PDA

View Full Version : Stackable spells and the new FAQ



kaldour
25-12-2006, 03:28
Hey everyone, Merry Everything to all.

I just read the FAQ for 7th ed, and I'm quite pleased with it overall. A few questions have occurred to me and I just want to take the temperature of opinion out there.

Specifically,

The FAQ now states that the Bear's Anger spells will not stack with each other. Keeping in mind that I think stacking them is silly and a waste of time for the most part, I feel personally that their assertion that the interaction is illegal is based on very flimsy and dangerous logic.

The spell description, as I remember it, does not say that it affects the Base characteristic, so an argument that it would only apply to that characteristic would be silly. By that logic, any two effects that positively modify a stat would be unstackable since each would seek to do so only to the 'base' stat. For example, the Ogre Big Name that grants +1T would not stack with the spell with the same effect.

I think that they are using FAQs to handle what is essentially rules CHANGES... something that is a very poor idea. Such changes should be made only in errata. It would be safer to place a 'does not stack' line in the text for the spell than to open up the can of worms that they have here.

A similar argument exists for the (controversial?) ruling on the Khorne frenzy. The word 'remember' in front of the ability is pretty telling... it means that it is referenceing an existing rule. Or are we supposed to 'remember' from a previous edition?

Any thoughts?

Festus
25-12-2006, 09:54
Hi

... as I remember it ...
Spot the mistake ;)

Festus

ZomboCom
25-12-2006, 11:46
I don't care if they change the rules in the FAQ or just clarify them, so long as we know for sure one way or the other.

I happen to agree with 99% of the FAQ's decisions, and I'm glad that they haven't taken RAW too seriously. Using RAW for an FAQ is a disaster of an idea, as it would just entrench more firmly any rules mistakes previously made by sloppy wording.

T10
25-12-2006, 13:04
Oh, I don't know. This latter release included an Errata section as well as a FAQ.

In my opinion, the FAQ should stick to the rules as far as possible. If there are mistakes in the rules, then they should be corrected and the FAQ reflect that.

If there are omissions in the rules then the FAQ should provide a description of how such are to be resolved and present the reasoning behind this.

E.g. the issue on unreasonable charges was "resolved" in this latest FAQ.

Though I think most agree that their emphasis on the word "ensure" is somewhat contrived, I hope most will also agree that it was the correct answer.

-T10

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 17:35
A lot of us here have been saying for a long time that GW need to fix rules rather than waving FAQs at them.

As for the "ensure" nonsense being somewhat contrived, T10 is either being very kind or is a master of understatement. I know which I'd put my money on.

GW started RAW to prevent the kind of rules slide that comes from multiple layers of clarifications contradicting each other and interacting in unexpected ways. Unfortunately they seem to have fallen at the first hurdle and started the downward spiral already. I think that's enough mixed metaphors for one Christmas.

intellectawe
25-12-2006, 17:40
Sorry to say, but you can't always do "RAW". Words have different meanings for different people. Proven time and time again whenever a debate opens up.

Sometimes we must look towards, GASP, the spirit of the game and intent. I am glad GW seems to have noticed this. RAW makes MY hobby too robotic, fit for a tournament setting. Spirit of the Game and Intent brings me back to the game 10+ years ago.

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 20:07
The only reason we can't do RAW is because GW choose to use language that is ambiguous. If they spent some time actually thinking about what they were writing rather than just getting the general idea down on paper and hoping everyone understands then both sides would be happier.

The notion that playing by the rules somehow makes the game less fun is ridiculous - the game will be fun if you play it for fun, it won't be any less so just because the rules are clear.

Gorbad Ironclaw
25-12-2006, 20:51
Well, GW did say that if you played by the rule you are unsporting ;) (clipping/sliding)

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 20:55
Which only reinforces the view that they can't write rules that do what they want them to.

Incidentally, clipping is fixed now (and they could have done it during 6th by changing "charging models" to "models" rather than being overly vague in an appendix) and can only happen where it is unavoidable, which is the same as saying "play by the rules".

kaldour
25-12-2006, 23:03
Inserting a section in the FAQ that essentially says that we should ignore certain rules in the spirit of the game is, as Atrahasis says, an indication that they should think before writing things down. I hate to use Magic the Gathering as an example, but it is a game where there is only ONE interpretation of any card or card interaction, and any other interpretation is incorrect. Obviously, GW can't have that level of clarity when it comes to a game with moving parts, but there is no excuse for the level of confusion surrounding such simple things as army selection and spell interactions. Especially not within the first 4 months of the game release.

