PDA

View Full Version : Killing Blow vs. Characters on Chariots and Monsters Etc. , and the FAQ's..



Alric
18-10-2010, 06:08
The FAQ.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.


And in this particular instance the meaning to me is very clear. Characters riding monsters or chariots can be KBed.This interpretation of the FAQ duplicates the rules for "Heroic Killing Blow" and therefore is wrong.
This interpretation of the FAQ creates a contardiction between character and non character models of the same troop type and therefore is wrong.
This interpretation of the FAQ conflicts with rules in the BRB and therefore is wrong.

The FAQ applies to a character model that has lost it's mount model during the game. A character on a chariot model or monster model starts the game as troop type chariot or monster. The FAQ deals with the situation after a character looses their mount model and is no longer on a chariot model or monster model and becomes an infantry model and it is no longer troop type chariot/monster and therefore is no longer unaffected by killing blow.

The correct interpretation of the FAQ is that the character is not affected by killing blow as long as the character model is on the chariot/monster/monstrous beast. It's only when the character isn't on the chariot/monster and it would be an "infantry model" that it would be affected by killing blow.

The FAQ is being literal therefore the words "infantry model " mean exactly that - literally a model that is on an infantry base - such as when a character models chariot/monster model has been killed and the character is then represented with an "infantry model".

This has also been addressed by the FAQ..
Q: Does a character have a troop type? If yes, do all of the rules that apply to that troop type apply to the character? And will the character be affected by special attacks or spells that affect that troop type? (p96)
A: Yes to all questions.

The rules for characters on chariot/monster mounts state - pg. 105 BRB " If a character has taken a chariot/monster as a mount the whole model is treated as having troop type chariot/monster.." The rules on page 72 state that a chariot/monster is not affected by killing blow.

" Killing Blow " only affects troop type infantry ,cavalry and warbeast. (see pg. 72 BRB)
" Heroic Killing Blow " affects troop types monster, monstrous infantry/cavalry/beast , chariots.(see pg. 72 BRB)
" Killing Blow " does not affect those troop types affected by " Heroic Killing Blow " only.(see pg. 72 BRB)

Any player that claims that killing blow affects a character of troop type monster, monstrous cavalry , or chariot is not following the rules in the BRB for character troop types and/or killing blow.

mishari26
18-10-2010, 06:36
hehe what's the question?

solkan
18-10-2010, 06:57
It's invigorating to see someone post an incorrect rules conclusion instead of posting a rules question. It's even more invigorating when that incorrect statement is trying to claim that the FAQ question means the opposite of what it says. :D

theorox
18-10-2010, 07:09
It's invigorating to see someone post an incorrect rules conclusion instead of posting a rules question. It's even more invigorating when that incorrect statement is trying to claim that the FAQ question means the opposite of what it says. :D

Indeed, this is a bit ridicolus. :D I've said it before and i say it again:

Stop trying to read what the rules say, and start reading what they mean! :wtf:

Theo

Tae
18-10-2010, 08:00
It's invigorating to see someone post an incorrect rules conclusion instead of posting a rules question. It's even more invigorating when that incorrect statement is trying to claim that the FAQ question means the opposite of what it says. :D

Indeed. This brightened up my morning as one of the funniest things I've seen in a while as I simply refuse to believe this could be a genuine attempt at FAQ interpretation so therefore must be a joke :D

Alric
18-10-2010, 08:18
Indeed. This brightened up my morning as one of the funniest things I've seen in a while

No , no , no what is funny is that you are unable to disagree with any part of it.

King_Pash
18-10-2010, 08:22
Apart from all of it..

Alric
18-10-2010, 08:27
Apart from all of it..

Please be more specific , after all it's all based on quotes from the BRB.

TheDarkDaff
18-10-2010, 08:30
There is one very logical fault with your reasoning. If the FAQ reads as you say it does then the answer to the question would be no. This is for the simple reason that if you kill a character's mount, then he is not a mounted character but a character on foot instead.

So if you kill my Dreadlords Dragon he does not count as an infantry model, he is an infantry model.

Alric
18-10-2010, 08:36
There is one very logical fault with your reasoning. If the FAQ reads as you say it does then the answer to the question would be no. This is for the simple reason that if you kill a character's mount, then he is not a mounted character but a character on foot instead.

