PDA

View Full Version : Vampire Counts FAQ1.1 re: Ethereal vs. Unstable



Balerion
16-07-2010, 00:58
So now that the VC FAQ has been updated, and all Undead units are Unstable, we're left with an unusual situation regarding the Ethereal units in the army.

Unstable: "Unstable units that lose a combat suffer one extra Wound for every point by which they lost the combat, with no saves of any kind permitted against these wounds."

Ethereal: "The close combat attacks of Ethereal creatures are magical. Conversely, Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons of effects. This is not to say that Ethereal creatures cannot be beaten in close combat by mundane troops, because combat results are not wholly dependent upon casualties."


So it seems like Unstable Ethereal units, while able to lose a combat, are not compelled to take any extra casualties from doing so.

Opinions?

Necromancy Black
16-07-2010, 01:45
They still gotta take the wounds as per the rules. So if you not taking the rule your not following the rules keep the models of the table.

Yay, no more ethereal units!

MarkofKhorne
16-07-2010, 16:31
[SIZE="1"]Unstable: "Unstable units that lose a combat suffer one extra Wound for every point by which they lost the combat, with no saves of any kind permitted against these wounds."

So it seems like Unstable Ethereal units, while able to lose a combat, are not compelled to take any extra casualties from doing so.

Opinions?

Nothing here implies that the wounds suffered by the Ethereal unit are caused by an effect they are immune to. Only that the unit suffers wounds.

Vaul
16-07-2010, 16:34
Ok,i can see where your coming from, with it saying they can only be wounded by magical spells and attacks, but your taking it to literally and out of context. they are still unstable, so they still take wounds when they lose a combat.

Atrahasis
16-07-2010, 17:28
Nothing here implies that the wounds suffered by the Ethereal unit are caused by an effect they are immune to. Only that the unit suffers wounds.

That would be a useful argument if Ethereal were couched in terms of damage they were immune to, but it isn't.

They are immune to any damage from sources other than those listed in the Ethereal rule.

Unstable doesn't fit the list in the Ethereal rule, so they are immune to the damage.

Incidentally, this was true in FAQ v1.0 as well.

stripsteak
16-07-2010, 17:35
why would the FAQ matter on this? Their old rules also caused them to take wounds. the only change is they no longer get ward and regen saves.

Atrahasis
16-07-2010, 17:40
Their old (Ethereal) rules specifically said that Ethereal troops took damage from crumbling.

The new rules don't, and the "Unstable" rule isn't one of the things listed as being able to harm Ethereals in the new Ethereal rule.

Loq-Gor
16-07-2010, 18:17
Tell me this is a joke, tell me people aren't actually suggesting that ethereal units don't take wounds from CR. I know that VC suffered from some of these rule changes, but seriously you can't really be having this conversation. Say it all you want but in your hearts you know that to actually play it this way is just plain cheating.

However if anyone insists on this the rules for unstable refer to the magic binding unstable beings together and that being beset in close combat will result in that magic fading away. So there you go unstable wounds are based in magic.

NitrosOkay
16-07-2010, 18:20
Rules as written they don't take wounds, but prepare to be hit by the Big Red Book when you point this out.

LevDaddy
16-07-2010, 18:21
However if anyone insists on this the rules for unstable refer to the magic binding unstable beings together and that being beset in close combat will result in that magic fading away. So there you go unstable wounds are based in magic.

This is how I see it too, well said.

Atrahasis
16-07-2010, 18:28
However if anyone insists on this the rules for unstable refer to the magic binding unstable beings together and that being beset in close combat will result in that magic fading away. So there you go unstable wounds are based in magic.Unstable wounds are based ona lack of magic by the reference you give.

Balerion
16-07-2010, 18:57
The RaW is supremely clear; his reasoning is about as straightforward as you can get. The stupidity of the result is entirely GW's fault, and not the fault of us who choose to read the rules closely and determine what they actually say and mean.


Let's put it this way: if WFB was brand new, and this rulebook had been released in tandem with the VC armybook for the first time ever, not a single one of you would be claiming what you are claiming. You would have read the rules, considered their interaction, and determined that Unstable Ethereals cannot take damage from CR.

The reason we believe that this isn't true has nothing to do with anything written in the rulebook, and everything to do with our awareness of how the rule functioned in previous editions.

Scalebug
16-07-2010, 19:05
The stupidity of the result is entirely GW's fault, and not the fault of us who choose to read the rules closely and determine what they actually say and mean.

Everyone can read the rules closely, it's just that the paths then branches of into those who understand how to play the game, and rules lawyers trying to abuse what they find.

The books are written for one of those groups. Don't be the other one.

Ultimate Life Form
16-07-2010, 19:09
Tell me this is a joke, tell me people aren't actually suggesting that ethereal units don't take wounds from CR. I know that VC suffered from some of these rule changes, but seriously you can't really be having this conversation. Say it all you want but in your hearts you know that to actually play it this way is just plain cheating.