Back on topic, I was really talking about whether you the community felt that the interpretations on spell stacking are justified as RAW or whether you felt that GW is writing new interpretations as FAQ. Any thoughts on that?

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 23:49
Back on topic, I was really talking about whether you the community felt that the interpretations on spell stacking are justified as RAW or whether you felt that GW is writing new interpretations as FAQ. Any thoughts on that?

Absolutely. You've highlighted the problem fairly succinctly - we're now left in a situation where if a frenzied model has the Sword of Battle, precedent tells us (from the FAQ) that the model gets only +1 attack, despite their being two effects in place that each grant +1 attack.

The spells don't say base stats, so the FAQ is simply contradictory.

sulla
26-12-2006, 02:02
The spells don't say base stats, so the FAQ is simply contradictory.

I can't quite get my head around how you can channel the strength of a bear into someone who already has the strength of a bear and expect them to get stronger? Surely this clarification is just commonsense shutting down an attempt at powergaming.

kaldour
26-12-2006, 04:39
It's not about the particular spell, and it's not about the decision they made. I agree, stacking Bear's Anger is silly. I don't know if I'd call it power-gaming... the caster DOES need to dedicate two entire wizards to the effort.

The argument is that their reasoning behind their conclusion is dangerous. Especially since their 'clarification' references things that aren't even mentioned in the spell description. Following this logical thread:

-Spells and abilities, such as the previously mentioned Ogre spell that grants +1T and the Bigname of the same effect, would not stack. Both would draw from the 'base'.

- Great Weapons would not confer their strength bonus on anyone under a strength spell, since both just as justifiably apply to the base.

- Abilities that generate negative effects would create a direct conflict with spells that generate positive ones... Bear's Anger gives an advantage to S, while Goblin Nets give a penalty. If such things don't stack, how do you choose which to apply?

and so on.

Strictly from a rules perspective, this is poorly designed, and could have been easily avoided. A simple "This spell will not stack with multiple castings" line would suffice, or alternately, rewrite the spell to ACTUALLY reference the base attribute.

As a side note, what do you guys think of casting Shades of Death on the same unit twice? Is such a tactic invalidated by this ruling, and would you consider it legal anyway?

From my perspective, arguing that a unit can't be affected twice by the same positive spell is like arguing that it can't be affected twice by the same magic missile. :)

intellectawe
26-12-2006, 06:02
If such things don't stack, how do you choose which to apply?

Each real life situation is different and each is dictated by the amount of common sense both players have at the time. Something RAW doesn't cover, is having fun.


Surely this clarification is just commonsense shutting down an attempt at powergaming.

On the internet, common sense is, what do they say, not common! :)

Festus
26-12-2006, 10:03
Hi

The spells don't say base stats, so the FAQ is simply contradictory.
There are no base stats in WHFB, just characteristics/stats.
Bear's Anger tells you to add to those explicitly, whereas Frenzy only says: *fights with one additional Attack in close combat* or thereabouts (still the German BRB).

I think it usually is very clear which effects can be stacked and which can't. As an example spell that grants increases: Flaming Sword of Rhuin grants a Magic Weapon that boosts the stats, and as such can only be wielded once, a duplicate will not be possible by the simple rules for magic Items.

You are stirring up a controversy about RAW, where RAW is neither needed nor wrong in its application. It just is.

Festus

Griefbringer
26-12-2006, 11:12
On the internet, common sense is, what do they say, not common! :)

At times, it is also surprisingly uncommon in the real world.

As for the cumulativity of modifiers, I would go by the rule of the thumb that modifiers from different sources are cumulative with each other - problems usually only involve cases where it is not clear whether a given modifier is cumulative with itself.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-12-2006, 12:36
Back on topic, I was really talking about whether you the community felt that the interpretations on spell stacking are justified as RAW or whether you felt that GW is writing new interpretations as FAQ. Any thoughts on that?


I honestly don't care what RAW says. It's much more important to get a clear ruling that is the best for the game, not follow some misunderstood principle.

And no matter what RAW says, this was clearly a case(IMO) where the game was better off with saying that multiple of the same spell isn't stacking.

As for the mark of khorne and sword of battle example, it's not the same at all, as it's two different sources(instead of the same spell twice), and besides, GW have said time and time again that you can't take one answer from a Q&A and apply it to something else.

kaldour
26-12-2006, 15:08
Hi

You are stirring up a controversy about RAW, where RAW is neither needed nor wrong in its application. It just is.

