PDA

View Full Version : Steam Tank Pit of Shades



Mooseman007
17-08-2010, 03:25
Is the Steam tank still immune to Pit of Shades?

sulla
17-08-2010, 04:40
Yes, as per the BRB faq. Unfortunately.

Yrrdead
17-08-2010, 06:51
In the future please use the search feature. Thanks :)

Loopstah
17-08-2010, 08:58
Yes, as per the BRB faq. Unfortunately.

It's actually the Empire FAQ.

Maoriboy007
17-08-2010, 09:09
Yes, as per the BRB faq. Unfortunately.

Dropping a 300 point unit off the table is a bit rough. Although the concept applies to any spell vs unit scenario really.

sulla
18-08-2010, 19:19
It's unfortunate because it's a cut and paste from an earlier FAQ. There's no logical reason for the tank to be immune to pit but vulnerable to purple sun. Steam tanks are s hard to deal with for most armies that this key difference will be enough to force players to choose death over other lores in all comers armies.

EDMM
18-08-2010, 21:25
Someone must know the person responsible for the FAQs.

Tell him to fix it.

JRGumby
18-08-2010, 21:27
It's unfortunate because it's a cut and paste from an earlier FAQ. There's no logical reason for the tank to be immune to pit but vulnerable to purple sun. Steam tanks are s hard to deal with for most armies that this key difference will be enough to force players to choose death over other lores in all comers armies.

I'm actually a bit uncertain on this, as there is absolutely no rules basis for this and it is a copy-paste from a previous FAQ. It really is a huge oversight and a foolish error if it is still applicable though.

If an FAQ says something that violates/doesn't actually follow any rules is it actually a rule in and of itself?

RanaldLoec
19-08-2010, 12:58
The stank is immune to the pit of shades just pick the lore of death if you can and if you suffer from having large metal bath tubs that run you over in your dreams.

EDMM
19-08-2010, 13:23
No it's not though. There is no longer any reason anyone would ask the question which is answered. There is no rule anywhere that the answer can be based on.

It is clearly a mistake, and a mistake which is founded on absolutely nothing.

I don't think a FAQ answer should be able to create rules out of nothing. They should, at the every least, be tied to some actual rule which exists.

decker_cky
19-08-2010, 15:22
It's like the old TK magic resistance vs casket FAQ towards the end of 7th which didn't change after magic resistance changed. You'll have to discuss it with your gaming group.

RanaldLoec
19-08-2010, 20:12
No it's not though. There is no longer any reason anyone would ask the question which is answered. There is no rule anywhere that the answer can be based on.

It is clearly a mistake, and a mistake which is founded on absolutely nothing.

I don't think a FAQ answer should be able to create rules out of nothing. They should, at the every least, be tied to some actual rule which exists.

Yes it is immune to the pit of shades its in black and white print.

Allot like other rules and changes in the official faqs you might not like it but the rule exists saying it doesn't or arguing it won't change the fact the faq clearly states that the steam tank is immune to the pit of shades.

As other members have stated talk with your gaming group they may house rule it to say that it can.

Scalebug
19-08-2010, 22:50
Meh, the Pit is simply not wide enough for the Tank to fall into... :angel:

Or something...

But really, it is there in black and White, you can't go erasing the answers you don't agree with.

Or, of course, you can, but what is the point of having FAQ's if you do?

Yrrdead
20-08-2010, 00:18
Meh, the Pit is simply not wide enough for the Tank to fall into... :angel:

Or something...

But really, it is there in black and White, you can't go erasing the answers you don't agree with.

Or, of course, you can, but what is the point of having FAQ's if you do?

The issue is the same as it always has been. Errata and Amendments are Black and White. FAQ's (the question and answers) are definitley not. This is even stated by GW themselves. I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware of multiple "answers" that directly contradict the rules.

Though most Tournmanents treat them as gospel so you have to be aware of them even if you don't like them. (Again this is only in regards to the Q&A not to the Errata/Amendments)

MasterSlowPoke
20-08-2010, 03:43
The issue is the same as it always has been. Errata and Amendments are Black and White. FAQ's (the question and answers) are definitley not. This is even stated by GW themselves.

Not anymore. FAQ answers are now as much rules as Errata are. They changed the page before the FAQs that used to say the question parts were soft rules.

shakedown47
20-08-2010, 05:50
Luckily, people with common sense don't even need to reference an FAQ, which is obviously a copy/paste job.

As EDMM said, why would anyone ever ask this question? The errata makes it clear that the Steam Tank can now be affected by spells, and Pit of Shades is a spell. I don't see how there can be any ambiguity on this. I would expect every single group's and tournament's default rule would be to allow Pit of Shades and other spells to affect the steam tank, since the rules make it clear that they do.

Empire players, please stop embarrasing yourselves by clinging to that silly FAQ that you and everyone else knows is a typo. Or, please post one logical, RULES SUPPORTED reason why Pit of Shades would not affect the steam tank if it were hit.

eyescrossed
20-08-2010, 08:07
Or, please post one logical, RULES SUPPORTED reason why Pit of Shades would not affect the steam tank if it were hit.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but what about the FAQ ruling that the Skaven Doomflayer's Impact Hits are Str4, even though by RAW they should be Str3?

Although I would let it affect Steam Tanks.