However if anyone insists on this the rules for unstable refer to the magic binding unstable beings together and that being beset in close combat will result in that magic fading away. So there you go unstable wounds are based in magic.

I'm afraid you're confusing background with a rules debate which is an absolute taboo, and if you're not able to keep your temper in check and fly off the handle instead of countering written rules with comprehensible arguments then I'm afraid you're not suited for this subforum.

theunwantedbeing
16-07-2010, 19:41
It just needs a new errata, thats all.

Ethereal troops currently dont take wounds from losing combat due to being unstable.
Simple enough, but easily house ruled that they do untill GW notices they need to errata it so that the rules lawyers aren't able to make the game too unfun for their opponents.

Balerion
16-07-2010, 19:51
FWIW (since people so enjoy throwing around lazy accusations about rules lawyering and cheating) I played a game last night with my VC in which I was happily taking CR wounds on my Unstable Ethereals.

But I am aware that I was doing it in violation of the letter of the rules.

Hopefully they get to it in Errata V1.2

Marauder Carl
16-07-2010, 20:01
Ethereal troops currently don't take wounds from losing combat due to being unstable.

Nuff said. Case closed. You may petition GW for an appeal at this point. RAW is The Law... rules vigilantism the workaround.


I played a game last night with my VC in which I was happily taking CR wounds on my Unstable Ethereals.

Watch it perp. I've got my eye on you...

Bac5665
16-07-2010, 20:27
This thread seems to be a good time to emphasize a dichotomy that gets ignored all to often.

Just because I believe the rules say a certain thing doesn't mean that how I play it. I believed that a Steam Tank could be spiked last edition. I never ONCE seriously suggested to an Empire Player that their Tank was destroyed that way.

This thread is about what the rules say. What you do with that information is your business and beyond the scope of this forum.

Marauder Carl
16-07-2010, 20:55
I'm in full agreement with theunwantedbeing. He nailed it. It's cut and dry, black and white, in your face, printed that way.

Balerion made a good find. Nothing against him, he's not even playing it that way.

However, read this quote at face value, in the same context that Balerion proposed- we just unwrapped the 1st edition of the box:

"Ethereal troops currently don't take wounds from losing combat due to being unstable."

How much substance is required to debunk that as bullocks in entirety? A lot. An errata in fact. How much substance is required to point out this is pants? None. Loq-Gor presented an equally pants argument for countering a dodgy attempt at avoiding ethereal crumbling. I didn't read any overt rage into his comments. You however seemed to chastise him on that post, and while I agree with you in the end, you have to be some kind of subtle troll to call him out on this seemingly ridiculous yet valid point. You have to be a Rules Dredd. Dredd isn't subtle, but he, like RAW, -IS- "The Law".

No sarcasm tag intended or implied. RAW is the LAW. I may not agree with the law, but it's not my job to interpret it.

Loq-Gor
16-07-2010, 21:14
I'm in full agreement with theunwantedbeing. He nailed it. It's cut and dry, black and white, in your face, printed that way.

Balerion made a good find. Nothing against him, he's not even playing it that way.

However, read this quote at face value, in the same context that Balerion proposed- we just unwrapped the 1st edition of the box:

"Ethereal troops currently don't take wounds from losing combat due to being unstable."

How much substance is required to debunk that as bullocks in entirety? A lot. An errata in fact. How much substance is required to point out this is pants? None. Loq-Gor presented an equally pants argument for countering a dodgy attempt at avoiding ethereal crumbling. I didn't read any overt rage into his comments. You however seemed to chastise him on that post, and while I agree with you in the end, you have to be some kind of subtle troll to call him out on this seemingly ridiculous yet valid point. You have to be a Rules Dredd. Dredd isn't subtle, but he, like RAW, -IS- "The Law".

No sarcasm tag intended or implied. RAW is the LAW. I may not agree with the law, but it's not my job to interpret it.

Thank you for getting that, my argument wasn't meant as a serious attempt to reinstate crumbling. That said I think the rules can be interpreted either way. I honestly believe that a careful reading of the rules supports crumbling of ethereal units.

Also I appologize if anyone thought I was angry, I wasn't, just disappointed.

Of course everyone should just play how their gaming group, or the tournament organizers, agree. My VC player agrees with me, some non VC players will agree with you guys. I'll just be waiting for the FAQ to come out and give a definitive answer.

Teongpeng
16-07-2010, 21:38
So now that the VC FAQ has been updated, and all Undead units are Unstable, we're left with an unusual situation regarding the Ethereal units in the army.

Unstable: "Unstable units that lose a combat suffer one extra Wound for every point by which they lost the combat, with no saves of any kind permitted against these wounds."