So if you kill my Dreadlords Dragon he does not count as an infantry model, he is an infantry model.

This is a FAQ not a rule.

A character that starts out mounted on a chariot/monster is troop type chariot/monster. There is no "rule" stating that he changes troop type. So any player could try to argue that his troop type remains chariot/monster (incorrectly of course). So an FAQ is posted so as to clear up any rules lawyers arguements.

Also you still have not countered any of the statements refering to characters that are troop types that are not affected by killing blow.

Atrahasis
18-10-2010, 08:51
You need to learn the meaning of the word "would".

The entire context of the Q&A is that the character is riding something, but would be infantry if he wasn't riding anything.

It's a stupid Q&A, and I wish it hadn't broken the rules, but it has.

TheDarkDaff
18-10-2010, 08:53
This is a FAQ not a rule.

A character that starts out mounted on a chariot/monster is troop type chariot/monster. There is no "rule" stating that he changes troop type. So any player could try to argue that his troop type remains chariot/monster (incorrectly of course). So an FAQ is posted so as to clear up any rules lawyers arguements.

Also you still have not countered any of the statements refering to characters that are troop types that are not affected by killing blow.

And i'm just pointing out that the FAQ (and you're right here, it isn't a rule) is not consistent with your view of the rule. The entire answer assumes the character is still mounted at the time it is vulnerable to killing blow. In addition to my last post you also have the use of the word "if" which would have to be changed to "when" to fit your take on the rule.

Now the entire FAQ is aimed at making it possible to killing blow a character mounted on monster or chariot which is in direct opposition to the RAW. GW has a history of doing this (look at the Steam Tank immunity to Pit of Shades that was only recently corrected) and often treat their FAQ as a rule change when they should be using an errata and actually changing the RAW.

Also there is no "rule" stating that unit type is unchangeable during a game. In fact there are things that will alter a model's unit type such as a mount being killed, Transformation of Kadon and i'm sure there are others.

Alric
18-10-2010, 09:00
And i'm just pointing out that the FAQ (and you're right here, it isn't a rule) is not consistent with your view of the rule. The entire answer assumes the character is still mounted at the time it is vulnerable to killing blow. In addition to my last post you also have the use of the word "if" which would have to be changed to "when" to fit your take on the rule.

Now the entire FAQ is aimed at making it possible to killing blow a character mounted on monster or chariot which is in direct opposition to the RAW. GW has a history of doing this (look at the Steam Tank immunity to Pit of Shades that was only recently corrected) and often treat their FAQ as a rule change when they should be using an errata and actually changing the RAW.

Also there is no "rule" stating that unit type is unchangeable during a game. In fact there are things that will alter a model's unit type such as a mount being killed, Transformation of Kadon and i'm sure there are others.

Hence the FAQ clarifying what the character's troop type is after its lost its mount.
AND
You still have not countered any of the statements concerning a characters troop type.

theorox
18-10-2010, 09:02
This is a FAQ not a rule.

A character that starts out mounted on a chariot/monster is troop type chariot/monster. There is no "rule" stating that he changes troop type. So any player could try to argue that his troop type remains chariot/monster (incorrectly of course). So an FAQ is posted so as to clear up any rules lawyers arguements.

Also you still have not countered any of the statements refering to characters that are troop types that are not affected by killing blow.

Who cares? Of course he changes trooptype!

Theo

Satan
18-10-2010, 09:08
I agree with Alric. But also with Atrahasis. Methinks this will get clarified in the next FAQ update.

Alric
18-10-2010, 09:11
Who cares? Of course he changes trooptype!

Theo

I know of course but you have those rules lawyers that can and will go by the letter of the law sort of speak and try to argue that they remain chariot or monster troop type.

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 09:35
The FAQ.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

Or, with a bit more emphasis:

The FAQ.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes,


as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

Perfectly clear English to me: Yes, KB works against a mounted character, as long as this character itself is an infantry model but for the fact that it would be mounted (ie: you take the mount as an option for your character, suppose you would not: then what would his troop type be?).

Now the fact that this is not consistent with the other points you mentioned only emphasises the reason WHY this matter was FAQ-ed in the first place: if the BRB would have made it clear that 'infantry model' characters mounted on anything are still affected by killing blows there would not have been an FAQ in the first place..