RanaldLoec
20-08-2010, 08:39
Luckily, people with common sense don't even need to reference an FAQ, which is obviously a copy/paste job.

As EDMM said, why would anyone ever ask this question? The errata makes it clear that the Steam Tank can now be affected by spells, and Pit of Shades is a spell. I don't see how there can be any ambiguity on this. I would expect every single group's and tournament's default rule would be to allow Pit of Shades and other spells to affect the steam tank, since the rules make it clear that they do.

Empire players, please stop embarrasing yourselves by clinging to that silly FAQ that you and everyone else knows is a typo. Or, please post one logical, RULES SUPPORTED reason why Pit of Shades would not affect the steam tank if it were hit.

Calm down dear its only a game.

Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. You have made it very clear that it is your opinion and belief that the FAQ is a mistake

That is based on an assumption that the removal of the steam tanks magic resistance indicates that the Pit of Shades immunity from the FAQ should also be removed.

The evidence provided for your case is circumstantial but not beyond reasonable doubt.

Due to lack of evidential material and an assumption on your part that your opinion or belief is factual you have come to the conclusion that you are right and that the FAQ is a mistake.

There is no hard evidence to back up your argument; there is nothing that clearly says that the FAQ is wrong other than your belief.

Yes you have provided an argument which you believe is based on the rules but it is in fact based on intent.

Meaning you believe that the people at GWs intent was to fully remove the steam tanks magic immunity, but you are unable to provide evidence to back this up that is beyond reasonable doubt.

So to strengthen what is already a weak line of thinking you refer to empire players as embarrassing them selves by making reference to the FAQ.

If you really hate the rule that much ignore it dont use it but just be prepared to discuss this with any one you play rather than denouncing every one who uses the FAQ ruling as being embarrassing?

shakedown47
20-08-2010, 16:26
I'm at work so I have to keep this fairly brief, but if I'm not mistaken didn't the Empire errata remove the steam tank's magic immunity? I can't look up the errata right now but I thought that the steam tank was no longer immune.

If that's the case I can't think of a reason the steam tank would be immune to pit of shades; I assume we can all agree that it isn't immune to Fireballs or Purple Sun of Xereus, why Pit of Shades? If being immune to Pit of Shades really is an ability of the tank, why not include that special ability in the errata?

Believe me, I am a HUGE proponent of not trying to figure out RAI, and prefer in almost every case to just play RAW. My point is, RAW, (as in anything covered in its errata'd special rules) I don't see a reason why it's immune to that particular spell, and for the life of me I can't see the opposing side's logic in this particular instance. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but I just can't stand rules-benders in either friendly (my preferred environment) or especially tournament play, and that looks to me to be what's going on here.

RanaldLoec
20-08-2010, 17:50
I'm at work so I have to keep this fairly brief, but if I'm not mistaken didn't the Empire errata remove the steam tank's magic immunity? I can't look up the errata right now but I thought that the steam tank was no longer immune.

If that's the case I can't think of a reason the steam tank would be immune to pit of shades; I assume we can all agree that it isn't immune to Fireballs or Purple Sun of Xereus, why Pit of Shades? If being immune to Pit of Shades really is an ability of the tank, why not include that special ability in the errata?

Believe me, I am a HUGE proponent of not trying to figure out RAI, and prefer in almost every case to just play RAW. My point is, RAW, (as in anything covered in its errata'd special rules) I don't see a reason why it's immune to that particular spell, and for the life of me I can't see the opposing side's logic in this particular instance. Sorry if I came on a bit strong, but I just can't stand rules-benders in either friendly (my preferred environment) or especially tournament play, and that looks to me to be what's going on here.

The steam tank did lose its magic immunity in the official errata/faq version 1.1 in the same errata/faq you find this:

Q. Can the pit of shades from the lore of shadows affect the steam tank?
A. No

Every single spell can now affect the steam tank but this immunity to pit of shades remains due to the official GW ErratA and FAQ Its not bending the rules its following the rules as GW have printed them.

Peril
20-08-2010, 18:05
I like the "pit isn't big enough" excuse.

It's dumb, but what can you do?

shakedown47
20-08-2010, 21:31
Erratas reflect changes to be made in future printings; i.e., they are exactly the same as if the rules had been printed in the army book. They are inviolable.

FAQs are just that, frequently asked questions. Why would anyone even ask the question of whether Pit of Shades affects a steam tank (of course in 7th edition it was a completely valid quandary) since we know the steam tank can be affected by magic? The current errata/FAQ page merely has a holdover from the previous errata; this is much the same as the White Dwarf article that stated having your ranks negated took away steadfast. While we all know that FAQs are generally more "official" than White Dwarf articles, it is still just an issue of an author making a minor oversight.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 03:43
We all know it's a mistake but some people will cling to it like a parasite to it's host and never let go.

Scalebug
21-08-2010, 10:18
We all know it's a mistake but some people will cling to it like a parasite to it's host and never let go.

Arguing by comparing the opposition and their view to something unsavoury.

Fail.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 13:35
Arguing by comparing the opposition and their view to something unsavoury.

Fail.

Not arguing at all. If someone wants a Steam Tank to be immune to it when I play them then by all means it can be, and I don't even play Empire. I just think it's the most obvious accident that's ever occured, especially since none of the design team actually answers the FAQs.