Ethereal: "The close combat attacks of Ethereal creatures are magical. Conversely, Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons of effects. This is not to say that Ethereal creatures cannot be beaten in close combat by mundane troops, because combat results are not wholly dependent upon casualties."


So it seems like Unstable Ethereal units, while able to lose a combat, are not compelled to take any extra casualties from doing so.

Opinions?guys guys guys...let teongpeng points u the way....

Lets give a name to this unstable + ethereal unit - UE.

See, UE has the ethereal rule, which mean it cant be wounded except by the cause listed. Next he has the unstable rule, which mean it can be wounded by CR. So this implies that unstable being an additional rule...adds an additional cause to how UE may be wounded.

So...an ethereal unit may only be harmed by magical attacks etc, while an UE on the other hand may only be harmed by magical attacks and CR.

Get it? an additional rule always add smething to the original equation. The rule as it is, is fine.

Balerion
16-07-2010, 22:16
guys guys guys...let teongpeng points u the way....

Lets give a name to this unstable + ethereal unit - UE.

See, UE has the ethereal rule, which mean it cant be wounded except by the cause listed. Next he has the unstable rule, which mean it can be wounded by CR. So this implies that unstable being an additional rule...adds an additional cause to how UE may be wounded.

So...an ethereal unit may only be harmed by magical attacks etc, while an UE on the other hand may only be harmed by magical attacks and CR.

Get it? an additional rule always add smething to the original equation. The rule as it is, is fine.
Except that's not how the rules read.

SideshowLucifer
16-07-2010, 22:59
Let's put it this way: if WFB was brand new, and this rulebook had been released in tandem with the VC armybook for the first time ever, not a single one of you would be claiming what you are claiming. You would have read the rules, considered their interaction, and determined that Unstable Ethereals cannot take damage from CR.

The reason we believe that this isn't true has nothing to do with anything written in the rulebook, and everything to do with our awareness of how the rule functioned in previous editions.

This is one of my favorite quotes so far and a way of thinking everyone on a rule's forum should adopt. Stop trying to interpret the rule and do what the rule says. When we find these things, itactualy does improve the game because it allows the writters to tighten the rules up.

Paraelix
16-07-2010, 23:58
I believed that a Steam Tank could be spiked last edition.

Mind explaining what you're talking about...?

theunwantedbeing
17-07-2010, 00:52
Mind explaining what you're talking about...?

Steam tank was a war machine.
War machines that had lost their crews (read: had no crew) were automatically destroyed(spiked) at the end of a round of combat with any enemies.

Teongpeng
17-07-2010, 00:53
Except that's not how the rules read.or u dont know how to read logic. Consider:

1)Cars can only run on petrol and nothing else.
2)hybrid cars are cars that can run on petrol and electricity.

See the additional rule add to it thus hybrid cars become cars that can run on petrol AND electricity and nothing else. An additional rule (unless its diametrical opposite) always expands on the initial rule.

Thus is the case when an ethereal gets the additional unstable rule, it becomes hybrid.

Kalandros
17-07-2010, 06:53
And then suddenly, a great banner rose up with the word "UNMODIFIED" and the bearer stopped to ask "lol so do I add my SiN LD to modify my leadership?"

This is just another case of Games Workshop not completing their rules, creating confusing situations (just as with the SiN rule).

Wait for a FAQ, decide with your opponent how to play it and if a disagreement happens, You know the rule follow...

And the off topic banner walked toward the rising sun~

Paraelix
17-07-2010, 07:23
And then suddenly, a great banner rose up with the word "UNMODIFIED" and the bearer stopped to ask "lol so do I add my SiN LD to modify my leadership?"

This is just another case of Games Workshop not completing their rules, creating confusing situations (just as with the SiN rule).

Wait for a FAQ, decide with your opponent how to play it and if a disagreement happens, You know the rule follow...

And the off topic banner walked toward the rising sun~

Steadfast should read "Leadership is not modified by Combat Resolution." Would make life so much easier.

Balerion
17-07-2010, 07:26
or u dont know how to read logic. Consider:

1)Cars can only run on petrol and nothing else.
2)hybrid cars are cars that can run on petrol and electricity.

See the additional rule add to it thus hybrid cars become cars that can run on petrol AND electricity and nothing else. An additional rule (unless its diametrical opposite) always expands on the initial rule.

Thus is the case when an ethereal gets the additional unstable rule, it becomes hybrid.
1) and 2) cannot possibly both be true.

Paraelix
17-07-2010, 07:43
While you're arguing over ridiculous interpretations... How about a Vampire with Red Fury and the Hand of Dust...

"Oh, I inflicted 12 wounds, I'll make 12 attacks now..."