So:
Does the FAQ 'disagree' with the rules in the rulebook (your third yellow piece of text)? Yes, that is why it is the FAQ, to clear up and expand on the BRB.
Does the FAQ disagree with the FAQ? No, your 2nd yellow piece of text only says that characters mounted on whatnot are affected by rules affecting whatnot, it does not say it makes your mounted character immune to rules affecting characters or the characters troop type would it not be mounted.

Now you can say what you would want the FAQ to mean, and that you are right in believing/wanting this becasue the FAQ otherwise contradicts the rules, but my point is: the FAQ clearly does NOT say what you want it to say and yes it contradicts the rules, that is the whole point of the FAQ..

geldedgoat
18-10-2010, 10:00
Does the FAQ 'disagree' with the rules in the rulebook (your third yellow piece of text)? Yes, that is why the FAQ should be ignored.

This I agree with.

Seriously, it's an FAQ, not an errata. If it doesn't make sense, don't pay attention to it. The complete lack of consistency with the BRB should be enough to tell us that this particular piece should be met with a liberal dose of white-out.

Alric
18-10-2010, 10:01
The FAQ.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

Or, with a bit more emphasis:

The FAQ.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes,


as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

Perfectly clear English to me: Yes, KB works against a mounted character, as long as this character itself is an infantry model but for the fact that it would be mounted (ie: you take the mount as an option for your character, suppose you would not: then what would his troop type be?).

Now the fact that this is not consistent with the other points you mentioned only emphasises the reason WHY this matter was FAQ-ed in the first place: if the BRB would have made it clear that 'infantry model' characters mounted on anything are still affected by killing blows there would not have been an FAQ in the first place..


So:
Does the FAQ 'disagree' with the rules in the rulebook (your third yellow piece of text)? Yes, that is why it is the FAQ, to clear up and expand on the BRB.
Does the FAQ disagree with the FAQ? No, your 2nd yellow piece of text only says that characters mounted on whatnot are affected by rules affecting whatnot, it does not say it makes your mounted character immune to rules affecting characters or the characters troop type would it not be mounted.

Now you can say what you would want the FAQ to mean, and that you are right in believing/wanting this becasue the FAQ otherwise contradicts the rules, but my point is: the FAQ clearly does NOT say what you want it to say and yes it contradicts the rules, that is the whole point of the FAQ..

Wrong thats not a FAQ you speak of that would be a RULE change aka ERRATA.

The rules for character troop type are clear the rules for killing blow are clear , killing blow does not affect characters of the troop types listed on page 72 of the BRB but Heroic Killing Blow does.

What you are trying to say is that killing blow affects characters of the same troop type as those units that arent affected - A complete contradiction.

Your interpretation would contradict..
1) The BRB rules for character troop types.
2) The BRB rules for killing blow
3) The FAQ for character troop types
4) Create a contradiction between characters and troops of the same troop type.
5) Create a duplication of the rules for Heroic Killing Blow.

OR

My interpretation has no contradiction with the BRB or either FAQ , does not create any contradiction of the rules for troops of the same troop type as the character , and does not duplicate the rules for Heroic Killing Blow.

So sorry but I prefer the interpretation that has no rule and FAQ conflicts or rule duplications and follows the rules that are printed in the BRB.

logan054
18-10-2010, 10:13
Indeed. This brightened up my morning as one of the funniest things I've seen in a while as I simply refuse to believe this could be a genuine attempt at FAQ interpretation so therefore must be a joke :D

Well its this thing again..... shame we are talking about a FAQ and not errata otherwise you might have a point, I believe you should be using this FAQ in situations that cause confusion in the rules and not situations that override the rules. The next thing your going to tell me is characters can be KB regardless of what he rides but infantry can't which would make even less sense.

havoc626
18-10-2010, 10:22
A character that starts out mounted on a chariot/monster is troop type chariot/monster. There is no "rule" stating that he changes troop type. So any player could try to argue that his troop type remains chariot/monster (incorrectly of course). So an FAQ is posted so as to clear up any rules lawyers arguements.

But to point out, there is no rule to say that the character changes troop type just because he is mounted on a chariot, dragon, ect.

Also, I don't see what the big deal about KB working on a character that is mounted on something that can't be affected by it, as it was like that in 7th (and from memory 6th).

If you don't agree with the FAQ, fine, make your own house rules for it, problem solved. Heck, even if you don't agree with an errata you can still ignore it and use you own house rules for it.

