting phase, none other, per the very rules written in the rule book, nothing - not even that FAQ answer - overrules it.

Paraelix
24-06-2010, 20:03
That is an error on GWShop's part, disregard that rule as it is completely wrong.
360 sight applies only to the shooting phase, none other, per the very rules written in the rule book, nothing - not even that FAQ answer - overrules it.

Clearly the FAQ already has overruled it.

Falkman
24-06-2010, 20:04
No it hasn't.
It's not an errata, it doesn't change the rules, it's just a suggestion.

Kalandros
24-06-2010, 20:06
FAQs are in no way official rulings, they are only guidelines, this is stated by Games Workshop themselves.

Erratas are official rulings which is why the Magic Resistance Errata overrules the Tomb King FAQ on the Casket being resisted with MR.


But this Steed of Slaanesh ruling is simply a misinformed answer by a 40k player at Games Workshop HQ. Its not how you play it.

Deus Mechanicus
26-06-2010, 14:38
Each to his own i supose, do you follow the other FAQ guidelines? Or do you pick and choose which one you agree and want to play with?

rtunian
26-06-2010, 14:55
hmm it depends on how you consider magic missiles to really work. casting them, i mean. the reason the faq answerer probably says it's okay is because magic missiles are subject to the same restrictions as shooting, and are resolved just like shooting attacks. so if you consider the act as nothing more than a magical shooting attack, then it makes sense that the fast cav rule extends this privelage to it.

if you consider it as casting a spell which requires total concentration, then why do we allow any mages to cast anything while mounted on anything (except for maybe a disk of tzeentch)? shouldn't they have to be stationary... extending even to not moving that turn? you certainly can't steer a horse (or chariot) if you are zoned out in la la land whispering praying for evil things to happen to your enemies.

Falkman
26-06-2010, 15:02
hmm it depends on how you consider magic missiles to really work. casting them, i mean. the reason the faq answerer probably says it's okay is because magic missiles are subject to the same restrictions as shooting, and are resolved just like shooting attacks. so if you consider the act as nothing more than a magical shooting attack, then it makes sense that the fast cav rule extends this privelage to it.
The problem with this line of reasoning (which is pretty sound, I admit) is that the fast cav rules does not supply 360 degrees LoS for all shooting attacks, but 360 degrees LoS in the shooting phase.
Magic is not done in the shooting phase.


Each to his own i supose, do you follow the other FAQ guidelines? Or do you pick and choose which one you agree and want to play with?
Very few of all the FAQ answers are even needed if you care to actually read the rules first, thus I tend to ignore the FAQs as much as possible since they're usually wrong.

gdsora
26-06-2010, 15:31
Each to his own i supose, do you follow the other FAQ guidelines? Or do you pick and choose which one you agree and want to play with?

Actually yeah, if the FAQ answer actually goes against a rule in the BRB, or Army books

Example, Empire Faq states the Casket of sorcery can steal incantations from
Tomb kings, or princes.



But the actual rules of the Empire item, says it can only steal from Wizards.

Tomb King/prince /=/ Wizards

Faqs can be useful, but when they suggest things that go against there own rules, i tend to ignore them

Tae
26-06-2010, 19:41
Kind of redundant now since FC doesn't grant 360 in 8th. So only 2 weeks more of needig the FAQ at all.

jamano
27-06-2010, 00:27
FAQs are in no way official rulings, they are only guidelines, this is stated by Games Workshop themselves.

Erratas are official rulings which is why the Magic Resistance Errata overrules the Tomb King FAQ on the Casket being resisted with MR.


But this Steed of Slaanesh ruling is simply a misinformed answer by a 40k player at Games Workshop HQ. Its not how you play it.
I'm confused here, the tomb king book and faq says its affected by magic resistance ,and the errata only changes to say that mr only works against targeting things. But the casket of souls specifically says "target each unit in los and do blahblah" or a similar wording, so why would that change anything?

Kalandros
27-06-2010, 03:20
Casket does not target.

Enemy units that can draw line of sight are affected.

There is no targeting, thus there is no MR. Thats how it works.

Tykinkuula
28-06-2010, 21:07
Casket does not target.

Enemy units that can draw line of sight are affected.

There is no targeting, thus there is no MR. Thats how it works.

That's how I insist on it going, as well. TK FAQ is, after all, answers to "how does this rule work?"-questions from a time long gone when rules were different. Yet, I get consistently told off by pretty much everyone.
FAQ's clarify many things, and are generally good to follow. Hovever, following them brainlessly no matter what as majority of population around here seem to do is simply moronic.

No matter how hard people are trying to convince themselves that FAQ's are adamant truth, they're not. They're just random houserules from the random guy who happened to put together that particular part of the FAQ.
For adamant, 100% true and intended changes/clarifications we have Errata.