|
|
Post by baaderthegreat on Nov 27, 2022 10:21:46 GMT
I don't know, if this was really the case, they could have made it much clearer by writing: "Every unit with the Contempt special rule can only be panicked by other units with the Contempt special rule." But they didn't, they went instead for "Chaos Dwarfs and Bull Centaurs". I thought they did that for a reason.
And I feel that the reason why they didn't give the Contempt rule to the Iron Daemon is that it is unbreakable, so it can never be panicked anyway, and the Contempt rule would have felt reduntant.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 27, 2022 10:51:19 GMT
It is without doubt the case that units/models with the Contempt special rule are either Chaos Dwarfs or Bull Centaurs, since the only models that can benefit from having the rule are precisely Chaos Dwarfs and Bull Centaurs. However, you make a good point regarding the Iron Daemon: there would indeed be little point in giving it the Contempt special rule. The Hellcannon too is Unbreakable. So, these two are presumably Chaos Dwarf units too. For the question regarding the Contempt special rule, that does not change anything, but it does for the Hobgoblin Animosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Nov 27, 2022 11:19:03 GMT
Hmmm, now I'm super sceptical...
As to how "Fear Elves" has been extrapolated to: "Fear units from the Warhammer Armies: Wood Elves, Warhammer Armies: High Elves, Warhammer Armies: Dark Elves"
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 27, 2022 12:29:43 GMT
Why? It is the same principle as with Hatred. There is no AB "Elves," and there is no definition what constitutes an "Elf" in the O&G AB, or anywhere else. Since a rule must be playable, it is reasonable to assume that "Elves"(of any kind, according to the French version) stands for High, Dark and Wood Elves. However, as we have already established with Hatred, there is no rule defining what constitutes a "High Elf," "Dark Elf" or "Wood Elf" either - other than, of course, the units being listed in the relevant ABs.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 27, 2022 18:48:11 GMT
I don't need to refute it. The FAQ answer (the only authoritative part of the FAQ) says nothing about models "that are present in both the friendly and the enemy or allied army". The FAQ answer was written poorly and is too broad. That is my whole point. The FAQ is not so much written poorly, rather than being willfully misinterpreted. Context matters. Grammatically, the phrase "friendly infantry and cavalry" can be read either as "friendly infantry and friendly cavalry" or as "friendly infantry and cavalry in general (friendly, enemy, allied)." However, in the context of an augment spell, the first reading is the only correct one. Let us look again at the FAQ. First we have the question: Yes, what about "allied units" on my side? It does not refer to "such models." Can we now infer that here any and all allied units are being referred to? No, because it is still about "special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type." The only models that can be affected by "special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type" are precisely "models of a certain type." If you have a spell affecting Wizards, only Wizards can be affected. In the context of the question, there is only one correct interpretation here. Now we turn to the answer: So, the subject here still is " special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type." Just like in the question, the only models that could be affected by "special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type" are still "models of a certain type" - in their own army or in enemy/allied armies. Except that the FAQ rules the latter out. Again, in the context of the answer (and the question), there is only one correct interpretation here. You would require the FAQ something like this: Q: It’s not uncommon for special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type. If my opponent’s army also has such models of a certain type, can they be beneficially affected too? What about those models of a certain type from allied units on my own side, can they be beneficially affected too? (p132 & p136) A. Special rules and spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type only ever beneficially affect such models of a certain type in friendly units from their own army, and will not beneficially affect models of that certain type from enemy or allied units that happen to be in range. Which is as convoluted as it is unnecessary. I agree with 100% of what you said above. As you say the subject at hand is "special rules or spells to beneficially affect models of a certain type." Lets see if this applies to "Fear Elves" - special rules or spells? Yes. "Fear Elves" is a special rule
- beneficially affect models? Yes. "Fear Elves" grants the Fear special rule.
- affect models of a certain type? Yes. "Fear Elves" affects Elf models.