GW commonly does this with FAQs, contradicting what is written in preference for what was intended (they have also done the reverse mind you). They just release these so that there is an impartial ruling on an abstract situation that can come up during a game, and instead of the two players arguing and not just getting on with the game, they can just look up and (hopefully) get an answer on it.

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 10:30
the FAQ is very clear, infantry models mounted on whatnot are affected by Killing Blow. Yes this contradicts a whole lot of other things, but that is not the point. The FAQ says this, period.
Now you can say what you think it should mean, but that is not the same.
You might even be right that it is a silly FAQ and should be ignored, but that is not the point either.
You can even simply say: it is an FAQ, not an errata, hence it is not a rule. To which my reply is: you are right, so just ignore it! Don't try top bend it into saying somthing it does not say, simply forget about it, it's only the FAQ after all, why bother!

Bottom line is: the FAQ says:
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

you can either ignore it, as it is the FAQ. Or you live by it, which I prefer as it makes at least more sense to me that the BRB (the character had a neck before it climbed onto his chariot, he will be able to hit me from atop of this chariot, so I will be able to hit him as well, and since he has a neck still, even when mounted, I can still lob off his head with one clean stroke).

Alric
18-10-2010, 10:32
But to point out, there is no rule to say that the character changes troop type just because he is mounted on a chariot, dragon, ect.
Errr ... yes there is , page 105 BRB.


Also, I don't see what the big deal about KB working on a character that is mounted on something that can't be affected by it, as it was like that in 7th (and from memory 6th).
Because there is a "Heroic Killing Blow" special rule now. To do as you say would be duplicating the rule for heroic killing blow.


If you don't agree with the FAQ, fine, make your own house rules for it, problem solved. Heck, even if you don't agree with an errata you can still ignore it and use you own house rules for it.Actually to use it as you suggest would be the "House Rule" as the interpretation I present follows all the rules and FAQ's in the BRB. Also this is a FAQ not an errata.


GW commonly does this with FAQs, contradicting what is written in preference for what was intended (they have also done the reverse mind you). They just release these so that there is an impartial ruling on an abstract situation that can come up during a game, and instead of the two players arguing and not just getting on with the game, they can just look up and (hopefully) get an answer on it.
Yes as long as its interpreted correctly and doesnt blatantly contradict all the rules in the BRB as some players are interpreting the FAQ.

Alric
18-10-2010, 10:37
you can either ignore it, as it is the FAQ. Or you live by it, which I prefer as it makes at least more sense to me that the BRB (the character had a neck before it climbed onto his chariot, he will be able to hit me from atop of this chariot, so I will be able to hit him as well, and since he has a neck still, even when mounted, I can still lob off his head with one clean stroke).

Err... yes and no , yes with "Heroic Killing Blow" no with "Killing Blow".

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 10:46
Oh yes, and one more thing:



Your interpretation would contradict..
1) The BRB rules for character troop types.
2) The BRB rules for killing blow
3) The FAQ for character troop types
4) Create a contradiction between characters and troops of the same troop type.
5) Create a duplication of the rules for Heroic Killing Blow.


1) I agree, my interpretation (which happens to be the thing the FAQ says) contradicts BRB page 105 as far as KB is concerned. The FAQ says basically that for KB purposes, you should not use the rules on page 105 BRB, so for KB purposes, the mounted character does not count as a monster/chariot/whatnot. It counts as an infantry model.
2) Nope: I follow those rules perfectly, infantry models can be Killing Blow-ed.
3) Nope: in the FAQ nowhere does it say that because a character mounted on a chariot can be affected by things affecting chariots, it is immune to things affecting characters.. The FAQ even states in prefect English that characters mounted on chariots and monsters are subject to Killing Blow.
4) why would my interpretation do this? I completely fail to see how?
5) Again, why? I am not Killing Blowing the chariot or the monster, I am Killing Blowing the infantry sized model on top of it, as per the FAQ.

Once again; either live by the FAQ or ignore it, both are fine by me, but don't try to bend it into saying something is simply does not say.

Alric
18-10-2010, 10:58
Oh yes, and one more thing:


1) I agree, my interpretation contradicts BRB page 105 as far as KB is concerned.
Ya I know this already.