Nothing is said about it needing to be close combat attacks that caused the wounds. And there are several other instances in which close combat attacks are made in the magic phase :P

spiderman5z
17-07-2010, 07:51
it seems to me that vc players are just sore that they got nerfed in 8th ed and dont wanna crumble welcome to the undead club all ur undead stuff crumbles! That's what u pay for when ur units are unbreakable and can be raised from the dead... this is just a ridiculous silly loophole. Don't you think you've won enough games in 7th ed? sheesh. I'm sorry to get all mad but this is just ridiculous!

Balerion
17-07-2010, 07:53
While you're arguing over ridiculous interpretations... How about a Vampire with Red Fury and the Hand of Dust...

"Oh, I inflicted 12 wounds, I'll make 12 attacks now..."

Nothing is said about it needing to be close combat attacks that caused the wounds. And there are several other instances in which close combat attacks are made in the magic phase :P
Interesting, but I don't think it's a legit quandary:


Red Fury: "For each unsaved wound that the Vampire causes..."

Hand of Dust: ..."this item inflicts 2D6 Strength 5 hits..."


So the Vampire isn't causing the wounds, the item is. Though it does make me wonder how Red Fury would work with the Staff of Damnation.

Paraelix
17-07-2010, 08:16
Interesting, but I don't think it's a legit quandary:


Curse of Years cast on a Horde unit then.

Sifal
17-07-2010, 18:04
Page 2 of the BRB:

'THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE. In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer , there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to INTERPRET a rule or come up with a SUITABLE SOLUTION FOR YOURSELVES.....'

Anyone who thinks that the actual SUITABLE SOLUTION for the unstable/ethereal debate is for the ethereal unit not to take wounds in an actual game of Warhammer say 'aye'. To anyone that says 'aye'; you are breaking THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE in warhammer and thus don't hold much credibility as a rules lawyer.

The new BRB says be prepared to interpret a rule...... RAW is not king, common sense is, and to the best of my knowledge no current GW rule publication (including BRB, Army books, Throne of Skulls pack etc) says use RAW over a 'suitable solution'.... which is an official ruling.
I'm a VC player for the record, not trying to troll or flame etc....

Damocles8
17-07-2010, 18:36
I think Teopang hit the best reasoning, it satisfies the ASF + ASL loophole and this one

Bac5665
17-07-2010, 18:59
Page 2 of the BRB:

'THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE. In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer , there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to INTERPRET a rule or come up with a SUITABLE SOLUTION FOR YOURSELVES.....'

Anyone who thinks that the actual SUITABLE SOLUTION for the unstable/ethereal debate is for the ethereal unit not to take wounds in an actual game of Warhammer say 'aye'. To anyone that says 'aye'; you are breaking THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE in warhammer and thus don't hold much credibility as a rules lawyer.

The new BRB says be prepared to interpret a rule...... RAW is not king, common sense is, and to the best of my knowledge no current GW rule publication (including BRB, Army books, Throne of Skulls pack etc) says use RAW over a 'suitable solution'.... which is an official ruling.
I'm a VC player for the record, not trying to troll or flame etc....

Nothing in that quote has anything to do with what were talking about.

Again, for the hundredth time in two days, we are not talking about an ambiguous rule. The rule is actually crystal clear. We are talking about a crystal clear rule that is obviously very different from what most players expect, and therefore thought it best to bring it to the communities attention so that they can choose how to deal with it, wither by house rule or by playing it as written.

There is no ambiguity to to discuss, no unclear rule to look up. Just two rules that add together with a clear outcome. So the rule you quoted has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Sifal
17-07-2010, 19:27
of course its ambiguous, there are two contravening rules with nothing to say which takes precedence. Rules as Written state that ethereal, unstable units take wounds from CR and don't take wounds from anything except magic, magic attacks etc. That is ambiguity.

Incidentally you could argue that the ruling is crystal clear in favour of ethereal units taking wounds from CR becasue it says on on pgae 66 of the BRB, 'effects of multiple special rules are cumulative' Therefore apply both ethereal and unstable rules. It doesn't exclusively say that only the effects of multiples of the same special rule are cumulative. Therefore, as Teopong stated, the unstable rule is in addition to the ethereal rule and allows another way for ethereal units to be wounded.
As the two interpretations are both RAW correct there is ambiguity and the ruling for that is to find a sensible solution. And before you say there is only one RAW interpretation there is nothing indicating which rule takes precedence and there is something indicating that the rules stack.

xxRavenxx
17-07-2010, 19:46
I agree entirely with the vampries.

The rules, taken to the exact letter they are written, give you a unit which is indestructable in all regards if it makes combat with a unit with non-magical attacks.

Heres the problem: You will never *ever* convince me to play a game with you if you uphold the RAW of those rules. I imagine 90% of people would say the same thing.

If you wanted a friendly game, I'd refuse. If I met someone in a tournament, I'd grab the TO to sort it out, and if he, for some crazed reason ruled you could have an unkillable unit, I'd forfit my game on the spot and wait till next round for a decent game.