Festus

Festus, I'm surprised with you. Normally, you're the level-headed page-quoting voice of clarity, but in this instance you're arguing against a RAW discussion in the Rules Forum? That's not in character.


Gorbad:
"And no matter what RAW says, this was clearly a case(IMO) where the game was better off with saying that multiple of the same spell isn't stacking.
"
I agree with you. They should have issued an errata saying that multiple castings of Remains in Play spells can not stack. Alas, they didn't, they only told us that the book clearly says something that it clearly doesn't. :)

For clarity: I don't cast and stack any spells twice in any circumstances, I never have. I just want clarity, something that was damaged by this ruling. Obviously, fun is more important than RAW, but for a company that is currently PUSHING RAW, it is odd to go against it in the very first FAQ release.

the RAW is very clear in this example, or it was before the FAQ. The spell specifically adds a bonus to the character's stats, and there is no mention made anywhere in any of the rules that it would not stack, or that bonuses would be applied to the 'base' stat line. I challenge anyone to show me a page where it is explictly said otherwise.

ZomboCom
26-12-2006, 15:26
Why on earth does it matter if they changed the rule with an FAQ? The BRB isn't the Bible, GW are allowed to change their mind, and if their reasons for doing so are fuzzy, so what?

As long as the final result is better (in this case it certainly is), why does the process and reasoning matter so much?

intellectawe
26-12-2006, 15:35
Why on earth does it matter if they changed the rule with an FAQ? The BRB isn't the Bible, GW are allowed to change their mind, and if their reasons for doing so are fuzzy, so what?

As long as the final result is better (in this case it certainly is), why does the process and reasoning matter so much?

Its the tournament/internet way of thinking now prevalent in our hobby. There is NO room for human error. Everything must be WRONG or RIGHT. There is no such thing as compromise in our games anymore. Mine as well replace the humans playing the game with robots. Like robots playing chess. Wait, that does exist...

Book says Red
FAQ says Blue
Play it Blue from now on. What is the problem?

kaldour
26-12-2006, 23:02
*sigh*
the problem is that this is the rules forum, not the feel-good forum. Of course it's better to play it so that the spells cn't stack, but it's also better to have a game that works a certain way. The point is that I was really excited and vocally defensive of Games Workshop leading up to seventh edition because I thought they were going to fix their archaic game-design practices and actually learn something about rule-creation and how to run a healthy game.

One of their stated objectives for this new edition is to make a game that is more tournament-friendly as well as being friendly for casual players. They have absolutely cleared up a lot of rules and interactions are a lot smoother under the new system (I really do like it) but the have fumbled with this FAQ.

As a side note, posts which boil down to "who cares about the rules?" are, oddly, out of place in the Rules Forum and should probably be ammended to be on topic.

intellectawe
27-12-2006, 02:37
As a side note, posts which boil down to "who cares about the rules?" are, oddly, out of place in the Rules Forum and should probably be ammended to be on topic.

I never saw a rule on the forum anywhere stating emotions and different points of views weren't allowed on a "rules forum". If rules were so black and white and as mechanical as you say, then EVERY rules question would be no more than 4 posts long with the ONLY possibilities of:

1) You are wrong, this is how you do it. Topic closed.
2) You are right. Topic closed.
3) This has been discussed before, there is no definitive answer. Topic closed.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you cannot figure out a fix for a rule, so when option number 3 comes around, guess what, thats when you HAVE TO stick in some 1) common sense 2) spirit of the game and 3) just plain old fairness and fun.

Oh, and emoticons would be erased from the database for rules forums.

sulla
27-12-2006, 05:52
The argument is that their reasoning behind their conclusion is dangerous. Especially since their 'clarification' references things that aren't even mentioned in the spell description. Following this logical thread:


- Great Weapons would not confer their strength bonus on anyone under a strength spell, since both just as justifiably apply to the base.

More like arguing that if you bought 2 greatswords, you should get +4strength...


- Abilities that generate negative effects would create a direct conflict with spells that generate positive ones... Bear's Anger gives an advantage to S, while Goblin Nets give a penalty. If such things don't stack, how do you choose which to apply?

More like saying that 2 net units attacks should stack cumulatively...but even that's drawing a long bow. The answer on the FAQ is in the magic section and doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with any other phase of the game. As I read it, it only covers spells which boost characteristics (unless otherwise stated in the spell's effects).


and so on.

Strictly from a rules perspective, this is poorly designed, and could have been easily avoided. A simple "This spell will not stack with multiple castings" line would suffice, or alternately, rewrite the spell to ACTUALLY reference the base attribute.