The FAQ says basically that for KB purposes, you should not use the rules on page 105 BRB, so for KB purposes, the mounted character does not count as a monster/chariot/whatnot. It counts as an infantry model.
This is what the FAQ states..
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

Nothing you just wrote is in there, and all of it contradicts the BRB. What you wrote is your own house rule at best.


2) Nope: I follow those rules perfectly, infantry models can be Killing Blow-ed.
3) Nope: in the FAQ nowhere does it say that because a character mounted on a chariot can be affected by things affecting chariots, it is immune to things affecting characters.. The FAQ even states in prefect English that characters mounted on chariots and monsters are subject to Killing Blow.
No is doesnt , "House Rules" at best.


4) why would my interpretation do this? I completely fail to see how?
5) Again, why? I am not Killing Blowing the chariot or the monster, I am Killing Blowing the infantry sized model on top of it, as per the FAQ.
No, you are ignoring the rules for troop types.


Once again; either live by the FAQ or ignore it, both are fine by me, but don't try to bend it into saying something is simply does not say.
I'm not bending the FAQ you are.

Atrahasis
18-10-2010, 11:00
No you! No you! No you!

Alric, the FAQ does not say what you want it to say. No amount of quote-mining will change that.

Alric
18-10-2010, 11:03
No you! No you! No you!

Alric, the FAQ does not say what you want it to say. No amount of quote-mining will change that.

I'm not quote mining I'm stating the rules in the BRB. No amount of re-writing the rules in the BRB based on a bad interpretation of a FAQ is going to change the rules in the BRB.

Atrahasis
18-10-2010, 11:13
It isn't a "bad interpretation" of the FAQ, it is simply what the FAQ says.

Sometimes FAQs change how the game is played. Suck it up or ignore it.

Alric
18-10-2010, 11:31
You need to learn the meaning of the word "would".

The entire context of the Q&A is that the character is riding something, but would be infantry if he wasn't riding anything.

It's a stupid Q&A, and I wish it hadn't broken the rules, but it has.


No you! No you! No you!

Alric, the FAQ does not say what you want it to say. No amount of quote-mining will change that.


It isn't a "bad interpretation" of the FAQ, it is simply what the FAQ says.

Sometimes FAQs change how the game is played. Suck it up or ignore it.
No actually my interpretation is the correct interpretation of the FAQ.

Unlike yours which conflicts with all the rules in the BRB , and which you cant even attempt to explain or defend.

Atrahasis
18-10-2010, 11:34
So your argument is that because it disagrees with the rules, it must say something other than what it actually says?

Pass the pipe.

Satan
18-10-2010, 11:37
So your argument is that because it disagrees with the rules, it must say something other than what it actually says?

Pass the pipe.

I think what he's trying to state is the difference between a FAQ and Errata - where an FAQ-question should be handled as a guideline alongside the rules as stated in the BRB, whereas an Errata would overrule and replace them.

Does that help? After all this is the result of a direct FAQ-question which does not correspond with the rules in the book. They should've made a clear errata along with a wording if they wanted to change basic rules.

logan054
18-10-2010, 11:57
I think what he's trying to state is the difference between a FAQ and Errata - where an FAQ-question should be handled as a guideline alongside the rules as stated in the BRB, whereas an Errata would overrule and replace them.

Apparently your wrong :rolleyes: I agree with you but other seem to think GW erratas and FAQ's are the same thing :wtf:

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 12:06
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes,

case closed. They add an extra sentence to not make monstrous characters all of a sudden vulnerable to normal KB if they decide to climb onto a monster.

Francis
18-10-2010, 12:10
No offence Alric but this is starting to look like a troll to me.

The wording in the FAQ is quite clear.
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry
model if it wasn’t mounted.

You need to look at the question asked as well. "Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless of what he is mounted on?"

The answer to that is yes. Now the second sentence merely specifies that a Ogre don't suddenly become vulnerable to a standard KB if they in the future get the chance to choose a rhinox mount. Remove the Rhinox from the Ogre and he is still monstrous infantry and therefore immune to KBs.

If you remove the dragon from an elf prince, what would he count as?
You guessed it.

Characters mounted on a chariot or a monster can be KBed. It even makes sense from a realworld perspective, It's the monster that got a neck too thick to chop through, not the poor sod on top of it.

If you don't want to play it like that in your home that is perfectly fine.