To everyone who is arguing: It is futile. The rules, read exactly as written, say the unit is immune to its own crumbling. The rules, interpeted as intended, say the unit would not be unkillable and unbreakable. (ignoring magic abilities, ofc).

Everyone is in two camps. RAW or RAI. Both groups are entirely right. Neither group will convince the other to play the game their way. You will argue till youre all dead. (Then you'll become ghosts, and not take unstable checks, and argue forever...)






ps. Yes I know ghosts have magic attacks... but I really wanted to crack that jibe...

Venthrac
17-07-2010, 20:50
Interesting thread. It does seem to be the case that the rules for Ethereal and Undead cannot both be true at the same time.

I'm a little bit confused as to why GW considers ethereal units to be undead. They are not corpses that have been re-animated. I suppose their definition of undead and mine are slightly different, but that's neither here nor there.

At any rate, I completely agree with those of you who say this needs to be clarified and fixed in an update to the FAQ/Errata document. I honestly don't know how I'd rule it if it were left to me to decide, but I know that I would want to discuss it with my opponent before the game started, and agree on one interpretation of the other.

My gut tells me - and this is only my personal opinion, which I do not present as gospel - that if Ethereal units can be beaten in a close combat by means other than taking wounds from magical sources, then it is not unreasonable to invoke the Unstable rule. I can't hash out why GW would assign a rule (Unstable) to a unit that can not possibly be affected by it. If tehy cannot actualyl take wounds frmo being Unstable, then they should probably not be Unstable.

However, I can see both sides of this argument. Clearly, this needs to be fixed on GW's side.

Ultimate Life Form
17-07-2010, 21:07
Page 2 of the BRB:

'THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE. In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer , there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don't agree on the precise outcome.
Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to INTERPRET a rule or come up with a SUITABLE SOLUTION FOR YOURSELVES.....'

Anyone who thinks that the actual SUITABLE SOLUTION for the unstable/ethereal debate is for the ethereal unit not to take wounds in an actual game of Warhammer say 'aye'. To anyone that says 'aye'; you are breaking THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE in warhammer and thus don't hold much credibility as a rules lawyer.

The new BRB says be prepared to interpret a rule...... RAW is not king, common sense is, and to the best of my knowledge no current GW rule publication (including BRB, Army books, Throne of Skulls pack etc) says use RAW over a 'suitable solution'.... which is an official ruling.
I'm a VC player for the record, not trying to troll or flame etc....

THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE OF THE RULES FORUM (I actually think this should be stickied):
Read. Some people fail this first test and need to be weeded out before we proceed further. Everyone else will now realize that there a two possible types of rule questions: A) The question is not clearly covered by the rules or B) the question is clearly covered by the rules. Obviously in case A there can be no definite answer, in which case it is acceptable to point out what should be done. In case B this does not apply, instead we discuss what the rules say. Because this is a rules discussions forum. Period. Any claims of 'LOLZ dose guyz are real ****, their just peeved their army gotz nurfed ROFLMAOZ@+%' have no place here and are to be taken elsewhere (hopefully to a place very, very far away from WarSeer).

spiderman5z
17-07-2010, 21:29
I haven't played with "wet" Undead since 4th Edition.

Take your petty accusations of selfishness and stick them in your crypt.

What the hell does "wet" undead mean anyway?! The rules seem pretty clear to me. All undead are unbreakable and unstable. In the unit entry for spirit hosts, wraiths, etc. it says Ethereal, UNDEAD. Therefore they are unbreakable and unstable. Which means they'd take wounds from combat res.


THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE OF THE RULES FORUM (I actually think this should be stickied):
Read. Some people fail this first test and need to be weeded out before we proceed further. Everyone else will now realize that there a two possible types of rule questions: A) The question is not clearly covered by the rules or B) the question is clearly covered by the rules. Obviously in case A there can be no definite answer, in which case it is acceptable to point out what should be done. In case B this does not apply, instead we discuss what the rules say. Because this is a rules discussions forum. Period. Any claims of 'LOLZ dose guyz are real ****, their just peeved their army gotz nurfed ROFLMAOZ@+%' have no place here and are to be taken elsewhere (hopefully to a place very, very far away from WarSeer).

Sorry about my accusations to anyone who was legitimately confused about the rules.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-07-2010, 21:47
This thread seems to be a good time to emphasize a dichotomy that gets ignored all to often.

Just because I believe the rules say a certain thing doesn't mean that how I play it. I believed that a Steam Tank could be spiked last edition. I never ONCE seriously suggested to an Empire Player that their Tank was destroyed that way.

This thread is about what the rules say. What you do with that information is your business and beyond the scope of this forum.

I think that's exactly what should be discussed here though. What the rules say, as well as the decent ting to do. People often step ask a question because they're stuck on the best way to play the game, and don't really need or necessarily appreciate a 10 page argument with no resolution.

Playing devil's advocate is all well and good but sometimes people just look like devils in this subforum.