"Fear Elves" satisfies all three predicates. Therefor we must enforce the restriction the FAQ specifies. Namely, "[the special rule] will not affect enemy or allied units that happen to be in range." Edit: Let us replace the general "model of a certain type" with a concrete example: Are you seriously trying to tell us that anything but war machines can be affected here? Eh, no. Your example has nothing to do with my argument for why the FAQ nerfs "Fear Elves". |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 27, 2022 22:52:38 GMT
You say you agree 100%, and then disagree 100%, once again ignoring the fact (as I have pointed out numerous times before) that the rule specifically states it is about "models of a certain type." Regarding this rule, Elves and Goblins can be in no way shape or form considered models of the same type. This will be my last post on this matter, because there is simply no point in convincing people who apparently can doublethink. |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Nov 27, 2022 23:07:44 GMT
Why? It is the same principle as with Hatred. There is no AB "Elves," and there is no definition what constitutes an "Elf" in the O&G AB, or anywhere else. Exactly, and applying the razor, I would suggest that this is one of the rules that requires looking at the intention of the rule, rather than the (lack of) wording... Goblins Fear Elves. Therefore what is considered an elf. An Eagle and a Harpy are not elves. A White Lion and an Executioner are considered Elves (even if they are not explicitly ruled as such). |
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Nov 27, 2022 23:34:29 GMT
You say you agree 100%, and then disagree 100%, once again ignoring the fact (as I have pointed out numerous times before) that the rule specifically states it is about "models of a certain type." Regarding this rule, Elves and Goblins can be in no way shape or form considered models of the same type. This will be my last post on this matter, because there is simply no point in convincing people who apparently can doublethink. You say, "Elves and Goblins can be in no way shape or form considered models of the same type." What are you talking about? The "Fear Elves" rule does not affect goblins. It affects Elves and only Elves. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Nov 28, 2022 3:20:51 GMT
Hmmm, now I'm super sceptical... As to how "Fear Elves" has been extrapolated to: "Fear units from the Warhammer Armies: Wood Elves, Warhammer Armies: High Elves, Warhammer Armies: Dark Elves" As a DE player, I agree. Harpies are not dark elves, nor are Great Eagles high or wood elves. If the rule say 'everything from the army book' that's one thing. If the rule just say 'elves', that's another thing entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Nov 28, 2022 3:24:04 GMT
You say you agree 100%, and then disagree 100%, once again ignoring the fact (as I have pointed out numerous times before) that the rule specifically states it is about "models of a certain type." Regarding this rule, Elves and Goblins can be in no way shape or form considered models of the same type. This will be my last post on this matter, because there is simply no point in convincing people who apparently can doublethink. You say, "Elves and Goblins can be in no way shape or form considered models of the same type." What are you talking about? The "Fear Elves" rule does not affect goblins. It affects Elves and only Elves.Ah... no? It appears nowhere in their rules that they cause fear in goblins. It's a conditional special rule on the goblins, which activates when elves are involved. Nothing changes about the ELVES, just the GOBLINS. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 28, 2022 9:58:54 GMT
Why? It is the same principle as with Hatred. There is no AB "Elves," and there is no definition what constitutes an "Elf" in the O&G AB, or anywhere else. Exactly, and applying the razor, I would suggest that this is one of the rules that requires looking at the intention of the rule, rather than the (lack of) wording... Goblins Fear Elves. Therefore what is considered an elf. An Eagle and a Harpy are not elves. A White Lion and an Executioner are considered Elves (even if they are not explicitly ruled as such). I missed an excellent find by baaderthegreat , which settles the Hatred (xxx) discussion beyond reasonable doubt. [Some army books are very clear on "hate" rules, for example the Dwarf army book: Dwarfs have Hatred (Orcs & Goblins) and Hatred (Skaven), which "means any unit taken from Warhammer: Orcs & Goblins and Skaven"... so, everything out of the respective army books. However, as far as I know, the Dark Elf army book doesn't make a similar statement, so you could argue that Dark Elves only hate units that really contain Elves. Similarily, Goblins would only fear units that actually contain Elves, not units from the High/Wood/Dark Elves army books in general. Here it is in black and white: "Hatred (Orcs & Goblins) and Hatred (Skaven) — this means any unit taken from Warhammer: Orcs & Goblins or Skaven." As baaderthegreat indicates, this clarification does not occur elsewhere, but it cannot be limited to the Dwarfs. Both O&G and Skaven have units that are not Orcs & Goblins, or Skaven respectively. I do not think anyone will suggest that elsewhere Hatred (Orcs & Goblins) or Hatred (Skaven) is something different, and would not apply to all units in the AB. This, of course, tallies with all the other instances, where only the AB can be meant: Bretonnia, Dwarfs, Empire, Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts. I cannot find any examples of units hating Beastmen, DoC, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, WoC or Wood Elves, but perhaps somebody else might. As I pointed out earlier, where the name of the foe is not an Army Book, it is actually an existing rule and can always be found in the relevant army list entry. There is no such rule defining Dark Elves or High Elves, except as units in the respective ABs. Given all this, there can be no doubt anymore that Hatred (Dark Elves) and Hatred (High Elves) means any units taken from the respective army books. So, if models can hate Ogre & Goblin units, that fluffwise are neither Orcs nor Goblins; if they can hate Skaven units, that fluffwise are not Skaven, etc. why should there be a problem, if they fear such units? Again: there is simply no rule that would define "an Elf." Fluff has no bearing on the rules, and ruleswise, there is no need and no way to make the distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Nov 28, 2022 11:08:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Nov 28, 2022 11:11:57 GMT
The Fear Elves ruling would need clarity for Grom the Paunch, as his Axe needs to know what an elf is. Seeing as there is no definition of an elf 😜  It's either what is considered an elf in the fluff, or Grom has super KB vs. Branchwraiths and Drycha |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Nov 28, 2022 12:23:56 GMT
I can see that it is spelled out on the Dwarf book, but I guess you can imagine it correlates to the other Hatreds mentioned:    The other Hatreds mentioned gain or lose nothing from the clarification being present or not. Note also that these once again refer to existing rules, that can be easily identified. I am not sure why you add the DE and HE examples: they do not seem to add anything. Nor does Grom's Axe, for that matter. The problem remains the same: there is no Elves AB, and there is nowhere a definition what an Elf is supposed to be. Invoking RAI here is definitely not applying Occam's Razor, because normally we have no way of knowing what the writer intended, and we are just exchanging a lack of wording for pure speculation. Applying Occam's Razor " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (plurality should not be posited without necessity) means applying existing rules, not inventing a new one. |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Nov 28, 2022 12:46:52 GMT
🥴
|
|
:strip_icc()/pic5338276.jpg)