(oops partly ninjaed by Warlord Hack'a)

Satan
18-10-2010, 12:15
Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless
of what he is mounted on? (p72)
A: Yes,

case closed. They add an extra sentence to not make monstrous characters all of a sudden vulnerable to normal KB if they decide to climb onto a monster.

Erm. No they don't. In that case it would be an Errata section. Which it isn't. Since it's an FAQ, it should be a clarification at best.

But I'm not arguing your conclusion in itself. I just think Alric has a very valid point. And if reading RAW then to my understanding of english it seems to suggest that characters on chariots might be pretty useless from now on.

logan054
18-10-2010, 12:38
You need to look at the question asked as well. "Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless of what he is mounted on?"

I think you need to look at the fact its in the FAQ section and not the errata section.

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 12:40
which brings me back to my earlier point: it depends on how important you think the FAQ is. In my gaming group the FAQ coumts as part (often a more detailed explanatory part) of the rules, but you are free to discard the FAQ, it is after all the FAQ, not the errata or BRB. But if you think of the FAQ in that light then why bother trying to interpret it differently than what is written? Why bother interpreting the FAQ at all?

So for me and those who consider the FAQ as part of the rules: infantry sized characters mounted on chariots and monsters are subject to being killing blowed. Their mount is not however, they are only subject to Heroic KB.

For people who do not consider the FAQ as rules (which is the default choice I believe) then you just stick to the BRB and ignore this specific question and answer. In that case your elf on dragon is not subject to Killing Blow, but he is subject to Heroic Killing Blow.

Both options suit me fine, but option 3: 'interpreting this specific FAQ so it fits the BRB' is plain nonsense as this is simply not what this FAQ question and answer says.

Francis
18-10-2010, 12:49
I think you need to look at the fact its in the FAQ section and not the errata section.

Quite, but I fail to see how a FAQ is very different from an Erreta in regards to rule queries. From the GW site:

"Each update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments, and Frequently Asked Questions. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or FAQ) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules."

The FAQ is GW clearing up rules that are otherwise prone to missinterpretation, and as far as I can tell, the answer they give is the way they want the game to be played (otherwise why would they give that answer).

The argument about whether this particular issue should have been erretaed rather than FAQed is irrelevant. The answer GW gave us still stands, and that is that Characters mounted on monsters or chariots can be KBed.

logan054
18-10-2010, 14:09
Quite, but I fail to see how a FAQ is very different from an Erreta in regards to rule queries. From the GW site:


Errata changes rules, FAQ answer questions, that is a rather significant difference if you ask me.

You can look at the FAQ in a few ways, if I use the example of bloodcrushers, you can either say

1) you have a Herald in a unit, he can be KB but the unit can't, he is just a character version of the exactly the same model.

2) Both can be KB as no part of the rules actually state you treat characters different to troops when rolling for KB, the FAQ is a question to specific example, it does not indicate troops are treated any differently.

Either example just dosn't sit right with me, the 2nd examples also means that some MC can be KB (blood crushers, Chaos heroes on daemonic mounts, Elves on birds, etc) but others can't (warhawk riders, peg knight, archoan, tyrion etc).

The first example doesn't really sit right with me because it implies you have two sets of rules for KB, one for characters and one for troops, if MC was intended to be KB the why wasn't it included in the original rules. alternatively including cav in the KB rules is pointless, slight rewording of the rules and having all can with infantry and WB next to them has the same effect.

Little Joe
18-10-2010, 14:29
Not again...:cries:

This is a FAQ, a bad FAQ that breaks rules. Just ignore it.
But Alric is right on the meaning of the FAQ. Troop types can change during the game and characters can become vulnerable to KB if they can loose their ride and become infantry again. Anything else is breaking rules. It is only a FAQ, not an erata!

warlord hack'a
18-10-2010, 14:58
Not again...:cries:

This is a FAQ, a bad FAQ that breaks rules. Just ignore it.
But Alric is right on the meaning of the FAQ.

No he is not. He might be right in ignoring it if he so chooses, but the FAQ itself is clear and I am not going to repeat myself as I have said it enough already.

Bac5665
18-10-2010, 14:58
FAQ are the rules, otherwise they are meaningless.

If we get to pick and chose what FAQ to follow, then we need a FAQ to the FAQ and pick-up games become impossible. If you want to ignore the FAQ, fine, but is a house rule in all meaningful ways, and house rules are problematic for people who only play pick-up games.