As far as my input into the actual thread discussion goes, I'd concede that that the RAW indicate they don't lose wounds from combat resolution, but I'd play the game as though they do. This looks like a slip from the FAQ team instead of an intentional bump to ethereal models. As I rarely face models with ethereal I wont be losing much sleep over this either way.

Balerion
17-07-2010, 22:21
What the hell does "wet" undead mean anyway?! The rules seem pretty clear to me. All undead are unbreakable and unstable. In the unit entry for spirit hosts, wraiths, etc. it says Ethereal, UNDEAD. Therefore they are unbreakable and unstable. Which means they'd take wounds from combat res.

I'm only going to quote your post because it's the most recent one, but this is directed at everyone who is trying to present that interpretation. I hope you don't feel singled out. :) Ethereal and Unstable do not (by RaW) combine in the way you guys claim.

Unstable presents a new source of wounds for a unit and outline when the units suffer from these wounds.

Ethereal restricts the type of wounds that the unit can receive.

The type of wounds inflicted by CR to Unstable units are not magical, and therefore they cannot be received by Ethereals. By RaW. Which is sometimes stupid.

Bac5665
17-07-2010, 22:25
I think that's exactly what should be discussed here though. What the rules say, as well as the decent ting to do. People often step ask a question because they're stuck on the best way to play the game, and don't really need or necessarily appreciate a 10 page argument with no resolution.

Playing devil's advocate is all well and good but sometimes people just look like devils in this subforum.

As far as my input into the actual thread discussion goes, I'd concede that that the RAW indicate they don't lose wounds from combat resolution, but I'd play the game as though they do. This looks like a slip from the FAQ team instead of an intentional bump to ethereal models. As I rarely face models with ethereal I wont be losing much sleep over this either way.

I agree with you that those discussions are important, and even interesting. But the problem is that it is a separate question, and it almost always gets mixed up with the question of what the rules actually say, and seems the root cause of many, many arguments I see here.

So I a thread where a poster asks: "I get that the rule says x, but does anyone agree that y is a better house rule?" is a good thread. But I really do think it should be a separate thread for the sake of clarity.

Sifal
17-07-2010, 22:39
I'll concede I'm letting RAI into my argument rather than just pure logic. However, I disagree that the rule is crystal clear Raw because on p.66 it says special rules are cumulative and I believe Teopang's argument to hold as much (not more or less) RAW weight as the other side of the argument. Hence it's ambiguous because it can be ruled in more than one way hence my citing of THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE (which was intended as a light-hearted way of saying make an agreement with your opponent). I just believe that the unstable/ethereal rule isn't crystal clear RAW, i'm not saying i'm correct. However, I don't appreciate patronising remarks about the need to be 'weeded out' bla bla when i know the difference between a clearly covered rule question and a not clearly covered one, I was merely arguing that the rule question falls under ULF's option A) as ambiguous. I wasn't trying to argue for the application of THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE to ULF's option B) a cut and dry rule definition.

Bac5665
17-07-2010, 22:44
Wow.

I missed Teopang's post. That's actually a pretty good argument.

Anyway, Sifal, fair enough. If you believe it is ambiguous, then you are of course correct.

spiderman5z
17-07-2010, 22:51
Alright, I'll admit that it could be interpreted in such a way that ethereals are immune to combat res and that gw decided to give VC a nearly unkillable unit, but it makes alot more sense that they are suppose to take combat res wounds because they are also undead. Combat res wounds aren't magical, but they aren't non-magical either... how do u define the wounds from combat res? I don't see much fluff in them, but they do balance out the game since you can always bring back the dead undead that died (try saying that 10 times fast).

SideshowLucifer
17-07-2010, 23:27
I honestly dont believe anyone believes it should be played with them not being instable, but a lot of us are saying RAW is saying that.
As far as the guy posting in caps that we are breakingthe first rule, well in a rules forum, we tend to debate RAW. RAW is what we have. RAW is what we resort to when two or more people disagree what the intent of the rule is. No matter what we think the intent is, it is the RAW we are debating.

Balerion
17-07-2010, 23:53
I'll concede I'm letting RAI into my argument rather than just pure logic. However, I disagree that the rule is crystal clear Raw because on p.66 it says special rules are cumulative and I believe Teopang's argument to hold as much (not more or less) RAW weight as the other side of the argument.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't support your argument. If the special rules weren't cumulative then this thread wouldn't exist, because a unit could not claim it's Ethereal status to avoid non-magical CR wounds. Ethereal and Unstable wouldn't work in combination; it would necessarily be one or the other.

In other words, it is because special rules are cumulative that Unstable Ethereals are immune to CR wounds by RaW.

