PDA

View Full Version : Legality of Whitedwarf/Website 'rules'



Brothermarcus
12-09-2006, 03:24
Hi all,

I'm just wondering how 'legal' rules printered in Whitedwarf or on the various incarnations of the Games Workshop website are.

For example the rules for an all gnoblar army posted in WDAU#304, WSUS #303, & WDUK #310 or the recent web publication of the various tinkered concoctions of the dwarfs and skaven.

Thanks for the help!

~bm

AngelofSorrow
12-09-2006, 04:15
The legality should be stated in the article like the one about the lizardman sacred hosts that says that they have been playtested and are legal

if it doesnt say that then well you have to have your opponents permission

GodHead
12-09-2006, 07:19
Actually according to the Dev team, they have moved to the attitude that if it is not in the main rulebook and not in a "Warhammer Armies: X" book, then it is not legitimate.

ZomboCom
12-09-2006, 14:13
The ones you mention (gnoblar army and mad inventions) are both clearly marked as unofficial.

Basically, unless it specifically says it's official, it isn't.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 14:22
The legality should be stated in the article like the one about the lizardman sacred hosts that says that they have been playtested and are legal

if it doesnt say that then well you have to have your opponents permission

Indeed, however I don't fully agree with this. The lizardmen sacred hosts were not playtested enough IMO if they were considered legal. They completely unbalanced games against certain armies.

Most articles are not as overpowering as some of the sacred hosts though and it should say at the beggining (most say they are not legal)

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-09-2006, 14:52
Indeed, however I don't fully agree with this. The lizardmen sacred hosts were not playtested enough IMO if they were considered legal. They completely unbalanced games against certain armies.

Most articles are not as overpowering as some of the sacred hosts though and it should say at the beggining (most say they are not legal)


Hmm, interestingly. Could you give a few examples. Because most people I know consider the Sacred hosts worse than the normal list.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 15:04
Hmm, interestingly. Could you give a few examples. Because most people I know consider the Sacred hosts worse than the normal list.

Just going by word of mouth from my gaming group. Couldn't give many examples. I know one of the undead players got incredibly angry about the immune to psychology host. Never played one myself. :p

Avian
12-09-2006, 15:28
Hmm, interestingly. Could you give a few examples. Because most people I know consider the Sacred hosts worse than the normal list.
The "extra dispel dice" host is said to be quite annoying if you're playing the wrong army (Tomb Kings, for example) as well.

I doubt that they tested any of the Sacred Spawning lists, they just give the impression that they were cobbled together in five minutes and are probably the most dull variant lists I have seen. I allow them in campaigns and whatnot (where you cannot swap the type of list from battle to battle) and I don't think I'd mind (much) fighting a list that was actually converted and painted to a specific Spawning, but to me the are just the lamest examples of variant lists out there.

And the little fluff bits that accompany each are particularly badly written. "Sacred Spawning X Army shows up and kicks the snot out of Other Army Y"
Copy and paste eight times, just swapping out the Xs and Ys.

Dull, dull, dull...