Oh, and if you do play a pick-up game with someone who doesn't know the FAQ, and this comes up in a game and you don't disclose the FAQ, and just go by the BRB, you're cheating, in my opinion. You at least need to tell the other player about the FAQ and give them a chance to discuss the house rule honestly.

geldedgoat
18-10-2010, 15:02
FAQ are the rules, otherwise they are meaningless.

The emboldened is correct; they are meaningless. At least they are when they clearly break BRB, army book, and errata rules.

Tae
18-10-2010, 15:13
The fact I was hinting at in jest on the first page was that simply because an FAQ answer disagrees with the BRB is not a valid reason for attempting to re-read the answer to said FAQ to mean the complete and utter opposite of what was actually written.

If, in ones own opinion, the FAQ contradicts the BRB then simply chose to ignore the FAQ (if you so wish), or follow the FAQ, whichever you prefer.

However do not try to re-inerpret an FAQ answer to try and get it to mean the opposite of what it says just to get it to try and fit how you see the BRB/FAQ interaction. If it does't fit ignore it, don't force it.

logan054
18-10-2010, 16:27
FAQ are the rules, otherwise they are meaningless.

FAQ's are answered to questions, they are not rules, if the question however does not fit with the situation and ignore rules in the BRB (which have not amended with a errata) how can you apply them to the situation? You only apply a FAQ to a situation which isn't covered by the rules and errata surely?

Francis
18-10-2010, 16:35
FAQ's are answered to questions, they are not rules,

Now this is where we disagree. As far as I am concerned FAQs represent the way GW would like us to play the game in a tournament or otherwise strict setting. By that logic the FAQs are as much rules as erretas and certainly takes precedence over a older BRB. It is just another way for GW to tell us what they intended with the rules.

And in this particular instance the meaning to me is very clear. Characters riding monsters or chariots can be KBed.

decker_cky
18-10-2010, 16:56
FAQs are rules. The way GW writes them, they always have been and they can change rules.

a18no
18-10-2010, 17:17
FAQs are rules. The way GW writes them, they always have been and they can change rules.

Actually, they are not "changing" rules, but are meant to take an interpretation over one another. Sometime it's weird, but it's supposed to be that way.

Bac5665
18-10-2010, 17:32
FAQ's are answered to questions, they are not rules, if the question however does not fit with the situation and ignore rules in the BRB (which have not amended with a errata) how can you apply them to the situation? You only apply a FAQ to a situation which isn't covered by the rules and errata surely?

But if you go down that road, then you need to agree about which FAQs violate the rules and which don't. I guarantee you that that cannot be done universally. My friend and I know the rules very well and we discuss them frequently and we do not agree about which FAQs violate the rules. And most players don't know the rules well enough to know whether or not any given FAQ violates the rules.

So now, you need to discuss with EVERY OPPONENT you play against which FAQ violate the rules and which don't. And that means going through almost every single FAQ, looking at the rules and seeing if there's an answer in the books. Well, 90% of the time there is.

Most of GWs FAQs aren't necessary; I can come up with a ruling most of the time with "ambiguous" GW rules--GW likes to answer unnecessary questions a lot.

And if you don't go through this process, then you're taking advantage of your opponent's ignorance of the FAQs or the rules, because you're not giving that opponent the opportunity to agree or disagree with your interpretation of the rules, which trust me, is not universally obvious, no matter what rule you're talking about.

So it's so much easier and better to play by the FAQ and just sigh and complain when GW does something like this. Because the alternative is to either cheat your opponent or to have to argue every single FAQ, the prevention of which is sort of the point of the FAQ to begin with.

So why not use them again?

Alric
18-10-2010, 23:58
No he is not. He might be right in ignoring it if he so chooses, but the FAQ itself is clear and I am not going to repeat myself as I have said it enough already.
The rules in the rule book are what takes precedence. A FAQ at best only offers clarification for those players that require it. The FAQ is interpreted to coincide with the rules in the BRB , not to contradict them.


The fact I was hinting at in jest on the first page was that simply because an FAQ answer disagrees with the BRB is not a valid reason for attempting to re-read the answer to said FAQ to mean the complete and utter opposite of what was actually written.

If, in ones own opinion, the FAQ contradicts the BRB then simply chose to ignore the FAQ (if you so wish), or follow the FAQ, whichever you prefer.