Balerion
18-07-2010, 04:02
Troll detected. :D

Look troll, its stupid for the game designers to add a redundant special rule to a unit that has no effect, dont u think? How else do u suggest the designers re-word the Ethereal rule without it effecting the Green Knight or any other future instances when the Ethereal rule is required for non-undead units?
They added the Unstable rule to all undead units, not just Ethereals, and it works fine for all the non-Ethereal units that use it.

No rewording is necessary within the Ethereal rule; it's the Unstable rule that needs to be modified. One line would do it: "These wounds are considered to be a magical effect."

And it makes sense that you think I'm trolling. Your comprehension of motive seems to be every bit as poor as your comprehension of logic and language.

spiderman5z
18-07-2010, 05:18
guys guys guys!! calm down! there is a very easy way to settle this dispute... roll off! ona 4+ ethereal take wounds from combat res! there settled!

Teongpeng
18-07-2010, 05:22
guys guys guys!! calm down! there is a very easy way to settle this dispute... roll off! ona 4+ ethereal take wounds from combat res! there settled!LOL dude calm down....there is no dispute here regarding how the game should be played...we were just bickering about wether or not they need to change the wording in what appears to be a very obvious rule. :D

Balerion
18-07-2010, 05:25
guys guys guys!! calm down! there is a very easy way to settle this dispute... roll off! ona 4+ ethereal take wounds from combat res! there settled!
I think it's actually better to discuss the situation and try to agree to ignore the RaW, since the proposed dice-off amounts to asking your opponent if he's down with a 50/50 shot to make one of your units borderline unkillable (Black Coach) and the other Ethereals insanely difficult to kill.

Balerion
18-07-2010, 09:08
But it's not a magical effect.

Guys, there's no band-aid. The RaW is what it is.

acx
18-07-2010, 09:11
A lawyer would say that since the word "magical" is only present before the word "weapons" one could interpret the reading to be magical weapons or any effects. Gotta love the English language and lawyers.

Balerion
18-07-2010, 09:14
Only someone unfamiliar with the English language could claim that. Read the sentence again, maybe?

acx
18-07-2010, 09:26
The sentence is perfectly ambiguous. Especially since the word magical appears before both attacks and weapons but not effects. If they meant magical effects why not say "magical attacks and magical weapons or magica effects" or concatenate it into "magical attacks, weapons, or effects". Did GW purposely leave out "magical" in front of the word "effects" because they wanted all effects? Probably not but who's to say what they intended other than GW?

Rhaivaen
18-07-2010, 10:20
"Undead" used to be a single race - there were no "Vampires Counts" or "Tomb Kings". Then the overall "Undead" race was split into "wet" Undead and "dry" Undead - VC and TK respectively (so called because VC are freshly dead, zombies, ghouls and TK are the ancient desert-bound skeletons and mummies).

Not everybody is familiar with all the terms and abbreviations that are being used here.. whether on the net or in RL, thanks for the explanation anyway.

Loq-Gor
18-07-2010, 11:03
But it's not a magical effect.

Guys, there's no band-aid. The RaW is what it is.

You keep claiming that RaW is what it is, in one way or another. But that is the real point here, we don't agree what RaW is. As far as I am concerned RaW says special rules stack so obviously Unstable continues to work. You claim that ethereal says wounds are only caused by magical conditions, which I don't argue, and that CR wounds from unstable aren't magical, which the reference to magic in the unstable rule would seem to dispute, so they can't be wounded by CR. The rules as written are too ambiguous to determine that, hence you asking the question in the first place.

One more thing @Atrahasis you claim that spiderman5z was being aggressive in asking what 'wet' meant. Well I didn't know what it meant either, and out of context it does sound vaguely condescending, like "wet behind the ears" or some such thing. All the while I don't recall reading a single post of yours that didn't sound down right hostile, including the one explaining 'wet'. I notice that ULF only feels the need to tell those of us who don't believe one way to calm down, so I will say it to you. You are being overly hostile for no reason, it is a game, probably none of us will ever play each other, it doesn't matter. Now if I misread your posts I apologize, but you should be aware of how they are coming off.

Atrahasis
18-07-2010, 11:11
I wasn't objecting to him asking what "wet" means. I was objecting to him asking "what the hell wet even mean[s]", after coming into the thread and immediately accusing anyone who disagrees with his point of view of having selfish motives for doing so.

With regard to "stacking" - this isn't a case of stacking. As pointed out earlier, if special rules didn't stack, then a model couldn't have both rules to begin with, and the question would never arise.

Additionally, rules which offer protection from damage must take precedence over rules which inflict damage if they are to function at all.
If a damage rule can overrule a protection rule purely by existing, then the protection rule is worthless.
This is why damage rules have to say "with no saves allowed" to circumvent saves - if that clause wasn't necessary then any rule that inflicted damage would ignore saves.

xxRavenxx
18-07-2010, 11:13
A lawyer would say that since the word "magical" is only present before the word "weapons" one could interpret the reading to be magical weapons or any effects. Gotta love the English language and lawyers.