As a side note, what do you guys think of casting Shades of Death on the same unit twice? Is such a tactic invalidated by this ruling, and would you consider it legal anyway?

From my perspective, arguing that a unit can't be affected twice by the same positive spell is like arguing that it can't be affected twice by the same magic missile. :)

I can't see how anyone (except you obviously) could possibly interpret it in that way.

EvC
27-12-2006, 14:40
Book says Red
FAQ says Blue
Play it Blue from now on. What is the problem?

Well, the perceived question is, if the FAQ says Blue when the Book says Red, does that mean every time the book says Red we should take it as Blue, or leave it as Red?

Getting onto the main ruling we're discussing, personally I'm fine with thinking that assuming a rule works in the RAW way except where explicitly said (As in this FAQ). Thus even if Sword of Battle, Frenzy and The Bear's Anger all used exactly the same words and the FAQ only corrected the Bear's Anger saying they can't stack, then I'd not apply the same correction to SoB or Frenzy. I do not believe that the ruling on the Bear's Anger should apply to every similar concept...

ZomboCom
27-12-2006, 16:11
Having ballanced, sensible and logical rules is a lot more important that strict worship of RAW when writing FAQs.

Atrahasis
27-12-2006, 21:04
Having ballanced, sensible and logical rules is a lot more important that strict worship of RAW when writing FAQs.

I hope you realise how ludicrous that is. Why is it OK to have rules that are flawed as long as the FAQs are not? Why not have balanced, sensible, logical rules so that the subsequent worship of RAW is, by inheritance, balanced, sensible and logical?

If you can fix it in a FAQ then it is possible to write it in such a way as to avoid the need for a FAQ.

ZomboCom
27-12-2006, 21:30
I hope you realise how ludicrous that is. Why is it OK to have rules that are flawed as long as the FAQs are not? Why not have balanced, sensible, logical rules so that the subsequent worship of RAW is, by inheritance, balanced, sensible and logical?

If you can fix it in a FAQ then it is possible to write it in such a way as to avoid the need for a FAQ.

Of course it's possible to write perfect, logical rules. The problem is that the rules aren't perfect, ballanced and logical, and the mistakes usually only come out after the release.

All computer software has bugs when first released, simply because the ammount of testing required to find all the bugs is so huge. After the release, when thousands of people around the world are using it, the bugs are spotted and fixed. A patch is released and the bugs go away.

GW's Rules work exactly the same way. The in-house testing will never be able to spot all the rules, and I for one am glad that they have released the a patch (the FAQ), to help work out some of the bugs in the system.

Yes, the rules are flawed, but I for one am extremely glad that GW are fixing those flaws rather than just leaving them there and saying "Oh, just play RAW no matter how nonsensical it is".

I couldn't care less about the process, as long as the final rules make sense.

Atrahasis
27-12-2006, 21:50
So your argument is that since the rules are not perfect, they should be fixed in an equally imperfect manner?

Of course I am glad that GW have issued clarifications on some of the points of contenttion in the new rules. I don't understand, however, why they have chosen to fix some errors with errata and then chosen to "clarify" others (causing more confusion) with Q&A. Surely it is better to fix an error than simply to admit it and move on?

I have no idea where people get the idea that clear, concise rules will lead to a soulless game with no sportsmanship or "spirit of the game". If the "spirit of the game" is not contained in the rules, then how can making the rules clearer affect it?

ZomboCom
28-12-2006, 12:31
So your argument is that since the rules are not perfect, they should be fixed in an equally imperfect manner?

Of course I am glad that GW have issued clarifications on some of the points of contenttion in the new rules. I don't understand, however, why they have chosen to fix some errors with errata and then chosen to "clarify" others (causing more confusion) with Q&A. Surely it is better to fix an error than simply to admit it and move on

My point is that I couldn't care less whether they fix the rules with an Errata or an FAQ. To me they are pretty much the same thing. I can't understand why it bothers you so much.

As long as the rules do get fixed, I'm not going to waste time being angry about what format they used to fix them. It's really not worth the effort in the grand scheme of things.

Atrahasis
28-12-2006, 12:56
I'm not angry. I just don't understand why they continue to follow a policy they have admitted is flawed.

I've covered the relative merits of FAQ and Errata several times in this thread and others - FAQ lead to contradictory, unclear rules while errata fix the problems they're supposed to. Employing a system that can cause more problems than it solves just doesn't make any sense.