However do not try to re-inerpret an FAQ answer to try and get it to mean the opposite of what it says just to get it to try and fit how you see the BRB/FAQ interaction. If it does't fit ignore it, don't force it.
There is no "re-interpretation" of the FAQ answer. There is only a correct interpretation that agrees with the rules in the BRB, which are...

" Killing Blow " only affects troop type infantry ,cavalry and warbeast. (see pg. 72 BRB)
" Heroic Killing Blow " affects troop types monster, monstrous infantry/cavalry/beast , chariots.(see pg. 72 BRB)
" Killing Blow " does not affect those troop types affected by " Heroic Killing Blow " only.(see pg. 72 BRB)



Now this is where we disagree. As far as I am concerned FAQs represent the way GW would like us to play the game in a tournament or otherwise strict setting. By that logic the FAQs are as much rules as erretas and certainly takes precedence over a older BRB. It is just another way for GW to tell us what they intended with the rules.

And in this particular instance the meaning to me is very clear. Characters riding monsters or chariots can be KBed.
Your interpretation of the FAQ duplicates the rules for "Heroic Killing Blow" and therefore is wrong.
Your interpretation of the FAQ creates a contardiction between character and non character models of the same troop type and therefore is wrong.
Your interpretation of the FAQ conflicts with rules in the BRB and therefore is wrong.

The rules for characters on chariot/monster mounts state - pg. 105 BRB " If a character has taken a chariot/monster as a mount the whole model is treated as having troop type chariot/monster.." The rules on page 72 state that a chariot/monster is not affected by killing blow.

" Killing Blow " only affects troop type infantry ,cavalry and warbeast. (see pg. 72 BRB)
" Heroic Killing Blow " affects troop types monster, monstrous infantry/cavalry/beast , chariots.(see pg. 72 BRB)
" Killing Blow " does not affect those troop types affected by " Heroic Killing Blow " only.(see pg. 72 BRB)

Any player that claims that killing blow affects a character of troop type monster, monstrous cavalry , or chariot is not following the rules in the BRB for character troop types and/or killing blow.

solkan
19-10-2010, 00:53
Any player that claims that killing blow affects a character of troop type monster, monstrous cavalry , or chariot is not following the rules in the BRB for character troop types and/or killing blow.

If they claim that a character who would be of type Infantry when not mounted, would be affected by killing blow when mounted, then they'd be following the FAQ, which is even better. :angel:

I have to say, this is the first time that I've seen someone practically jumping up and down shouting "THE FAQ'S AREN'T RULES!!!!!" outside of Dakka Dakka's YMDC forum, and it's a little scary. It's slightly less impressive, though, since you're actually claiming that the FAQ statement either doesn't actually mean anything, or can't change how the rules work by way of explaining how they're supposed to work.

TheDarkDaff
19-10-2010, 01:25
If they claim that a character who would be of type Infantry when not mounted, would be affected by killing blow when mounted, then they'd be following the FAQ, which is even better. :angel:

I have to say, this is the first time that I've seen someone practically jumping up and down shouting "THE FAQ'S AREN'T RULES!!!!!" outside of Dakka Dakka's YMDC forum, and it's a little scary. It's slightly less impressive, though, since you're actually claiming that the FAQ statement either doesn't actually mean anything, or can't change how the rules work by way of explaining how they're supposed to work.

Seriously mate, i'd just let this thread die (is there anyway to get this thing locked without reporting anyone?). It is just going back and forth with neither side taking a backwards step. In fact the most common consesus i can see is that the FAQ directly contradicts what the BRB says about Killing Blow with only Alric arguing that the FAQ supports the BRB rules.

The other sticking point is that some are arguing that FAQ's can't override the BRB RAW and that only an errata can do that. Unfortunately GW have done exactly this in the past and they seem to treat their FAQ's as an errata (which they really shouldn't do). This is most likely down to issues with re-formatting the BRB for later print runs (which they actually do when they release errata).

Of course this is all based on what i have observed in this thread and the other one about Archaon, but if you want to get a hard graph of poster's opinions on the matter ask Alric to add a vote to the thread with the appropriate options.

Wintermute
21-11-2010, 09:20
(is there anyway to get this thing locked without reporting anyone?).

Yes report any post on the thread explaining why the thread should be closed or pm a Mod.

Thread Closed

Wintermute