I remind you of chaos knights.

"Replace magic hand weapons with lances" (paraphrased. I dont have the book to hand to copy it word for word.)

Turns out, GW dont allways use adjectives for whole lists. Just the single entities in them...

ghostline
18-07-2010, 12:52
Why give an etheral unit unstable if it doesnt do anything?

theunwantedbeing
18-07-2010, 12:56
Why give an etheral unit unstable if it doesnt do anything?

shush :P
Your not supposed to use logic or reason, this is warhammer fantasy! things should not make sense......

Ethereals are harmed when they crumble, they are not immune to the damage suffered.
RAW doesnt agree of course but RAI does and will be corrected in time.

Atrahasis
18-07-2010, 13:26
Why give an etheral unit unstable if it doesnt do anything?

They are only given Unstable by virtue of an umbrella special rule, "Undead".

If their was something somewhere which specifically gave the units in question both special rules directly, then that would be a strong indicator of intent.

However, the units in question only have "Unstable" because all units with the "Undead" special rule inherit it through that rule.

Damocles8
18-07-2010, 14:45
They are only given Unstable by virtue of an umbrella special rule, "Undead".

If their was something somewhere which specifically gave the units in question both special rules directly, then that would be a strong indicator of intent.

However, the units in question only have "Unstable" because all units with the "Undead" special rule inherit it through that rule.

Then why give them the Undead rule?

Atrahasis
18-07-2010, 14:46
To make them Immune to Psychology, prevent them from marching, and all the other things the Undead rule does.

Codsticker
18-07-2010, 15:59
Please keep the discussion pertinent to the rule in question; there is no need to question the intelligence of those who hold the opposing view or suggest that you would attack an opponent who suggested an interpretation you didn't agree with.:)

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

jasperre64
18-07-2010, 17:09
page 3 of the main rulebook

"The spirit of the Game

You'll realise soon that warhammer is different to any other game you have played. It is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game.

Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time. What's more, Warhammer calls on a lot from you, the player.

Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's to also add your own ideas and sense of fun to the game. Much of the appeal of Warhammer lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows, and it is in this spirit that the rules have been written"


So on that note, i personally dont think its in the spirit of the game to say that etheral units dont suffer from the unstable rule. If an opponent of mine tried this rule and insisted on it, i'd stop right there and pack up.

Balerion
18-07-2010, 18:28
For what seems like the hundredth time, nobody comes to the Warhammer Rules forum to discuss the spirit of the game, or The Most Important Rule.

Please don't clog up the thread with that stuff.

Sifal
18-07-2010, 19:28
If their was something somewhere which specifically gave the units in question both special rules directly, then that would be a strong indicator of intent.

Cairn Wraiths, just as one example, have in their special rules, in their army list entry: 'undead' and 'ethereal'. FAQ says 'all undead units have the unbreakable and unstable special rules'. That is giving a unit both special rules directly?

And to the people saying 'the most important rule' isn't relevant etc because we're discussing RAW, bear in mind it is the RAW that is being challenged. people are disagreeing on the RAW not RAI or anything else. so interpretation, thought to GW intent and 'the most important rule' are all relevant if one believes the RAW is ambiguous, which many here do.

Atrahasis
18-07-2010, 21:54
Cairn Wraiths, just as one example, have in their special rules, in their army list entry: 'undead' and 'ethereal'. FAQ says 'all undead units have the unbreakable and unstable special rules'. That is giving a unit both special rules directly?

No, it isn't. Giving the rule to all Undead models is not giving the rule to Cairn Wraiths specifically.

Yes, they have the rule, but they only have it by virtue of being Undead.

If the errata/amendments said "Cairn Wraiths : Add the "Unstable" special rule", then as I have said, it would be a firm indicator of intent (though still wouldn't result in a different outcome rules-wise).

spiderman5z
19-07-2010, 03:27
Uhm... I think by now we all know that this discussion is going to go nowhere... so let's just wait for an faq shall we?

Dungeon_Lawyer
19-07-2010, 03:52
So what about when the vamp-lord dies---Etheral units wont take wounds--?

Venthrac
19-07-2010, 17:00
Uhm... I think by now we all know that this discussion is going to go nowhere... so let's just wait for an faq shall we?

What he said.

How do we bring this to GW's attention? Is there an email address we can send this to?

Atrahasis
19-07-2010, 17:12
I've already raised it with the design team.

Sifal
23-07-2010, 16:35
This has now been officially FAQ'd, Ethereal units do take damage from unstable rule

Venthrac
23-07-2010, 22:11
This has now been officially FAQ'd, Ethereal units do take damage from unstable rule

I don't see this reflected in the documents on the website here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&start=2

Am I looking in the wrong place?

EDIT: Strike that, I wsa looking in the VC FAQ and it's actually in the BRB FAQ.

All is well!